Forgive me for buttin' in, but I would like to suggest that the Book of Creation supposedly written by Abraham may be suitable evidence that words or sounds or math was used to create our universe. I agree with jisband that letters are equivalent to numbers, as specified in this book.

That book also specifies that 22 letters were used to create the universe. So if there are elements of valid science in that book, then there is also a strong probability that the entire book is correct and that the universe was created by letters or numbers.

The 22 letters are specified to be dimensions in the book. That in itself is not evidence. What is evidence is that at some point in the creation process according to the book we had 10 expanded dimensions. The book then specifies exactly how six of these dimensions rolled up into cylinders on themselves to result in out 4-D universe.

The printed translation of the book in my possession goes back 500 years, and tradition has it that the knowledge goes back 3000 years. It is clear that the writers, or Abraham, could not have benefited from the science of compactification. Yet they got it just right. So if they got known modern science right, there is a good chance that they got the rest right.

That is why I think the universe has 26 dimensions. God then claims to have compactified 22 of them to form the universe as we currently know it. But god is apt to brag- claiming to be all powerful, etc.. My guess is that he/she just witnessed something that happened rather automatically according to math and physical laws, but then decided to try to take credit for it.

• Desperate attempts of keeping gods alive? - alexander - November 14, 2001 - 16:46 UTC
  • Supernaturally - yanniru - November 15, 2001 - 14:21 UTC
    • Define "supernatural" - alexander - November 15, 2001 - 16:55 UTC
      • Water changed into wine - dolphin - November 16, 2001 - 09:27 UTC
        • Ah... well then... - smartguy - November 16, 2001 - 16:48 UTC
          • To cap it off - harvey1 - November 16, 2001 - 18:26 UTC
            • Harvey, things do not have to exist in pairs. - alexander - November 17, 2001 - 02:38 UTC
              • You didn't understand what I said - harvey1 - November 17, 2001 - 04:57 UTC
          • boundaries are not same as limits - dolphin - November 17, 2001 - 05:53 UTC
            • i.e. can have limit of limit itself; infinite boundary - dolphin - November 17, 2001 - 05:57 UTC