Most Distant Black Hole – Evidence for Creation of the Universe?
MOST DISTANT BLACK HOLE – An artist representation of the CAPERS-LRD-z9 galaxy, home to the earliest confirmed black hole. The supermassive black hole at its center is believed to be surrounded by a thick cloud of gas, giving the galaxy a distinctive red color.Erik Zumalt / The University of Texas at Austin
The evidence for the beginning of the universe just keeps on coming! The recent discovery of a supermassive black at the center of a a distant galaxy, some 13.3 billion light years away from earth is just such an example.
Some atheists deny the universe had a beginning, and want to believe it has existed from eternity. However, more and more evidence is coming to light revealing how the universe was formed, by the James Webb Space Telescope. Of course, Bible believers have known all along the universe has existed eternally, because , “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
“Astronomers have discovered the oldest and most distant black hole — a behemoth that likely formed at the dawn of the universe, more than 13 billion years ago.
The black hole lies at the center of a galaxy known as CAPERS-LRD-z9. Both cosmic objects are thought to have formed around 13.3 billion years ago, or just 500 million years after the big bang that created the universe. (The big bang theory suggests the universe started as an ultradense, extremely hot point that rapidly expanded out in all directions in a chaotic event some 13.8 billion years ago.)”—NBC News, 8-8-2025
This beginning and subsequent expansion of the universe are mentioned in the scriptures.
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV). With all the scientific evidence available, we, today, have even a much stronger case to “understand that the universe was formed at God’s command”.
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (Isaiah 40:22 NIV).This scripture, and other scriptures, inform us that God caused the universe to expand, to ‘stretch out’ over time.
The Bible, 3,500 years ago, informed us that our knowledge of God’s ways was very limited then, and today, although it is much greater by comparison, human knowledge of the universe is still limited. “But these are only hints of his power, only the whispers that we have heard. Who can know how truly great God is?” (Job 26:14 GNB).
To the question, “Do you know the laws of the universe?” (Job 38:33 NLT), we still don’t know them very well, compared to Almighty God! The Bible is just as true today as it was 3,500 years ago, and is the one sure guide for life (Psalm 119:105).
25 thoughts on “Most Distant Black Hole – Evidence for Creation of the Universe?”
The Bible is not a credible source on cosmology, astrophysics, and general physics. It is futile to quote Bible verses about this. The consensus of the relevant scientific experts at this time is that we do not know what happened before the Big Bang, but most believe that this event was not the beginning of time or the universe.
Furthermore, we now know and have proven that God does not exist. Even I have at least a half dozen proofs of this, some of which I have presented in the forum. As of today, nobody has found an error in any of these proofs. Thus, it is quite certain that God does not exist.
The demise of religion and Christianity in particular is in progress.
GW—The Bible is not a credible source on cosmology, astrophysics, and general physics. It is futile to quote Bible verses about this. The consensus of the relevant scientific experts at this time is that we do not know what happened before the Big Bang, but most believe that this event was not the beginning of time or the universe.
BA—False! “Most physicists believe the universe was born in a big bang 13.8 billion years ago.” (Institute of Physics)
This harmonizes with the Bible, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
Your conclusion and sources are obsolete.
“In August 2024, Black Holes Inside and Out conference was held with a multi-disciplinary approach to black hole physics. The conference was organized by the Niels Bohr Institute and held at the iconic Black Diamond Building in Copenhagen, Denmark. It included leading theorists and experimentalists in astrophysics, general relativity, numerical relativity, gravitational wave astronomy, and cosmology. We considered this a good opportunity to survey experts on current controversies within physics.”
68% of the attendees who completed the survey agreed with this statement: “The Big Bang theory is a theory that says the universe evolved from a hot dense state that says nothing about whether there was an absolute beginning of time or not.”
Only 17% agreed that “the Big Bang theory is about an absolute beginning in time.”
The authors concluded: “Several results reveal tensions between how science is often communicated and what the scientists in our survey believe. Perhaps the biggest discrepancy is the view that The Big Bang represents the beginning of time; most physicists in our survey see the theory making much more modest claims than that.”
The citation for this survey is: Copenhagen Survey on Black Holes and Fundamental Physics. By Alice Y. Chen, Phil Halper, and Niayesh Afshordi.
https://arxiv.org/html/2503.15776v2
GW—
BA—False! This is the most current view of most physicists:
“Most physicists believe the universe was born in a big bang 13.8 billion years ago.” (Institute of Physics)
This harmonizes with the Bible, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
You’re in denial of these truths because they debunk your atheistic worldview.
