God the middleman

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
It is true that if the study estimated the number of galaxies within a 13 billion light year radius, they would have missed those at 13.8 billion light years.

They would have also missed those at 15 billion light years, and 60 billion light years, and 2.5 trillion light years, and 400 trillion light years, etc.

It is possible that the universe that began with the Big Bang is far bigger than the age of the universe allows us to observe. And we cannot possibly get information on any galaxies out there that are further from us than what light could have traveled during the age of the universe.

How could the universe be that big? As I explained before, space time itself is expanding. If galaxies are very far away, then the total expansion of the universe between us and them causes their portion to recede from us faster than the light is traveling toward us. So, though the light is traveling through space at the speed of light, the net expansion of spacetime is so great that the light is actually traveling backwards with respect to us. If that expansion continues like that, the light will never reach earth.

Maybe, but most cosmologists dont think that though. Most think the laws of physics are universal.
The laws of our observable universe are constant as far as we can tell. But what if the mass of the electron is off by a minute fraction at the far extreme of our universe? We might not be able to detect that. Then suppose that the total universe that came from the Big Bang is trillions of times larger than the universe we can observe, and that this same minute factor continues through countless iterations. Then it is indeed possible that there are portions of that universe that act very different from what we know.

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.
Science is resolved by those who understand the particular subject reviewing and correcting the work of other experts. As I said, from what I can see, those papers from the leading experts in the physics of the first microsecond of our universe agree that it probably did not come from a singularity. Many may disagree with them, but science is not determined by a vote.

It was a response to a letter in the Letters section of the November 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.
I have quoted four strong sources that the universe did not begin from a singularity.

Your response: Goldsmith responded to a letter in the Letters section of Natural history. At this point all we have is hearsay. You heard that Goldmith said this about some letter to the editor. And, with all due respect, judging by your misunderstanding of the physics, I doubt if you heard Goldsmith right. But if you would like to quote what Goldsmith said, or give us a reference that one could actually look at, I will see what I can do.

See above about Goldsmith and imaginary time.
Again, even if the universe went back to a singularity, that does not prove that all possible dimensions of spacetime stopped existing. It would only make spacetime as we know it undefined. Spacetime becomes the equivalent of 0/0, which is indeterminate.

And no, as I told you many times, "indeterminate" is not the same as "whatever Ed1wolf says is true". And yet somehow you insist that you know what indeterminate leads to. That is complete flapdoodle.

And again, the only way one gets back to a singularity is to look only at relativity while ignoring quantum mechanics. You can't do that. You can't say we will just ignore quantum mechanics (which would be overwhelming at that scale) and make a conclusion based on that faulty premise.

Of course, they are not going to say it was started by a creator.
Again, saying our equations would resolve to indeterminate is not the same thing as saying that they resolve to whatever Ed1wolf says they resolve to.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Even though some well respected ones do and did. Including Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose when they were younger.
Physics is a complex subject. Hawking changed his mind after further study. I would tend to trust what he learned after a lifetime of study over what he thought as a youth.

I am very impressed with your conversants. But they may or may not represent the majority view.
Physics is based on facts, not by a vote.

Since the universe is everything that exists physically, then its cause cannot be physical.
Fun with words.

If you define the universe as all that physically exists, then your definition includes all the observable universe, plus all things that started from the Big Bang that are too far away to see, plus all things that may have existed "outside" or "beyond" the Big Bang.

So the Big Bang could have been caused by something physical in the total physical universe of reality.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, the nucleotides must be in a specific order to produce the right protein, just like letters in an alphabet must be in specific order to produce the right information.
You tell us that you are a biologist, so none of this should be new to you.

Minor variations in the genetic sequence make minor changes in the proteins. Often the variations work just as well, or even better, than the original sequence.

With enough variation and recombination of genes, the offspring can be significantly different.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
No, the majority view is not that the universe is infinite.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: 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: It is true that if the study estimated the number of galaxies within a 13 billion light year radius, they would have missed those at 13.8 billion light years.

They would have also missed those at 15 billion light years, and 60 billion light years, and 2.5 trillion light years, and 400 trillion light years, etc.

It is possible that the universe that began with the Big Bang is far bigger than the age of the universe allows us to observe. And we cannot possibly get information on any galaxies out there that are further from us than what light could have traveled during the age of the universe.

