God the middleman

Lion IRC · Apr 12, 2021

Lawrence Krauss considers his 2+2=5 trope to be a very clever and sophisticated argument.

Lion IRC · Apr 12, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
Do you or do you not agree that the universe has no edge?

You can't have multiple universes if there's no boundaries to differentiate one from another.

Magicians-Nephew-Book__15687.1533570164.jpg

doubtingmerle · Apr 12, 2021

Lion IRC said:
Lawrence Krauss considers his 2+2=5 trope to be a very clever and sophisticated argument.

I hear he was saying that a number that rounds off to 2 (say 2.41) plus another number that rounds off to 2 (say 2.44) can add up to a number that rounds off to 5. I see that kind of roundoff error every day in my work on spreadsheets.

Move on along, folks. Nothing to see here.

doubtingmerle · Apr 12, 2021

Lion IRC said:
You can't have multiple universes if there's no boundaries to differentiate one from another.

Uh, universes are not separated in space. Our universe literally has no edge. If you were to look far enough in any one direction from any point in space, you will see no empty space. There is no point where you see universe in one direction and void in the other direction.

Other universe could have come about from other Big Bangs and could occupy a different space time.

Paulomycin · Apr 12, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
Uh, universes are not separated in space. Our universe literally has no edge. If you were to look far enough in any one direction from any point in space, you will see no empty space. There is no point where you see universe in one direction and void in the other direction.

Other universe could have come about from other Big Bangs and could occupy a different space time.

You putting all your chips on No Boundary Proposal? Seriously? Remember that atheists have a real hard time committing to anything, so we can just bounce them around all day like a pinball.

Paulomycin · Apr 12, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
Move on along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Except for the fact that it was literally pasted onto a t-shirt he was wearing in front of a crowded audience which he awkwardly attention-whored for a couple minutes, just on the off-chance that you happen to miss noticing it.

Bradskii · Apr 13, 2021

Lion IRC said:
You can't have multiple universes if there's no boundaries to differentiate one from another.

It depends on what type of universes we are talking about. Patchwork, inflationary, cosmic natural selection, the brane multiverse, the quantum multiverse, the eternal universe, cosmic cyclic etc. Some are covered here: Why there might be many more universes besides our own

I'm not proposing one over any other. The physics and maths involved are way out of my pay grade. The people who have proposed each one are a lot smarter than me (and probably a lot smarter than most on this forum).

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice...

Lion IRC · Apr 13, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
If you were to look far enough in any one direction from any point in space, you will see no empty space. There is no point where you see universe in one direction and void in the other direction.

So we ARE at the centre.

YAY

Bradskii · Apr 13, 2021

Lion IRC said:
So we ARE at the centre.

Of the Observable Universe? Always. By definition.

Ed1wolf · Apr 15, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
ed: Yes, it does if the universe were a great deal larger the temperature would be lower.

dm: No sir, that simply is not true. If the observable universe was spread out further, yes, it would drop in temperature. But if the extent of the universe is greater that what we can see, that would not lower its temperature.

Not so sure about that. I will have to do some research.

dm: I have presented the argument that the universe is larger than what we can see. You have ignored it and declared victory. You can't do that.

I have not disagreed that it could be larger than what we see. But that does not disprove that it had a beginning and therefore requires a cause.

dm: The argument begins with the scientific consensus that the universe has no edge. Do you or do you not agree that the universe has no edge?

It does not have an edge it is similar to the surface of balloon being blown up.

ed: Actually cosmologists now have a good idea of how many of each type of galaxy the universe contains.
dm: You are referring to the observable universe.

Scientists do not know how many galaxies are out there that are so far away the light from them has not had time to reach us.

No, actually there are many cosmologists that claim they can estimate the number for the entire universe both observable and not observable.

ed: Most cosmologists believe it started at a point with NO dimensions.
dm: I have shown you leading scientists who say it is only a hypothesis that the universe began from a single point of infinite density. It could have begun from a finite sized point (such as Planck length) at less than infinite density. If you disagree, please present your argument.

Read "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A 314(1970) pp. 528-548, by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

dm: Only a few people understand what cosmologists are talking about when they talk about what might have happened before Planck time. With all due respect, I do not think you are one of those few.

Just because not everyone understands fully what they are talking about does not mean they actually know. Simple logic is more likely to be right than speculation.

ed: Without causality science is impossible. Therefore if you have disproven causality then you destroy all your arguments using science.
dm: I never said I disproved causality. I said your law of causality was bunkers, adding in things that were not verified.

