The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe?

Get thee from me, Satan! --Percy

And we're pretty sure the universe is bigger than just the parts we can see, so there are probably far more than that.We think all matter in the universe was once in the same place around 13.8 billion years ago by projecting the current motion of galaxies backward in time.--Percy

Have you considered the possibility that God exists but the Bible was written by men and is not about Him.--Percy

And you know this how? Untrue. The improved telescopes can resolve objects further away than ever before, but the observable universe never gets bigger. In fact, it can only get smaller. The universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. More and more of the universe is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, so its light can never reach us. You're free to believe whatever you like. He might even have found it hilarious.--Percy

And you know this how? And much more in the regions we can't observe. Where does your figure come from? Using a volume of 4*10⁸⁰ cubic meters for the observable universe and using the average matter density of 10^-26 kilograms/meter³ and plugging it into E=mc² yields 3.58*10⁸⁰ joules, but I don't think that includes dark energy, which is 70% of the universe. What is the maximum density for mass and energy permitted by physical laws? One possibility is that quantum fluctuations produced the energy for the Big Bang from nothing, but I don't believe there's a consensus about where the energy for the Big Bang came from yet. It might help to think of the Big Bang not as the origin of the universe but as only the beginning of the universe as we know it. Isn't being able to add unlimited energy at any time the opposite of what you just claimed about T=0?--Percy

But you never answer the question: How do you know that "eternal" is the right number for the age of the universe?You instead attempt to answer a different question: And you know this how?Science itself doesn't know what existed then. There are hypotheses, but no consensus has formed around any of them.What we do know is that when we project the current motion of galaxies backward in time to about 13.8 billion years ago we find that the universe occupied a very tiny region of space. Possibly. Some hypotheses involve quantum fluctuations where equal amounts of positive and negative energy and matter are created and where the net energy is zero. The expanding universe was discovered nearly a hundred years ago by Edwin Hubble who measured the red shifts of galaxies and found that the more distant the galaxy the greater the red shift. Greater red shift means greater speed of recession. The Milky Way Galaxy is not moving through space at the speed of light relative to anything. Which galaxy would that be? You can't mean the Andromeda Galaxy because it is thought younger than the Milky Way, not older. And it isn't moving though space at the speed of light. No galaxy is. The relative speed of objects cannot reach the speed of light.The Milky Way has a host of small satellite galaxies, maybe you mean one of those? Not quite. The observable universe is that part of the universe from which light arrives here. As bigger and better telescopes are employed we're able to resolve fainter and fainter objects from the arriving light.The further away galaxies are the faster they are receding from us. At a distance of about 46 billion light years objects are receding from us faster than the speed of light, so light from these galaxies will never arrive here. They are unobservable.Understand that these unobservable galaxies are not moving through space faster than light relative to us. It is the expansion of space itself causing them to recede faster than light.--Percy

You skipped over how you know that, "When they get to eternal they will have arrived at the right number." The calculation for dark energy is missing, dark matter isn't mentioned at all, and the math works out to 1.47×10⁶² joules, not the 10⁶⁹ joules from your earlier message.Be skeptical of calculations performed by AI chatbots - they can't actually do math. They're just doing searches on their database and finding the closest correspondence to the math they need to do. mc² is already in joules. I think you need to check through your math again. Interesting but irrelevant and wrong - black holes are even more dense than neutron stars.What is the maximum density for mass and energy permitted by physical laws? Just to make sure I understand your claim, let me repeat it back to you: You believe that unlimited energy can be added to the universe at any time except T=0, which you don't believe exists. Is it possible you misunderstood Cavediver and Son Goku? Point me at their messages. Yes, I said exactly that, that we only have hypotheses, no consensus. You're free to believe whatever you like. What matters is if you can demonstrate that your beliefs correspond to reality.--Percy

Or maybe they just thought they were talking about God. Wise words to live by.--Percy

It's called a Bible synopsis when they place corresponding gospel passages side-by-side. I have a hardcopy one and prefer that. I couldn't find Ehrman's online version, but here's one that uses the New English Translation: It's a PDF. The side-by-side portion begins on page 22 and is rotated to fit better. PDF readers allow you to rotate the view.--Percy

I can't see how ICANT is making any progress toward demonstrating that Jesus created the universe.--Percy

Fine with me.--Percy

I gave my assent in Message 84, granting that for the sake of discussion it was fine with me to take as a given that Jesus was real. Please proceed. It might help if you responded to some of the messages you left hanging.--Percy