How could the universe be that big? As I explained before, space time itself is expanding. If galaxies are very far away, then the total expansion of the universe between us and them causes their portion to recede from us faster than the light is traveling toward us. So, though the light is traveling through space at the speed of light, the net expansion of spacetime is so great that the light is actually traveling backwards with respect to us. If that expansion continues like that, the light will never reach earth.
Yes, possibly. Reference for light traveling backwards with respect to us?

ed: Maybe, but most cosmologists dont think that though. Most think the laws of physics are universal.
dm: The laws of our observable universe are constant as far as we can tell. But what if the mass of the electron is off by a minute fraction at the far extreme of our universe? We might not be able to detect that. Then suppose that the total universe that came from the Big Bang is trillions of times larger than the universe we can observe, and that this same minute factor continues through countless iterations. Then it is indeed possible that there are portions of that universe that act very different from what we know.
Just speculation. There is no empirical evidence for that.

ed: 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: Science is resolved by those who understand the particular subject reviewing and correcting the work of other experts. As I said, from what I can see, those papers from the leading experts in the physics of the first microsecond of our universe agree that it probably did not come from a singularity. Many may disagree with them, but science is not determined by a vote.
Well in this case I agree with the majority view, but I can certainly understand your skepticism of the majority view as well, I feel the same about the majority view on the origin and diversity of life.

ed: It was a response to a letter in the Letters section of the November 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.
dm: I have quoted four strong sources that the universe did not begin from a singularity.
Well Dr. Goldsmith is a highly respected astrophysicist, as well as the others that I have mentioned previously.

dm: Your response: Goldsmith responded to a letter in the Letters section of Natural history. At this point all we have is hearsay. You heard that Goldmith said this about some letter to the editor. And, with all due respect, judging by your misunderstanding of the physics, I doubt if you heard Goldsmith right. But if you would like to quote what Goldsmith said, or give us a reference that one could actually look at, I will see what I can do.
I have a copy of his response that I cut from the magazine, I didnt hear him in person. But see above the others physicists that agree with him. Another recent one that agreed with him is the recently deceased John Polkinghorne.

ed: See above about Goldsmith and imaginary time.
dm: Again, even if the universe went back to a singularity, that does not prove that all possible dimensions of spacetime stopped existing. It would only make spacetime as we know it undefined. Spacetime becomes the equivalent of 0/0, which is indeterminate.
Now I actually agree with you on this. God may have created our space time from another spacetime. Though of course He is not bound to any spacetime.

dm: And no, as I told you many times, "indeterminate" is not the same as "whatever Ed1wolf says is true". And yet somehow you insist that you know what indeterminate leads to. That is complete flapdoodle.
I never claimed to know what indeterminate leads to, only what logic leads too.

dm: And again, the only way one gets back to a singularity is to look only at relativity while ignoring quantum mechanics. You can't do that. You can't say we will just ignore quantum mechanics (which would be overwhelming at that scale) and make a conclusion based on that faulty premise.
I guarantee that all the respected physicists I have referenced did not ignore QM.

ed: Of course, they are not going to say it was started by a creator.
dm: Again, saying our equations would resolve to indeterminate is not the same thing as saying that they resolve to whatever Ed1wolf says they resolve to.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
It is not just me see all the physicists I have referenced. This is not just something I made up as you seem to believe.

ed: Even though some well respected ones do and did. Including Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose when they were younger.

dm: Physics is a complex subject. Hawking changed his mind after further study. I would tend to trust what he learned after a lifetime of study over what he thought as a youth.
Only by introducing a highly speculative concept called imaginary time. There is some evidence that he may have done this because he became an atheist and realized that his previous research pointed toward a Creator, and therefore decided to add imaginary time to eliminate that interpretation of his theory.

ed: I am very impressed with your conversants. But they may or may not represent the majority view.
dm: Physics is based on facts, not by a vote.
I believe that the standard majority view BB model is based on facts.

ed: Since the universe is everything that exists physically, then its cause cannot be physical.
dm: Fun with words.
No, fun with logic.

dm: If you define the universe as all that physically exists, then your definition includes all the observable universe, plus all things that started from the Big Bang that are too far away to see, plus all things that may have existed "outside" or "beyond" the Big Bang.