What did I add in that were not verified?

ed: It may not prove it, but it is rational to assume it does since in times past whenever it was assumed that logic applied in unusual situations great truths were discovered.

dm: I am fine with valid logic.

But you cannot declare that the bunkers logic you presented in another thread has the same validity of all other logic.

I used Aristotle's logic, you have yet to prove it is bonkers.

ed: It is simple logic that at least points to His existence and then my experience confirms it.
dm: And your simple logic about what happened before a singularity is bunkers.

See above.

dm: If a singularity occurred, then there is no way to know anything about any causes "beyond" that singularity. All our mathematics would break down at that point.

That is because after math and physics breaksdown, you use logic and that is what I did.

dm: Your error is that you say, since we don't know, therefore Ed1Wolf is probably right. As I told you many times, and you ignore, "We don't know" is not the same thing as saying "Ed1Wolf is probably right".

But you will just ignore that again, yes?

So let's repeat that: "We don't know" is not the same thing as saying "Ed1Wolf is probably right".

Not just me, many other well respected cosmologists like the ones I mentioned earlier.

ed: Well that is the way it appeared to me.
dm: Ah so you say that this statement:

I gave a detailed explanation of why we think the universe is probably much bigger than what we see, and is perhaps infinite [in size]. I never claimed that the fact that we don't know proves it is infinite [in size].

means:
I know for sure it is infinite in size.

Huh?

(And if you think I am making it up that you just said that, click on the link to see the post I am responding to.)

Somehow you interpret my "perhaps infinite in size" as "for sure infinite in size" and refuse to back down, even when you are told repeatedly that you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

Well my main point is regardless of the size, it had a definite beginning and therefore is an effect and requires a cause.

dm: Judging by your inability to acknowledge what I am saying when I say "perhaps infinite in size", then, with all due respect sir, I am not sure that you are able to understand what physicists are saying about the Big Bang.

I have done a great deal of reading on the BB theory. And I am scientists myself, so I think I understand the gist of it quite well.

dm: Please give me a quote from a leading physicist that says he knows the universe began from a point with zero dimensions and truly infinite density. Also, please tell me how he knows that.

Read the research paper above by Hawkins and Penrose. They both believed that at the time. And as I stated before Dr. Goldsmith has stated that that is the majority view. I never said that they KNOW it only that they believe that the majority of evidence points in that direction.

ed: According to most cosmologists dark energy is what is stretching out spacetime.

dm: Which is what I just said. At least we agree on something!

Well that is not exactly what you said but I guess now you do agree with me.

doubtingmerle · Apr 17, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
It does not have an edge it is similar to the surface of balloon being blown up.

A balloon has an outside. The balloon extends so far from the center and then there is no balloon after that.

A bug sitting on a balloon could see nothing but balloon in one direction, and nothing but emptiness in the other.

That is not how scientists say our universe is. They say there is no point where one can be and see nothing but universe in one direction, and nothing but nothing in the other.

Scientists say our universe has no edge. There is no point beyond which there is space but nothing else. Our universe either extends to infinity, or it circles back on itself.

You have been told that many times.

No, actually there are many cosmologists that claim they can estimate the number for the entire universe both observable and not observable.

Please give me the name of a leading scientist that claims he knows how many galaxies are in the unobservable portion of our universe, and how he knows it?

We simply cannot know what is beyond our Hubble Sphere. Light or information cannot reach us from outside our Hubble Sphere. So how are these scientists knowing what is going on beyond the distance where information can reach us?

I call flapdoodle on this one.

Read "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A 314(1970) pp. 528-548, by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

Excuse me sir, but I already explained to you that Hawking said this early in his career, and then changed his mind. And what do you do? You cite a paper from early in his career.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

Leading physicists say it is only a hypothesis that our universe began from a singularity. It may have begun at a finite size, such as Planck Length. We don't know.

Just because not everyone understands fully what they are talking about does not mean they actually know. Simple logic is more likely to be right than speculation.

OK, you insist on stating it started from a singularity. It might have.

So far you have presented no valid logical argument to prove what would have been "beyond" that singularity.

What did I add in that were not verified?

You have arguedthat if there was a singularity there could be no space-time, physical energy, or physical substance "beyond" that. That is flapdoodle.