Until 1931 Einstein accepted a static universe with respect to changes in size and believed the universe had always been and always would be. Then he saw the Hubble data showing the universe was expanding. This is the proposition that you say you will prove in this thread. You can't cite your proposition as a conclusion. Science says it doesn't know but has some hypotheses. Much, much more than doubled. If it was once the size of a single proton (10^-15 meters) and is now, the observable portion anyway, about 90 billion light years in diameter (8.5×10²⁶ meters) then it has grown by a factor of roughly 10⁴² times. You'd have to ask a cosmologist, but my layperson answer is that quantum uncertainty means that there can never be a zero amount of space. All motion is measured relative to something else. The Milky Way is stationary with respect to itself. From within the Milky Way we see the Andromeda galaxy approaching and the more distant Pinwheel galaxy receding.Nothing made of matter (galaxies are made of matter) is moving at the speed of light. Only photons in a vacuum can move at the speed of light. In what follows you use the term "behind" several times with respect to galaxies. There is no behind, in front of, above or below in space unless a point of reference is provided. The term you just used, "behind the Milky Way galaxy," has no meaning because "behind" isn't a direction in space. Except for the last sentence, this is gibberish. Again, nothing made of matter, like galaxies, can move at the speed of light relative to any other object. And an object's speed can only be measured with respect to other objects.We've attempted to measure the expansion of space, and the current best figure seems to be 67.5 kilometers/second/megaparsec. For example, the space out around Pluto is receding from us at a rate of about .01 millimeters/second. Further away the space out by the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is receding from us at a rate of about 88 millimeters/second. Much further away the space out by the Andromeda galaxy is receding from us at a rate of about 52.5 kilometers/second, but is approaching us even faster, so we see the Andromeda galaxy approaching at about 100 kilometers/second. The speed of nearby objects such as stars in the Milky Way or nearby galaxies like the Magellanic Clouds or the Andromeda galaxy can easily overwhelm the rate of expansion of space.The the rate at which space is expanding away from us increases with increasing distance, and almost all galaxies outside our local group are moving away from us due to the expansion of space. Everything is sitting still with respect to itself. These distant galaxies are stationary with respect to themselves and see the Milky Way as receding from them. If you understood what I've said in this post then you now understand that this is gibberish.--Percy

Before responding to your message I'd like to endorse Tangle's suggestion in Message 114 that you proceed with showing how Jesus created the universe. Einstein changed his position in light of Hubble's evidence of an expanding universe. You're not following the evidence. The laws of the universe as we understand them say that energy can neither be created or destroyed (within the bounds of quantum uncertainty), but what the laws were before the universe existed we do not know. Again, science has no accepted theory for the origin of the energy in the universe, only hypotheses. Some hypotheses say the same thing, that there was something before the Big Bang. And maybe something will follow the Big Rip. There is insufficient evidence for a scientific conclusion. The evidence currently available suggests that the universe will end in a "cold death." The energy density of the universe declines as it expands. No one will find your conclusions persuasive without evidence. Evidence has grown immensely over time for an expanding universe that was once tiny, and it was confirmed with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson who measured a temperature of 3.5°K, very close to the 5°K predicted to remain after a long ago Big Bang. Temperature measurements have since been much refined and it is now thought to be 2.7°K. Not usually. I follow where the evidence leads. The Big Bang was not an expansion into existing space but an expansion *of* space. I can't answer this question. It reads like gibberish. Your quote, which is from an article in the October, 1998, issue of Scientific American titled Galaxies behind the Milky Way isn't about the movement of the Milky Way but about the Local Group, which is a group of relatively nearby galaxies that are gravitationally bound to one another. They're citing a velocity for the Local Group relative to the CMB rest frame. While Einsteinian physics holds that there can be no frames of reference with different laws of physics, that doesn't mean that there can be no special frames of reference. There is a frame of reference where the CMB is at rest, and the motion of the Local Group was measured against that. Its measured velocity has been refined since 1998.But in any case, 600 km/sec is only 0.2% of the speed of light. Nothing composed of matter can move at the speed of light.--Percy

The was no universe to expand into. That tiny spot *was* the entire universe. Expansion wasn't into existing space. It was an expansion*of* space. This is a copy-n-paste of text that appears on at least several websites and doesn't represent anything you understand.Maybe cosmology isn't your thing.--Percy