So the Big Bang could have been caused by something physical in the total physical universe of reality.
Physical entities require space to exist and the majority view is that space does not exist "outside" the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You tell us that you are a biologist, so none of this should be new to you.

Minor variations in the genetic sequence make minor changes in the proteins. Often the variations work just as well, or even better, than the original sequence.

With enough variation and recombination of genes, the offspring can be significantly different.
Only if the changes are very minor, if they are major they are usually rather quickly fatal. Again if the changes to the offspring are significant they are usually fatal.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Only if the changes are very minor, if they are major they are usually rather quickly fatal.

It is true that most genetic changes that survive to the next generation are minor. (but not necessarily very minor.)

But a thousand minor changes adds up to a big change.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, possibly. Reference for light traveling backwards with respect to us?
For instance:
All the galaxies in the Universe beyond a certain distance appear to recede from us at speeds faster than light. Even if we emitted a photon today, at the speed of light, it will never reach any galaxies beyond that specific distance. It means any events that occur today in those galaxies will not ever be observable by us. However, it's not because the galaxies themselves move faster than light, but rather because the fabric of space itself is expanding.[This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds (forbes.com)]​

Just speculation. There is no empirical evidence for that.
There is no empirical evidence for what happens beyond our Hubble sphere? Of course not! That is exactly what I have been saying all this time. We cannot possibly have any empirical evidence for what happens out there that is so far away the light would not have had time to reach us.

But as I explained before, scientists say the universe has no edge. It either extends to infinity, or it somehow curves back on itself in all directions. If it curves back on itself in all directions and is small, then we should be able to see the same galaxy if we look in 180 degrees opposite directions. We can't. That leads us to conclude that the actual distance across the universe is much greater than the distance we can see. How much greater? We don't know. Perhaps it is infinite. All we can conclude is that it is much greater.

Well in this case I agree with the majority view, but I can certainly understand your skepticism of the majority view as well, I feel the same about the majority view on the origin and diversity of life.
I did not say that a singularity was a majority view. It is a popular view in the media, and perhaps by many scientists outside the field of astrophysics. But that is irrelevant. Among those who write papers about the first microsecond of the universe, my understanding is that the singularity is seen as nothing more than a wild hypothesis that most think is probably false. I have given you multiple sources to document that.

Regarding the diversity of life, I don't mind if you disagree with a majority view. But I am deeply troubled that you, who tell us you are a professional biologist, would simply ignore the overwhelming consensus for evolution in the literature in your field. Ignore the majority of people uniformed about a subject? Sure. But ignore the consensus of science in your field. No! Never!
Well Dr. Goldsmith is a highly respected astrophysicist, as well as the others that I have mentioned previously.
Again, all the rest of us have is hearsay. Somebody on the Internet who identifies as Ed1Wolf says that he has seen a response from Dr. Goldsmith to a letter to the editor that somehow supports the idea of our universe beginning from a singularity. You will not quote what Dr. Goldsmith actually said, and you cannot give us a source where we can go back and read it. That is hearsay.

I have a copy of his response that I cut from the magazine
I didn't ask if you had a copy. I asked if there is any way that the rest of us can actually read what Dr. Goldsmith said.
Now I actually agree with you on this. God may have created our space time from another spacetime. Though of course He is not bound to any spacetime.
And as far as we know, the actions of physics are not bound to any spacetime either. There may be many dimensions of spacetime that are independent of what is observed within the framework of the Big Bang.

Why can you appeal to a God within a different spacetime, but physicists cannot appeal to physical actions within a different spacetime?
I never claimed to know what indeterminate leads to, only what logic leads too.
Flapdoodle.

You claimed that there can be no spacetime other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.

You claimed that there can be no physical matter or actions other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.

You have made these claims over and over.

All of your logic is based on faulty premises. If your premises are wrong, your logic is bonkers.
I guarantee that all the respected physicists I have referenced did not ignore QM.
Wait, what? You know a respected physicist that has resolved the dilemma of QM and Relativity before Planck Time? Wow! Why are you holding out on us? This is huge news! Fantastic! Many great minds have been struggling with this for a long time. We simply have no way of reconciling the two at that scale. Both relativity and QM would be overwhelming at that scale, and both say different things. If somebody ever resolves it, he will become as famous as Einstein.

Who is that respected phsyicist to whom you refer?