You stated that whatever started the Big Bang must have been intelligent. You have presented no evidence for that.

Etc., etc.

I used Aristotle's logic, you have yet to prove it is bonkers.

See this thread: Where's God? | Christian Forums

Well my main point is regardless of the size, it had a definite beginning

Well duh, we have all been saying our universe had a beginning. Why can we not just stipulate that we agree on that and move on? Why do we need to repeat this over and over again?

...and therefore is an effect and requires a cause.

Again, quantum mechanics does things that do not have a cause in the classical sense.

You have no proof that, if there was a singularity, something like quantum mechanics could be making things without a classical cause.

Nihilist Virus · May 10, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Actually, he's pushing interrogatory questions as-if they were logical arguments, and everyone knows it, including you. Please don't pretend that atheists are faithful to any objective rules of debate, especially where they can take rhetorical advantage of their opponent instead.

"Can God kill Himself?" is the deliberate framing of a narrative fork to result in only two possible outcomes:

(a.) If God cannot kill Himself, then He is not omnipotent.
(b.) If God can kill Himself, and still hasn't done so, then He has not proven His omnipotence.

I pointed out that the question itself was in error (c.), because God is an infinite being. To "kill God" would necessarily require exceeding His omnipotence, and you cannot exceed an infinite. NV scoffed a bit before he realized what I was getting at. The question is a failure of contradiction.

Me in post 637:

"Like I said, you don't understand set theory. There are hierarchies of infinities."

@Paulomycin in post 638:

"I am aware of that. I'm familiar with Georg Cantor, and the like."

@Paulomycin in post 646:

"I pointed out that the question itself was in error (c.), because God is an infinite being. To "kill God" would necessarily require exceeding His omnipotence, and you cannot exceed an infinite. NV scoffed a bit before he realized what I was getting at. The question is a failure of contradiction."

So @Paulomycin said he is "aware" that there are hierarchies of infinites, and then also said that one cannot "exceed" an infinite.

Please, @Paulomycin, pay attention and pick a lane.

Ed1wolf · May 14, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
A balloon has an outside. The balloon extends so far from the center and then there is no balloon after that.

No, you misunderstand. It is like a balloon where all four dimensions of our universe are condensed into the single dimension of the surface of the balloon. Something living within the surface of the balloon would not know about the anything outside that surface.

dm: A bug sitting on a balloon could see nothing but balloon in one direction, and nothing but emptiness in the other.

That is not how scientists say our universe is. They say there is no point where one can be and see nothing but universe in one direction, and nothing but nothing in the other.

Scientists say our universe has no edge. There is no point beyond which there is space but nothing else. Our universe either extends to infinity, or it circles back on itself.

You have been told that many times.

Not having an edge is irrelevant to whether it has a cause. It still needs one.

dm: Please give me the name of a leading scientist that claims he knows how many galaxies are in the unobservable portion of our universe, and how he knows it?

We simply cannot know what is beyond our Hubble Sphere. Light or information cannot reach us from outside our Hubble Sphere. So how are these scientists knowing what is going on beyond the distance where information can reach us?

I call flapdoodle on this one.

In Steven V. W. Beckwith et al "The Hubble Ultra Deep Field" Astronomical Journal, November 2006, they give a rough estimate using extrapolations from the visible universe.

dm: Excuse me sir, but I already explained to you that Hawking said this early in his career, and then changed his mind. And what do you do? You cite a paper from early in his career.

Just because he changed his mind did not invalidate his findings or change the mind of the majority of cosmologists as Donald Goldsmith stated in the Natural History Magazine article that I mentioned in my previous post.

dm: Leading physicists say it is only a hypothesis that our universe began from a singularity. It may have begun at a finite size, such as Planck Length. We don't know.

We dont know for certain but the evidence points in that direction as the majority position.

dm: So far you have presented no valid logical argument to prove what would have been "beyond" that singularity.

Using the law of sufficient cause, since the universe contains purposes which can only be created by persons, that means the cause must be personal. Since the universe contains a complex linguistic code (DNA), then the cause must be intelligent. Since the universe is a diversity within a unity, then it is likely that such a being put their unique fingerprint on his creation so it could be determined specifically what personal creator created this universe. And only the triune Christian God is a diversity within a unity.

dm: You have argued that if there was a singularity there could be no space-time, physical energy, or physical substance "beyond" that. That is flapdoodle.

