God the middleman

[dóxatotheó]

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.

I apologize for my lack of grammatical structure.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It's not the quality of the articles to which you link that suggests that you are winging it. It's what you personally post.

Well then I am stumped, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Yes, possibly. Reference for light traveling backwards with respect to us?
dm: 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)]

ed: Ok that clears up your confusing wording.

ed: Just speculation. There is no empirical evidence for that.

dm: 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.

Glad you admit it.

dm: 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.

Most astrophysicists believe it curves but is large.

ed: 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.
dm: 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.

I have given you multiple sources that show it is the majority view.

dm: 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!

It doesnt mean much to disagree with the majority view is a field of which is not your field, that means you may not fully understand it. But since I do understand the theory of evolution quite well and still reject it, that shows that maybe there are some very serious problems with it and in fact that is the case.

ed: Well Dr. Goldsmith is a highly respected astrophysicist, as well as the others that I have mentioned previously.
dm: 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.

Well I also quoted some other physcists as well in case you hadnt forgotten. Davies and Penzias among others. Maybe I will scan the article and put it on here when I get a chance.

ed: I have a copy of his response that I cut from the magazine
dm: 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.

See above.

ed: 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 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.

There is no evidence the actions of physics can occur outside space and time.

dm: Why can you appeal to a God within a different spacetime, but physicists cannot appeal to physical actions within a different spacetime?

Because there is no evidence for different space times. There is evidence for different dimensions within this space time though.

ed: I never claimed to know what indeterminate leads to, only what logic leads too.

dm: Flapdoodle.

Nevertheless true.

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

No, I just said there was no evidence for it.

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.

See above, just no evidence.

dm: All of your logic is based on faulty premises. If your premises are wrong, your logic is bonkers.

Evidence my premises are faulty?

ed: I guarantee that all the respected physicists I have referenced did not ignore QM.
dm: 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?

No, what I am saying and what they are saying is that physicists' inability to resolve at present did not cause them to change their conclusion and they considered their conclusion is most likely correct even if in the future sometime it was resolved.

ed: 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.

dm: 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 am just saying inventing and inserting something into his theory as speculative as imaginary time is a little suspicious. And also given the peer pressure in academia to not believe in a creator has influenced people I actually know in academia and it may very well have influenced him, he is only human. He is not immune to social pressures.

ed: I believe that the standard majority view BB model is based on facts.
dm: Uh sir, the standard model of the Big Bang does not go back before Planck Time. You have been told that many times.

It does if you use logical reasoning.

dm: 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.
ed: No, fun with logic.

dm: Did you mean to say, "Fun with bonkers logic?"

No, see above where I demonstrate my logic is not bonkers. And no the consensus does agree with as I have shown.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

You left out the key statement in the article, it says "we know the universe is not infinitely old".

 

[Bradskii]

You left out the key statement in the article, it says "we know the universe is not infinitely old".

Which is not say that it could be eternal. Which is something else we don't know. Or that it could be cylcic. Another proposal that we can add to the ever increasing list of 'things we don't know'.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You left out the key statement in the article, it says "we know the universe is not infinitely old".

In context, you brought up the article in a discussion of whether the universe was finite in extent. The article does not support your claim that it must be finite in extent.

Now you change the subject to whether it is finite in age.

We know the universe that began with the Big Bang has a finite age.

We do not know if the state of physical reality, the multiverse, has a finite age. We strongly suspect it is infinitely old.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evidence my premises are faulty?

Sigh. Once again these are your faulty premises:

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 zero attempts to verify either of these claims. Zero. You just make them up and demand that we accept your premises as true.

If you want to make the claims, then show us the evidence.

No, what I am saying and what they are saying is that physicists' inability to resolve at present did not cause them to change their conclusion and they considered their conclusion is most likely correct even if in the future sometime it was resolved.

Please name one scientist that says that his conclusion about what happened before Planck Time is correct, even though he knows it is not yet resolved?

You crack me up, Ed1wolf.

That is not how science works. If we don't know, we say we don't know.

I am just saying inventing and inserting something into his theory as speculative as imaginary time is a little suspicious.