BA—False! This is the most current view of most physicists: “Most physicists believe the universe was born in a big bang 13.8 billion years ago.” (Institute of Physics)
GW: Please provide the citation and link for your source.
GW: Your claim is false. The source I am citing is dated March 26, 2025 and involved a survey of 85 relevant scientists in physics, cosmology, and astrophysics. Here is the relevant quote from the study:
“IV.5Meaning of the Big Bang
It has been claimed that the Big Bang represents the beginning of time and this is a view now “taken for granted” [9]. However, a challenge comes from Guth, who claimed that the Big Bang is “a theory of the aftermath of the bang” that says, “nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged” [4]. The very meaning of the term Big Bang is thus not agreed upon. Our survey results strongly favour Guth’s view over Hawking’s. The Big Bang making no claim about whether time had a beginning or not and should be understood only as the theory that says the universe evolved from a hot dense state enjoys a rare majority support of 68%.”
Here is the link to my source: https://arxiv.org/html/2503.15776v2
Here is another source which provides current perspectives on the Big Bang: “Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins”, by Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper, May 29, 2025.
GW: Your source is older and is based on a small biased sample of scientists (maybe one), whereas my source is current and is based on a moderately-sized representative sample of relevant scientists. The view that the Big Bang represented the beginning of the universe or of time was dominant 20-50 years ago, but is now obsolete and has been superceded.
BA: This harmonizes with the Bible, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
GW: Absolutely not! The Bible does not mention anything resembling the Big Bang, and the details of the Genesis creation story conflict with the facts of the Big Bang and evolution. In addition, we now know and have proven that God does not exist. I have shown you two of my proofs of this and you found no errors in either of them.
BA: You’re in denial of these truths because they debunk your atheistic worldview.
GW: You are in denial of the consensus of scientists regarding the meaning of the Big Bang and you are in denial of the proofs that God does not exist.
GW: You are in denial of the consensus of scientists regarding the meaning of the Big Bang and you are in denial of the proofs that God does not exist.
BA—Nonsense!
“What Is the Big Bang?
The Short Answer:
The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!”—-NASA Science Space Place
“The God Yahweh, Who created the heavens and stretched them out”—Isaiah 42:5 LSB
You provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article.
Also, you are providing a summary of the old view of the Big Bang. This is no longer what most relevant scientists think. I presented you with the current view.
The Bible is irrelevant since most of it is false. For example, every verse mentioning God is false. Why? Because God does not exist. I have many proofs of this. I showed you two and you found no errors in them.
Your claims about the Big Bang have been refuted.
GW—You provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article.
BA—This is the website: NASA Science Space Place
Look it up. It’s easy.
GW—Also, you are providing a summary of the old view of the Big Bang.
BA–No, it’s current.
GW—This is no longer what most relevant scientists think.
BA—It’s very current. You’re in denial.
GW—I presented you with the current view.
BA—No, you didn’t.
It’s easy for any open-minded person to see, if they want to:
“The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!”—-NASA Science Space Place
GW—The Bible is irrelevant since most of it is false. For example, every verse mentioning God is false. Why? Because God does not exist. I have many proofs of this. I showed you two and you found no errors in them.
Your claims about the Big Bang have been refuted.
BA—Nonsense.
GW—You provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article.
BA—This is the website: NASA Science Space Place. Look it up. It’s easy.
GW: You still provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article. Doing these is your responsibility when you make claim, especially the outrageous one you have made. Do you even know what a citation and link are?
GW—Also, you are providing a summary of the old view of the Big Bang.
BA–No, it’s current.
GW: No, it’s the old view. What’s the date on your article? The date on the references I provided to you is 2025. Duh. Not only that, but one of my references summarizes a survey of 85 relevant scientists.
GW—This is no longer what most relevant scientists think.
BA—It’s very current. You’re in denial.
GW: False. Already refuted. See above.
GW—I presented you with the current view.
BA—No, you didn’t.
GW: Yes, I did. Already refuted. See above.
BA: It’s easy for any open-minded person to see, if they want to: “The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!”—-NASA Science Space Place
GW: Current Cosmology: We know that approximately13.8 billion years ago, our entire universe was compacted into a very hot, small, dense packet or particle of pure energy, and then suddenly it rapidly expanded in an event we call the “Big Bang”. Now our universe is in a much different state. We do not know what, if anything, happened before this event and we do not know if this event was the beginning of our universe or not. As of 2025, however, 68% of relevant scientists do not think the Big Bang was the start of our universe.