According to Dr. Goldsmith that is the majority view.

dm: You stated that whatever started the Big Bang must have been intelligent. You have presented no evidence for that.

Etc., etc.

See above.

dm: See this thread: Where's God? | Christian Forums

That thread did not prove basic logic is bonkers.

dm: Well duh, we have all been saying our universe had a beginning. Why can we not just stipulate that we agree on that and move on? Why do we need to repeat this over and over again?

Ok but if it has beginning that is strong evidence that it is an effect and needs a cause.

dm: Again, quantum mechanics does things that do not have a cause in the classical sense.

You have no proof that, if there was a singularity, something like quantum mechanics could be making things without a classical cause.

The problem with QM is that quantum events require an interval of time to occur, but at t=0, there is no time for it to occur, so a quantum event could not have created the universe.

Nihilist Virus · May 16, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
No, you misunderstand. It is like a balloon where all four dimensions of our universe are condensed into the single dimension of the surface of the balloon.

I think you mean to say that the surface of a sphere (balloon) is two dimensions.

Using the law of sufficient cause, since the universe contains purposes which can only be created by persons, that means the cause must be personal.

How would you actually show that there is purpose? In other words, what is the measurable difference between purpose fulfilled and purpose unfulfilled?

Since the universe contains a complex linguistic code (DNA), then the cause must be intelligent.

Arsenic is below phosphorous in the periodic table, in the same column. This is because the outer electron shell is the same for each. This causes your body to become confused, and it uses arsenic in the helix spine of your DNA where it is supposed to be using phosphorous instead. This causes DNA to fall apart, and this is why arsenic is poisonous.

I can write "Hello" in Crayon, in ink, in my own blood, by arranging rocks, by lining up toothpicks, by using light or sound, and so on. Can you write DNA in Crayon? No. As shown above, you can't even use a chemical substitute that is very similar. This is because DNA is not code; DNA is a molecule. It has none of the defining characteristics of language.

Furthermore, we can make sense of language wherein symbols are ararnged incorrectly, $ubstitütεd out, or m_ss_ng altogether. Can you do this with DNA? DgfgNsA ha34sds a bhunbcasdfh ofjjj 23jduhnk lsasangf5guasdge, andsssd r;ejadfsfing i;kjhjt is a bhjhj6t4it liasdfke thi23as.

If DNA is a language, why can't I speak the correct several billion letters of code in order to cause a dodo to appear out of the air? I don't know in what sense you even mean that DNA is a language or code. It can only be "written down" in bio-molecular form... because it is a molecule. We can't replace one atom with a similar component, as mentioned with above arsenic poisoning. We can't have minor "typos". We have a lot of the "code" which does not even "code" to anything at all, which we call junk DNA. A lot of the "code" is repeated several times for no apparent reason. If you wrote out a book in the manner that DNA is "written", it would appear to be either gibberish or a childish attempt at encryption.

Please, could you tell me one defining characteristic of language or code which actually applies to DNA? Thanks.

FireDragon76 · May 16, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:

The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.

But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:

The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.

It's "reasonable", but I don't think "reason" is an adequate guide to truth. (I'm an existentialist, not a rationalist).

doubtingmerle · May 17, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
In Steven V. W. Beckwith et al "The Hubble Ultra Deep Field" Astronomical Journal, November 2006, they give a rough estimate using extrapolations from the visible universe.

No sir, that is not what that study was about. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field estimated the number of galaxies that are about 13 billion light years from earth. That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the number of galaxies that are outside our Hubble Sphere. These galaxies, if they exist, are so far away that their light did not have time to reach us. We have no idea how many galaxies are out there. Your study didn't even address this question.

The actual universe could be infinite in physical extent. And if it is infinite in extent, there could be things happening in that far off, unobservable, area of space that totally differ with physics as we know it.

Just because he changed his mind did not invalidate his findings or change the mind of the majority of cosmologists as Donald Goldsmith stated in the Natural History Magazine article that I mentioned in my previous post.

Hawking found his earlier argument for a singularity was wrong. He thought his later finding invalidated what he said earlier about a singularity. Why do you disagree with Hawking?

I cannot find the article by Goldsmith to which you refer. Please give me the name of the article and the date it was published.

And please try to understand articles before you post them as evidence. After your complete misunderstanding of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, you wouldn't want to mess up like that again. Please don't post it as evidence unless it says what you claim it says.