There is some evidence that he may have done this because he became an atheist and realized that his previous research pointed toward a Creator, and therefore decided to add imaginary time to eliminate that interpretation of his theory.
Oh, puhleeze. Hawking was a respected scientist who told us what he discovered using his brilliant mind. Attacking him as biased does not invalidate his work.
I believe that the standard majority view BB model is based on facts.
Uh sir, the standard model of the Big Bang does not go back before Planck Time. You have been told that many times.

The problem is that you insist on extrapolating beyond Planck Time, and that you insist that before that things happened which the consensus of science in the field disagree with.
No, fun with logic.
Did you mean to say, "Fun with bonkers logic?" ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,602
71
Bondi
✟248,965.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
And this is your proof that the universe is finite in extent? Well, Ok then, let's look at what it says:

First, it’s still possible the universe is finite. All we know for sure (mostly for sure) is that it’s bigger than we can observe, essentially because the farthest edges of the universe we can see don’t look like edges
Which is basically what I have been saying. So why you post this link as evidence that the universe cannot be infinite in extent is baffling, to say the least.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

The universe cannot reason but God can. The universe exists because it was created and is understood because it has laws, which ultimately are the product of a mind. So the person that is able to reason is able to give meaning to something that cannot or in the case of human beings (especially atheists :)) do so inadequately. The uncreated gives meaning to that which was made. You make your argument as if there is an equivalence between God and the universe but the one is greater than the other. To argue from analogy about something that has no analogy is nonsense. The Creator gives meaning to the creation and the Eternal to that which is temporary. Why would someone omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal need justification from the finite, the weak, and the temporary? If God is who we believe He is is his own reason and uncaused, the same cannot be said about the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The universe cannot reason but God can.

I suppose your God could use reason, but why would he? He is omniscient, so he does not need to derive knowledge. Also, what is the point of your statement here?

The universe exists because it was created

These are the apologetics forums. That is a point in question here.

and is understood because it has laws, which ultimately are the product of a mind.

We don't truly know what the laws are. We're making our best inferences, but even still, much is unknown. The laws we've come up with only describe about 4% of the known matter and energy in the entire known universe. The rest is dark matter and dark energy. Furthermore, quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible.

Also, how do you know laws come from a mind?

So the person that is able to reason is able to give meaning to something

How?

that cannot or in the case of human beings (especially atheists :)) do so inadequately.

I don't know how this was intended, but the way it's being received is very negative.

The uncreated gives meaning to that which was made.

What?

You make your argument as if there is an equivalence between God and the universe but the one is greater than the other.

Which one is greater? The one that we know for sure exists, or the one that you believe exists?

To argue from analogy about something that has no analogy is nonsense.

Where did I use an analogy?

The Creator gives meaning to the creation

How?

and the Eternal to that which is temporary.

How do you know this?

Why would someone omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal need justification from the finite, the weak, and the temporary?

Why would someone who definitively exists need justification from that which is only believed to exist?

If God is who we believe He is is his own reason and uncaused, the same cannot be said about the universe.

How can the same not be said of the universe?

How do you know God is who you believe he is? Or that he exists at all? How could he exist uncaused? And if he can, why can't the universe?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dóxatotheó

Orthodox Church Familia
May 12, 2021
991
318
19
South Carolina
✟17,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
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.
meany christians that study philosophy do not explain creation in that aspect anymore secondly till this day the universe falls in contingency because such studies of quantum flux and mech makes us understand our universe contingency
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
meany christians that study philosophy do not explain creation in that aspect anymore secondly till this day the universe falls in contingency because such studies of quantum flux and mech makes us understand our universe contingency

Can you please put more effort into translating this properly? Or if English is your first language, please write in a manner that is understandable.
 
Upvote 0

dóxatotheó

Orthodox Church Familia
May 12, 2021
991
318
19
South Carolina
✟17,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Can you please put more effort into translating this properly? Or if English is your first language, please write in a manner that is understandable.
what is not understandable there is 0 grammar mistakes in the paragraph
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
what [sic] is not understandable [sic] there [sic] is 0 [sic] grammar [sic] mistakes in the paragraph [sic]

Try to use gooder English, please.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,602
71
Bondi
✟248,965.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
what is not understandable there is 0 grammar mistakes in the paragraph

There's 5 in that sentence...

If English is not your first language (Greek?) then please excuse us for having difficulty in following your posts.
 
Upvote 0