GW—The Bible is irrelevant since most of it is false. For example, every verse mentioning God is false. Why? Because God does not exist. I have many proofs of this. I showed you two and you found no errors in them. Your claims about the Big Bang have been refuted.
BA—Nonsense.
GW: You have found no errors in any of my arguments which prove that God does not exist. The Bible is not and never has been from God in any way.
GW—You provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article.
BA—This is the website: NASA Science Space Place. Look it up. It’s easy.
GW: You still provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article. Doing these is your responsibility when you make claim, especially the outrageous one you have made. Do you even know what a citation and link are?
BA—If you’re unwilling to look the cited information, we can’t help you.
GW—You provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article.
BA—This is the website: NASA Science Space Place. Look it up. It’s easy.
GW: You still provided neither your citation nor your link for your science article. Doing these is your responsibility when you make claim, especially the outrageous one you have made. Do you even know what a citation and link are?
BA—If you’re unwilling to look the cited information, we can’t help you.
GW: Just as I thought, you don’t know what a citation and a link are. It’s about time you learned.
GW: A citation for a written work or a video includes at least the title, the authors, the publisher name or medium, and the date of publication. It may also include the place of publication. Here are some examples:
1. Chen, Alice Y., Phil Halper, and Niayesh Afshordi. “Copenhagen Survey on Black Holes and Fundamental Physics.” ARXIV. 2025.
2. Whittenberger, Gary. “Redefining Personhood and Abortion Rights:
The Path Forward in a Post-Roe World.” eSkeptic. 3 February 2023.
GW: A link is a long string of characters, often in blue print and underlined, often beginning with “https://www,” which when clicked takes you directly to a specific website. Here are examples of links for the above citations:
1.
https://arxiv.org/html/2503.15776v2
2. https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/redefining-personhood-abortion-rights-path-forward-in-a-post-roe-world/
GW: When you make a claim and you are asked for evidence to support your claim or for a reference to support your claim, then you are obligated to present a citation and/or a link. Get it? Don’t be lazy. Don’t be irresponsible.
GW: When you make a claim and you are asked for evidence to support your claim or for a reference to support your claim, then you are obligated to present a citation and/or a link. Get it? Don’t be lazy. Don’t be irresponsible.
BA—No sir.This is the website: NASA Science Space Place. Look it up. It’s easy.
You seem to forget that the purpose of this website is to help people who are willing to help themselves to learn the truth about God and his word, the Bible.
This website is not a debate club, or forum. If that’s what you want, you’re at the wrong website.
It’s obvious you’re not interested in getting help to find the truth, but only to promote your atheistic agenda. Such propaganda is not welcome at this website.
GW: When you make a claim and you are asked for evidence to support your claim or for a reference to support your claim, then you are obligated to present a citation and/or a link. Get it? Don’t be lazy. Don’t be irresponsible.
BA—No sir.
GW: Yes, sir. Don’t be lazy or irresponsible. It is your duty to PROPERLY support your claims, when asked. That is the way debate and rational discussion work. When you don’t properly support your claims, you are cheating and misleading.
BA: This is the website: NASA Science Space Place. Look it up. It’s easy.
GW: No, I won’t look it up. I won’t do what you are supposed to do. Provide the citation and the link, BOTH!
BA: You seem to forget that the purpose of this website is to help people who are willing to help themselves to learn the truth about God and his word, the Bible.
GW: You aren’t helping people when you are unwilling to do what you are obligated to do. You are being lazy, irresponsible, or both. This is not good scholarship or ethics on your part. If you want to improve your website, you are going to have to do a few things you don’t like to do.
BA: This website is not a debate club, or forum. If that’s what you want, you’re at the wrong website.
GW: False. It is a discussion and debate forum. That is the way you set it up. Since you allow replies, that is what it is.
BA: It’s obvious you’re not interested in getting help to find the truth, but only to promote your atheistic agenda.
GW: False. I’m interested in both. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you are presenting FALSEHOODS. It is false that God exists. I have many proofs of this. You have found no errors in the two I presented to you. You won’t even discuss them anymore. You stick your head in the sand.
BA: Such propaganda is not welcome at this website.
GW: False. It is welcomed. You have welcomed it from yourself. Define “propaganda.”
Without God . . . “all is vanity and a striving after wind … who knows what is good for a man during his lifetime, during the few days of his vain life? He will make do with them like a shadow. For who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:14; 6:12 LSB).
“Seventy is the sum of our years, or eighty, if we are strong; Most of them are toil and sorrow, they pass quickly, and we are gone” (Psalm 90:10 NAB).
Life is sad indeed without God!