We dont know for certain but the evidence points in that direction as the majority position.

Flapdoodle. I have given you three sources including Steven Hawking that disputed the idea that the universe began as a singularity.

Here is an article that is more emphatic. Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity? | Of Particular Significance (profmattstrassler.com) The author is in the inner circle of astrophysicists, and he says:

we don’t know precisely how inflation [the earliest phase of the Big Bang] started (or even could have started) in the first place.

I’m not making this up out of my head. Just yesterday I was involved in a long conversation with professors and post-doctoral researchers at Harvard, in which we discussed various exotic mathematical methods for exploring the inflationary epoch and the era before it. The possibility that there really is a singularity at the beginning of the universe never came up once.

He is emphatic that, at the upper levels of physicists, the idea that it went back to a singularity is not even considered that credible.

Using the law of sufficient cause, since the universe contains purposes which can only be created by persons, that means the cause must be personal.

Using your logic, since the universe contains acorns which can only be created by oak trees, that means the cause of the universe must be an oak tree. Same logic.

Your logic is bonkers.

Since the universe contains a complex linguistic code (DNA), then the cause must be intelligent.

Actually DNA is analogous to a linguistic code. It is not linguistic code.

And DNA has been shown to come from evolution.

Since the universe is a diversity within a unity, then it is likely that such a being put their unique fingerprint on his creation so it could be determined specifically what personal creator created this universe. And only the triune Christian God is a diversity within a unity.

Cat vomit is also a diversity within a unity.

Therefore, by your logic, the universe was created by cat vomit.

Your logic is bonkers.

That thread did not prove basic logic is bonkers.

Correct. I did not prove that all logic is bonkers, nor would I ever try to do that.

But I did show that your logic was bonkers.

Ok but if it has beginning that is strong evidence that it is an effect and needs a cause.

Like a multiverse, perhaps? Or by quantum effects in an inflating universe that never was a singularity, perhaps?

The problem with QM is that quantum events require an interval of time to occur, but at t=0, there is no time for it to occur, so a quantum event could not have created the universe.

The problem for your view is that you don't know that the universe went back to zero. People have traced relativity back to zero, and said time would not exist if you went back that far, but the problem is that they are tracing relativity beyond where it is relevant. We have no theory of quantum gravity. We would need a theory of quantum gravity to trace things back before Planck Time. So when you use relativity to go back beyond Planck Time, and thus conclude that time stopped existing, you are using a theory that does not apply in that region.

When you use a theory beyond the range where it applies, your logic is invalid.

Ed1wolf · May 18, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
Ed: No, you misunderstand. It is like a balloon where all four dimensions of our universe are condensed into the single dimension of the surface of the balloon.
nv: I think you mean to say that the surface of a sphere (balloon) is two dimensions.

Correct.

ed: Using the law of sufficient cause, since the universe contains purposes which can only be created by persons, that means the cause must be personal.

nv: How would you actually show that there is purpose? In other words, what is the measurable difference between purpose fulfilled and purpose unfulfilled?

Careful analysis of the thing in question can determine its purpose. The same way an archaeologist differentiates between an arrowhead and an arrowhead shaped rock.

ed: Since the universe contains a complex linguistic code (DNA), then the cause must be intelligent.

nv: Arsenic is below phosphorous in the periodic table, in the same column. This is because the outer electron shell is the same for each. This causes your body to become confused, and it uses arsenic in the helix spine of your DNA where it is supposed to be using phosphorous instead. This causes DNA to fall apart, and this is why arsenic is poisonous.

I can write "Hello" in Crayon, in ink, in my own blood, by arranging rocks, by lining up toothpicks, by using light or sound, and so on. Can you write DNA in Crayon? No. As shown above, you can't even use a chemical substitute that is very similar. This is because DNA is not code; DNA is a molecule. It has none of the defining characteristics of language.

Actually it is, it has a grammar and syntax. And while is also a molecule that carries information to produce the correct protein. Since it communicates information irrespective of the mode of transmission as long as the proper protein is created. That is a hallmark of a linguistic code.

nv: Furthermore, we can make sense of language wherein symbols are ararnged incorrectly, $ubstitütεd out, or m_ss_ng altogether. Can you do this with DNA? DgfgNsA ha34sds a bhunbcasdfh ofjjj 23jduhnk lsasangf5guasdge, andsssd r;ejadfsfing i;kjhjt is a bhjhj6t4it liasdfke thi23as.

