Absurdity of the universe without a creator

[EarthScienceguy]

How is the universe not absurd (or possible) without a creator in light of the following?

1. The universe without a creator breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

The question that needs to be answered: Where did all of the energy come from? I am using space and energy as synonymous terms because energy comes from space.

2. The universe without a creator breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why we are individuals and not a Boltzmann brain?

3. The universe without a creator breaks all laws of probability.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do? Or why do we have laws of nature?

There are more but we will stop at three.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #25]

What evidence do you have for this, and when did it happen?

The Big Bang Theory states that spacetime had a very sudden beginning with very high entropy. Now the big bang theory does not describe why there would be high entropy but Creation does.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #30]

You are missing the point. Spacetime is part of this universe...

That was my point. The universe is all that exists. That is the definition of the universe Spacetime is only a projection of that p-dimensional manifold. (p > 3) onto three dimensional spacetime. Time is just another way of measuring distance between distinct points of spacetime. t (time temporal distance ) = s (spatial distance) / c (the speed of light, which is invariant in all reference frames). Whether the distance is perceived as s or t depends on the reference frame of the observer. Spacetime, as the projection of a finite but unbounded n-manifold is a Hilbert space so that the distance between distinct points is indefinitely large, greater than zero but less than infinity. Thus, gravity is the scaling of spacetime that preserves the invariant speed of light. Like all manifolds, spacetime is locally Euclidian.

Your p-dimensional manifold has to be infinite, not finite.

No, it can be indefinitely large but unbounded.

The only place where c has to equal s/t is in our n-dimensional manifold. In your p-dimensional manifold, the laws of nature have infinite values in the infinite number of universes that your infinite p-dimensional manifold universe spawned. It could be that c is infinite which means that the spatial displacement would be infinite.

Think of the polar projection of the globe on a map. Every point of the globe is projected on the map. The globe is finite but unbounded. It's projection is also finite but unbounded. At the pole, the curvature approaches PI, that is it is locally Euclidean. At the opposite pole, the curvature also approaches PI, but the normal to both poles map to either zero or infinity on the planar projection. Thus, the distance between any distinct points is greater than zero and less than infinity. Moreover the projections of distinct non-polar points onto the 2-dimensional manifold is always greater than zero and less than infinity. On a standard polar projection of the globe the north pole is projected as a single point, but the south pole is projected as a circle containing infinite points. Thus, north maps to zero and south maps to infinity, but if you switch the poles, south maps to zero and north maps to infinity.

Once you understand the map you understand how spacetime is bounded by zero and infinity but includes neither boundary.

Then, bear in mind that the properties of unbounded manifolds and projected sub-manifolds, and it is apparent that the singularity (big bang or black hole depending on the choice of coordinates) is an artifact of scaling.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #31]

The Big Bang Theory states that spacetime had a very sudden beginning with very high entropy. Now the big bang theory does not describe why there would be high entropy but Creation does.

Entropy is an artifact of time. What it actually demonstrates is the inverse-square law: the strength of a gravitational or electromagnetic field decreases with the square of the distance. Of course where fields intersect they are summed. And any disturbance of spacetime will resonate, and thus order will inevitably arise from disorder. Assume a four-dimensional vector at each point of spacetime representing the weak force, the strong force and the gravitational force. At any point the magnitude of that vector will be the sum of all the other force vectors at the spacetime distance ||s,t|| (the magnitude of the Fourier sum of the force vectors at spatial distance (t/c) or temporal distance (sc).

Notice that the Fourier sums are the sums of periodic functions. The magnitude of cosine (or the sine) like probability varies between zero and one. As a "particle", the sum of vector forces approaches light speed, its position becomes indeterminate, because the maximum probability of the bell curve broadens. That is, it becomes more wave like. When it is more relative to the observer, it becomes more particle-like.

[EarthScienceguy]

[EarthScienceguy]

[EarthScienceguy]

[William]

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #34]
Let's start from the beginning, one step at a time.
When we look out into spacetime, we are looking into the past. What we see as four light-years away happened four years ago. This is true in whatever direction we look. If the spacetime, is expanding, then we are looking out in all directions into a smaller universe. It was smaller in the past, but we see it whichever way we look.

Do you dispute this, or have you some explanation for this?

[Difflugia]

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #24]

That's right. If the universe is a closed system, then zero energy cosmology preserves the conservation of energy. If brane cosmology is true, then the universe isn't closed, so isn't bound as a whole by the conservation of energy. Whence your objection?

So if the brane is not a closed system then what is outside of the brane? The reason why the law of conservation of energy has the stipulation of a closed system is because in an open system energy can come from outside the defined system. So what is outside of the defined system of the brane? That is if the brane is not a closed system.

No, actually I was just asking where the brane was. The brane is inside of the bulk. Not the hulk that is another story that is a little more interesting. And these branes and bulk are supposed to occupy higher dimensions of space. So where did this space come from? How would this bulk not be influenced by entropy?
If this is meant as a rhetorical assertion, its only support is your personal incredulity. If it's not, look it up yourself, then tell us what you find and how it supports your assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy.

Because at some point the system of the multiverse has to close. At that point, we have to say that is all there is. All energy is contained in that system.

But if something is eternal and created everything there is then it also has to be omnipresent and omnipotent.
I'm not even sure the statement is meaningful. How are you defining "created," "omnipresent," and "omnipotent?" Without definitions relating these theological terms to physics, it's just word salad.

I am not sure that means anything either. That is what I get for multitasking. Let me see if I can clean that statement up a bit.

Whatever is eternal and if that object or person created everything, then it has to contain all energy and it has to be everywhere. That would make it omnipresent and omnipotent. It does not matter if it is God or the mother universe of the multiverse.

"For anything to be delicious, it has to be transcendent, otherwise, it could not be delicious."

My wife has some dishes that she makes that can fit that description. MMMM!

So, do you mean that you've been referring to a god other than the Protestant Christian concept of God or are you now just being disingenuous? If you mean us to understand some other concept of "creator God," then how does it differ from even the vague and malleable, apologetic definitions of the Christian God?

The discussion of whether a creator created the universe is a very different discussion than who created the universe.
The latter is a metaphysical discussion in which Jesus would be a very important point. So in this discussion, I am simply using creator in the generic sense of the word.