BA1: Without God . . . “all is vanity and a striving after wind … who knows what is good for a man during his lifetime, during the few days of his vain life? He will make do with them like a shadow. For who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:14; 6:12 LSB).
GW1: Let’s take a closer look at these verses. “12 I, the Preacher, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I set my [i]mind to seek and explore by wisdom about everything that has been done under heaven. It is a [j]sorry task with which God has given the sons of mankind to be troubled. 14 I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is futility and striving after wind. 15 What is crooked cannot be straightened, and what is lacking cannot be counted.” Ecclesiastes 1:12-15, NASB. The speaker here is “the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” This is not God, Jesus, or an angel preaching. This is a human person rendering his own opinions. He believes that God exists. This was a common belief at the time, but now we know and have proven that God does not exist. Of course, mankind has experienced both trouble and flourishing. Duh. The Preacher is wrong that “all is futility.” We humans have accomplished a great deal over the past few millennia since Ecclesiastes was written. What is crooked CAN SOMETIMES be straightened, and what is lacking CAN SOMETIMES be counted. The Preacher has a cynical or pessimistic view of life. This is both inaccurate and unhelpful.
GW1: Now, Ecclesiastes 6:12, NASB says this: “12 For who knows what is good for a person during his lifetime, during the few [a]years of his futile life? He will [b]spend them like a shadow. For who can tell a person what will happen after him under the sun?” Life is short, but not futile. Who knows what is good? Many human persons do! I do. None of us can accurately predict the future, but we can make educated estimates or speculations, and that is good enough. The tone of this verse is also cynical and pessimistic. Religious authors paint a gloomy picture of life so that they can make their religious ideas more appealing.
BA1: “Seventy is the sum of our years, or eighty, if we are strong; Most of them are toil and sorrow, they pass quickly, and we are gone” (Psalm 90:10 NAB).
GW1: Back when the Psalms were written the average lifespan was about 40 years, and the maximum was 70-80 years. But that has changed greatly with the advances of science, technology, and medicine. Now the average lifespan is about 80 years with the maximum around 120 years. Also, for at least half the population of the world life is no longer “toil and sorrow.” You cherry pick Bible verses to make your religious viewpoint more appealing to people, but that no longer works.
BA1: Life is sad indeed without God!
GW1: We’ve always been “without God.” God does not exist now, has never existed, and will never exist. Some of us, at least progressive secular humanists, live happy and health lives without God or even belief in God.
GW1: God does not exist. I have many proofs of this. I have shown you at least two, and you have found no errors in them. Here is another for your contemplation:
Argument 133: Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Millions of Atheists: Gary Whittenberger. 8-18-2025
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, self-sufficient, free, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity (primary traits). He* is maximally enduring, perceiving, intelligent, rational, knowing, creative, powerful, and resilient (primary traits). He wants, but does not need, loving relationships with other persons (primary trait). He is also maximally loving, compassionate, cooperative, authoritative, and moral with respect to other persons (secondary traits). He is designer and creator of the cosmos, occasional interventionist in the world, and the afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human persons after they die (secondary traits). or 2) the Greatest Imaginable Possible Person (the “GIPPer”) or ideal person who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to the highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. (*God would not have a sex or gender, but I shall use male pronouns to refer to God to be consistent with tradition.) (30A)
2. If God did exist, there would be no atheists anywhere.
A. Because everyone would know that God exists.
B. Because God himself would prove that he exists to everyone.
C. Because God would have regular meetings with all living persons at the same time.
D. Because God would give written or electronic copies of transcripts of his meetings to persons who requested them.
E. Because God would be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly moral. God could, would, and should prove that he exists to all persons.
3. But there are millions of atheists on the Earth.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW1: It is my great pleasure to share my knowledge with you and our readers.
From Ms.BA
To GW:
Are you kidding me?
Nope. I am sincere and correct.
You may be sincere, but you’re not correct. Mrs. BA
If I am sincere, then I am not kidding. I am sincere, so I am not kidding or joking.
But I am also correct. Neither you nor anyone else has found an error in this argument I just presented to you:
Argument 133: Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Millions of Atheists: Gary Whittenberger. 8-18-2025
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, self-sufficient, free, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity (primary traits). He* is maximally enduring, perceiving, intelligent, rational, knowing, creative, powerful, and resilient (primary traits). He wants, but does not need, loving relationships with other persons (primary trait). He is also maximally loving, compassionate, cooperative, authoritative, and moral with respect to other persons (secondary traits). He is designer and creator of the cosmos, occasional interventionist in the world, and the afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human persons after they die (secondary traits). or 2) the Greatest Imaginable Possible Person (the “GIPPer”) or ideal person who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to the highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. (*God would not have a sex or gender, but I shall use male pronouns to refer to God to be consistent with tradition.) (30A)
2. If God did exist, there would be no atheists anywhere.
A. Because everyone would know that God exists.
B. Because God himself would prove that he exists to everyone.
C. Because God would have regular meetings with all living persons at the same time.
D. Because God would give written or electronic copies of transcripts of his meetings to persons who requested them.
E. Because God would be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly moral. God could, would, and should prove that he exists to all persons.