If DNA is a language, why can't I speak the correct several billion letters of code in order to cause a dodo to appear out of the air? I don't know in what sense you even mean that DNA is a language or code. It can only be "written down" in bio-molecular form... because it is a molecule. We can't replace one atom with a similar component, as mentioned with above arsenic poisoning.

I didnt say it was a literally a language, I said it was language like code. You can speak it as long as you produce the proper protein in the cell as needed as you speak. But of course, you cannot do that.

nv: We can't have minor "typos". We have a lot of the "code" which does not even "code" to anything at all, which we call junk DNA. A lot of the "code" is repeated several times for no apparent reason. If you wrote out a book in the manner that DNA is "written", it would appear to be either gibberish or a childish attempt at encryption.

Actually recent research as shown that in fact there is almost no junk DNA. Junk DNA is not a junk – Scientific Scribbles (unimelb.edu.au)

nv: Please, could you tell me one defining characteristic of language or code which actually applies to DNA? Thanks.

See above.

Nihilist Virus · May 19, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Correct.

Careful analysis of the thing in question can determine its purpose. The same way an archaeologist differentiates between an arrowhead and an arrowhead shaped rock.

Actually it is, it has a grammar and syntax. And while is also a molecule that carries information to produce the correct protein. Since it communicates information irrespective of the mode of transmission as long as the proper protein is created. That is a hallmark of a linguistic code.

I didnt say it was a literally a language, I said it was language like code. You can speak it as long as you produce the proper protein in the cell as needed as you speak. But of course, you cannot do that.

Actually recent research as shown that in fact there is almost no junk DNA. Junk DNA is not a junk – Scientific Scribbles (unimelb.edu.au)

See above.

There is no language, code, or method of conveying information that is strictly and absolutely dependent on a very particular medium. Even for languages from illiterate societies wherein there is no written form of the language, spoken information can be passed through air, water, or perhaps a wall.

It's fine if DNA is bound to chemistry like how a spoken-only language is bound to sound. But as I said before, chemical substitutes don't work for DNA. Air substitutes do work for spoken languages. And that shouldn't be a surprise, since language and code convey information, and information is intangible, so there is no reason to think it is absolutely dependent on a specific physical substance. But if DNA cannot accept a chemical substitute, then there is no intangible component to DNA, which means it is not information nor does it carry information, and it is in fact just a molecule. You say it's information. I don't know how you could actually prove that whatsoever. No wait, I do. Express DNA in another medium or with chemical substitutes. Until that day, I will say it's just a chain reaction.

If every single method of conveying information has the property that the physical medium can be substituted out for something else, then DNA doesn't belong in that club. You are literally finding something without property X, and then putting it into the set of all things which contain property X.

Ed1wolf · May 21, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
ed:↑In Steven V. W. Beckwith et al "The Hubble Ultra Deep Field" Astronomical Journal, November 2006, they give a rough estimate using extrapolations from the visible universe.

dm: No sir, that is not what that study was about. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field estimated the number of galaxies that are about 13 billion light years from earth. That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the number of galaxies that are outside our Hubble Sphere. These galaxies, if they exist, are so far away that their light did not have time to reach us. We have no idea how many galaxies are out there. Your study didn't even address this question.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood though since the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, 13 billion years is pretty close, they only missed any that came into existence in 800 million years which cant be that many.

dm: The actual universe could be infinite in physical extent. And if it is infinite in extent, there could be things happening in that far off, unobservable, area of space that totally differ with physics as we know it.

Maybe, but most cosmologists dont think that though. Most think the laws of physics are universal.

ed: Just because he changed his mind did not invalidate his findings or change the mind of the majority of cosmologists as Donald Goldsmith stated in the Natural History Magazine article that I mentioned in my previous post.

dm: Hawking found his earlier argument for a singularity was wrong. He thought his later finding invalidated what he said earlier about a singularity. Why do you disagree with Hawking?

Because not everybody agrees with the old Hawking. Like prize winning physicists Paul Davies and Arno Penzias among many others. In addition, to eliminate the singularity he inserts a highly speculative concept called "imaginary time" that not many physicists agree exists.

dm: I cannot find the article by Goldsmith to which you refer. Please give me the name of the article and the date it was published.

It was a response to a letter in the Letters section of the November 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.

ed: We dont know for certain but the evidence points in that direction as the majority position.

dm: Flapdoodle. I have given you three sources including Steven Hawking that disputed the idea that the universe began as a singularity.

