Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • prologos

    C:  "Welcome to the forum Giles Gray.

    Excellent maiden post. I second that, and would like to hear more from you, to answer the points you raised about Perry's ideas on expansion, stretching, can you go back and quote, copy and past these instances so we can make the connections ? thank until soon!. P.

  • OnTheWayOut

    Giles Gray, I think the answer has to do with "Dark Matter."

    Not the dark matter of the universe, which is still not understood, but the dark matter in Perry's brain that allows him to hold on to such nonsense that even most Christians don't buy it.

  • bohm
    bohn, your false assumptions were already refuted pages ago. And you know it.
    The universe had a beginning. You can't change that.
    Beginnings have causes. You can't change that either.

    I am not making any false assumptions, I am simply stating what the article says and do not say. The two research articles are freely available on ArXiv, please feel free to quote those sections that supports the idea that OUR universe (not the considered classical model universe that does not take a quantum model of gravity into account) had a beginning.

    YOU are the one who are making the false assumption the article proves our universe had a beginning. It plainly does not. In fact at least one of the authors of the papers believes our universe did not have a beginning. You are either doing more of the old lyin' for Jesus (isn't that supposed to be a sin?) or you are just being plain ignorant.

  • bohm
    and welcome Giles.
  • notsurewheretogo

    Giles Gray...

  • Master_Bob

    Perry, from strictly logical standpoint you are missapplying the word 'Beginning'.

    In your statement "Whatever begins to exist had a cause." the word 'begins' is defined as a temporal point bounding the start of existence. Our human experience confirms this statement.

    One the other hand the statement "The Universe had a beginning" does not mean the same kind of temporal point of 'beginning' as in our human experience, because the time itself did not existed before/outside this Universe.

    So the same word is used in both sentences, but it means two essentially different things. Hence the source of the confusion and the logical fallacy.

  • prologos

    M_ B: :--because the time itself did not existed before/outside this Universe.

    This idea has been asserted here many times, but some modern hypothesis require time to have existed in the pre- big bang conditions too, what is unique is our moving through time. The "beginning" question you raise, might just be one of scale.

  • Giles Gray
    Giles Gray

    Thanks for the welcome.

    Prologos, Perry's quote that I was responding to is on page 5 of this thread.

    “I don’t believe the billions of years characterization of the universe. 17 times God says that he manipulated space and time to “stretch” out the heavens. 

    This action is consistent with someone with the power and intelligence to create space and time in the first place.

    If the master inventor of space and time says he did it in 6 days; I believe him.”

    My reply is more from the thought of the distortion of reality of such a ludicrous claim. There has obviously been no thinking out of the logistics in the light of physics.

    To demonstrate, Perry claims that the universe was ‘stretched out’ during the 6 days of creation. If all matter was collected at one point on the first day, and stretched to its current position of approximately 14 billion light years (although mathematicians anticipate that it could now be as much as 45 billion light years, accounting for cosmic inflation), over the subsequent 6 days, matter that we can see at the edge of the universe would have to have travelled at an average speed of just over 27,006 light years per second.

    This means that it would have taken a little under 4 seconds for these distant objects to travel the distance of the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy. Light only travels 186,282 miles per second and has no mass, which makes this part of Perry’s hypothesis impossible.

    Perry could get around this by asserting that his god teleported the objects deep into space to their presently observed position. They didn’t travel at all but were instantly placed, or should I say, stretched there. If we give Perry this concession, the problem would then be, how it is that we can see such objects?

    For light to have travelled from 14 billion light years away, 6000 years ago, Perry’s god would have had to have accelerated that light to the speed of 4.436 light years per minute, every minute, for the past 6000 years.

    To put that into some kind of practical context, the nearest star from our solar system is a distance of 4.24 light years away. It is called Proxima Centauri. The accelerated speed of light, according to Perry’s hypothesis, means it would take just 57 seconds for light to travel the 4.24 light years from Proxima Centauri to earth. As you can easily ascertain, the suggested accelerated speed of light is quite dramatic to say the least.

    Even if any of this were true, it would mean we would only just be receiving the light from those distant parts of the universe now.

    Why would Perry’s god mess around with physics so dramatically? Why would he hide the evidence?

    For me, it is no different to the Catholic Church in relation to Galileo. To these people, belief is more precious than truth. How else can anyone explain such illogic?

    The whole claim that Perry is postulating is very amusing when you work out the scientific ramifications of something so ludicrous.

  • tornapart

    Theists are in a panic as they watch their god retreat into ever-decreasing gaps.

    What we already know for a certainty makes christian theism an impossibility.

    Bollocks (as Cofty often says)

  • WhatshallIcallmyself

    "Bollocks (as Cofty often says)" - tornapart

    Adam and Eve and the global flood, to name just 2 things we know empirically aren't true... And without those 2 things the whole premise collapses. Any further discussion is tantamount to arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head i.e. pointless.


    Although you are probably right that some aren't in a panic because I doubt they care about reality. 

Share this