3. But there are millions of atheists on the Earth.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
Instead of just saying that you disagree with it, try to find an error in it. Give your evidence, reasons, or arguments for disagreeing with it.
Free will invalidates your argument against God.
If there was no free will, governments and laws and punishments would be unnecessary and superfluous, and humans could not make choices.
Therefore, free will exists.
The scriptures tell us where free will came from:
“Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat, but from the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it; for in the day pf that you eat from it you will surely die'”—Genesis 2:16,17 LSB
“God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:26 LSB), that is, with the ability to make choices; i.e., free will.
BA: Free will invalidates your argument against God.
GW: No it doesn’t, but explain how you think it does.
BA: If there was no free will, governments and laws and punishments would be unnecessary and superfluous, and humans could not make choices.
GW: There may be no free will anyway. Most of the current evidence weighs against it. I recommend the book “Free Will” by Sam Harris and the more important recent book “Determined” by Robert Sapolsky.
GW: If God did exist, we would have some forms of free will, but not others. For example, we would have the free will to hug somebody or not. We would have the free will to steal an automobile or not. But we would not have the free will to murder, torture, or commit genocide. And so, the Holocuast would never have occurred.
BA: Therefore, free will exists.
GW: You have made an error in logic. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
BA: The scriptures tell us where free will came from:
GW: The scriptures cannot and should not be trusted. They are replete with errors.
BA: “Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat, but from the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it; for in the day pf that you eat from it you will surely die’”—Genesis 2:16,17 LSB
GW: In the story, God just stated a rule and the punishment for disobeying the rule. So what? This does not prove free will. Please define “free will.”
BA: “God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:26 LSB), that is, with the ability to make choices; i.e., free will.
GW: This is just the speculation of one author of Genesis, and the author is mistaken. If God did exist, he would be a person. We are persons. So yes, God would have created us similar to himself in some ways, but not in others. We make choices, of course, but this does not mean that our choices are free of causes. Even if God would give us free will to make some choices, e.g. auto theft, he would not give us free will to make other choices, e.g torture, murder, genocide.
GW: In addition, we now know that God does not exist, as I have shown in several proofs. You failed to find an error in the one I just presented – the Holocaust Argument.
GW—“Neither you nor anyone else has found an error in this argument I just presented to you.”
“In addition, we now know that God does not exist, as I have shown in several proofs. You failed to find an error in the one I just presented – the Holocaust Argument.”
BA—The proven existence of “Free Will” has thoroughly debunked your specious arguments against the existence of God and “Free Will”.
No, your free will objection has been refuted. You didn’t even explain why God would allow the Holocaust because of free will. You mean he would allow the Nazis the free will to engage in torture, murder, and genocide of the Jews? Explain and defend that idea.
GW—No, your free will objection has been refuted.
BA—Not at all!
GW–You didn’t even explain why God would allow the Holocaust because of free will. You mean he would allow the Nazis the free will to engage in torture, murder, and genocide of the Jews?
BA—Yes.
“This alone have I discovered: God made humankind upright, but they have sought many evil schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NET Bible).
GW—No, your free will objection has been refuted.
BA—Not at all!
GW: Yes, I have refuted it.
GW–You didn’t even explain why God would allow the Holocaust because of free will. You mean he would allow the Nazis the free will to engage in torture, murder, and genocide of the Jews?
BA—Yes.
GW: That is absurd and false. No, God would not allow that! If he did, then that would be enabling and facilitation of wrong doing. That would be immoral. And God would be perfectly moral. So, your free will objection is refuted.
GW: What solves the problem is that God would give humans the free will to engage in some behaviors, like loving or even auto theft, but he would not give humans the free will to engage in other behaviors, like torture, murder, and genocide. If you disagree, then explain and defend your outrageous position.
BA: “This alone have I discovered: God made humankind upright, but they have sought many evil schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NET Bible).
GW: But men would not seek the “evil schemes” of torture, murder, and genocide, if God did not give men the free will to choose those behaviors from the start. So, I have refuted the free will objection of you and the Ecclesiastes author, whoever he was. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!