See above about Goldsmith and imaginary time.

dm: Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity? | Of Particular Significance (profmattstrassler.com) The author is in the inner circle of astrophysicists, and he says:

we don’t know precisely how inflation [the earliest phase of the Big Bang] started (or even could have started) in the first place.

Of course, they are not going to say it was started by a creator. Even though some well respected ones do and did. Including Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose when they were younger.

dm: I’m not making this up out of my head. Just yesterday I was involved in a long conversation with professors and post-doctoral researchers at Harvard, in which we discussed various exotic mathematical methods for exploring the inflationary epoch and the era before it. The possibility that there really is a singularity at the beginning of the universe never came up once.
He is emphatic that, at the upper levels of physicists, the idea that it went back to a singularity is not even considered that credible.

I am very impressed with your conversants. But they may or may not represent the majority view.

ed: Using the law of sufficient cause, since the universe contains purposes which can only be created by persons, that means the cause must be personal.

dm: Using your logic, since the universe contains acorns which can only be created by oak trees, that means the cause of the universe must be an oak tree. Same logic.
Your logic is bonkers.

No, it is not my logic. It is everybody's logic. According to causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect. Since the universe is everything that exists physically, then its cause cannot be physical. Oak trees are physical, therefore it cannot be a cause of the universe.

ed: Since the universe contains a complex linguistic code (DNA), then the cause must be intelligent.
dm: Actually DNA is analogous to a linguistic code. It is not linguistic code.

It has all the characteristics of a linguistic code. It is analogous but it is more than that.

dm: And DNA has been shown to come from evolution.

That is just theoretical speculation. Please provide an empirically observed example of a linguistic code coming into existence from impersonal random processes.

ed: Since the universe is a diversity within a unity, then it is likely that such a being put their unique fingerprint on his creation so it could be determined specifically what personal creator created this universe. And only the triune Christian God is a diversity within a unity.

dm: Cat vomit is also a diversity within a unity.
Therefore, by your logic, the universe was created by cat vomit.
Your logic is bonkers.

Besides other problems, cat vomit is physical, see above why that is a problem.

ed: That thread did not prove basic logic is bonkers.

dm: Correct. I did not prove that all logic is bonkers, nor would I ever try to do that.

But I did show that your logic was bonkers.

No, see above.

ed: Ok but if it has beginning that is strong evidence that it is an effect and needs a cause.

dm: Like a multiverse, perhaps? Or by quantum effects in an inflating universe that never was a singularity, perhaps?

Maybe but even advocates of the multiverse believe they had a beginning. And then there are the other problems with the multiverse explaining too much such as there is a universe where Hawkings research papers were written by chance events. If they can be written by chance events then why should we believe them?

ed: The problem with QM is that quantum events require an interval of time to occur, but at t=0, there is no time for it to occur, so a quantum event could not have created the universe.

dm: The problem for your view is that you don't know that the universe went back to zero. People have traced relativity back to zero, and said time would not exist if you went back that far, but the problem is that they are tracing relativity beyond where it is relevant. We have no theory of quantum gravity. We would need a theory of quantum gravity to trace things back before Planck Time. So when you use relativity to go back beyond Planck Time, and thus conclude that time stopped existing, you are using a theory that does not apply in that region.
When you use a theory beyond the range where it applies, your logic is invalid.

Not according to Goldsmith and the other scientists I mention above. Also, there is a difference between a theory and logical reasoning. A theory is just a model of how we think things work, we can make logic based extrapolations based on the model. That is what I am doing. Scientists do this all the time.

Bradskii · May 21, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Ok, I guess I misunderstood though since the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, 13 billion years is pretty close, they only missed any that came into existence in 800 million years which cant be that many.

I think you're missing something here. If the universe is infinite, it didn't gradually expand to infinity. When people talk about moments after the big bang and
say 'the universe was as big as a basketball' or use some other metaphor, they aren't describing the universe itself but the observable universe. They don't mean that everything that existed was the size of a basketball and then it expanded to infinity. It was infinite in size from the initial instant of coming into being.

The age of the universe and how far 'back' we can see (the edge if the observable universe is about 46 billion light years away) bears no relationship whatsoever to the amount of the universe which is outside that distance.

God the middleman

Newbie

Newbie

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Newbie

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Similar threads