Imaginary time does not mean he is imagining it. It means calculations of time that use i (the square root of negative 1) in the calculations. Imaginary numbers are used all the time in physics and engineering. Imaginary numbers, for instance, are used to calculate the voltages over the power lines that power your computer.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

And also given the peer pressure in academia to not believe in a creator has influenced people I actually know in academia and it may very well have influenced him, he is only human. He is not immune to social pressures.

Sigh.

Once again the breakdown of physics at Planck time has bugged physicists for years. Nobody has resolved it. If you think they have resolved it, but are only pretending they haven't resolved it because the resolution leads to God, then please tell us how it was resolved.

If you, Ed1wolf, can tell us how QM and relativity resolved before Planck Time, you will be as famous as Einstein.

So please quit pretending you have a resolution, and actually give us your resolution.

It does if you use logical reasoning.

You say this in response to:

the standard model of the Big Bang does not go back before Planck Time. You have been told that many times.​

Sir, if what you say is true, you will be more famous than Einstein.

Now please, please, tell us how you have resolved the dilemma of QM and relativity, and have traced the Big Bang back before Planck Time.

No, see above where I demonstrate my logic is not bonkers. And no the consensus does agree with as I have shown.

Flapdoodle.

So far you have presented zero actual contemporary references in the literature that verify your claim that the universe went back to a singularity before Planck Time. Zero.

Zero is not equal to consensus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But since I do understand the theory of evolution quite well and still reject it, that shows that maybe there are some very serious problems with it and in fact that is the case.

With all due respect sir, I do not think you understand the theory of evolution well.

Your bogus claims against evolution have been answered here: A biologist challenges evolution | Christian Forums . You simply ignore the responses we made and declare victory.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Which is not say that it could be eternal. Which is something else we don't know. Or that it could be cylcic. Another proposal that we can add to the ever increasing list of 'things we don't know'.

You are right we dont know for certain but so far most of the evidence says it is not eternal and it is not cyclic.

 

[Ed1wolf]

With all due respect sir, I do not think you understand the theory of evolution well.

Your bogus claims against evolution have been answered here: A biologist challenges evolution | Christian Forums . You simply ignore the responses we made and declare victory.

With all due respect sir, I made no contributions to that thread so how in the world could you say my claims are bogus and have been answered?

 

[stevil]

The Big Bang is the cause of the known universe. For those who accept science, anyway.

The expansion, not necessarily the cause of time and energy

 

[doubtingmerle]

With all due respect sir, I made no contributions to that thread so how in the world could you say my claims are bogus and have been answered?

In that thread we listed the things that you were saying in another thread that had nothing to do with evolution. We invited you to respond there in another thread dedicated to evolution. You refused. Here it is 4 months later and you still haven't responded.

So please don't tell us you have an irrefutable case against evolution, when your claims have already been answered there.

 

[Bradskii]

You are right we dont know for certain but so far most of the evidence says it is not eternal and it is not cyclic.

Even if you're right (and there's a debate to be had there as to whether there is actually evidence) then what you are saying is effectively '...and of course, there is also evidence for an eternal and/or cyclic universe, so we need to keep that in mind'.

 

[Ed1wolf]

In context, you brought up the article in a discussion of whether the universe was finite in extent. The article does not support your claim that it must be finite in extent.

Now you change the subject to whether it is finite in age.

We know the universe that began with the Big Bang has a finite age.

We do not know if the state of physical reality, the multiverse, has a finite age. We strongly suspect it is infinitely old.

We dont know for certain but the majority view believes it does.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Evidence my premises are faulty?
dm: Sigh. Once again these are your faulty premises:
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 zero attempts to verify either of these claims. Zero. You just make them up and demand that we accept your premises as true.

If you want to make the claims, then show us the evidence.

No, I said most of the evidence points in the direction of those being true and they are the majority view, but I never said I knew for certain. I just agree with the majority view and most of the evidence.

ed: No, what I am saying and what they are saying is that physicists' inability to resolve at present did not cause them to change their conclusion and they considered their conclusion is most likely correct even if in the future sometime it was resolved.

dm: Please name one scientist that says that his conclusion about what happened before Planck Time is correct, even though he knows it is not yet resolved?
You crack me up, Ed1wolf.
That is not how science works. If we don't know, we say we don't know.

Neither me nor them claimed to know this for certain, they only believe that presently that is where the evidence points.

ed: I am just saying inventing and inserting something into his theory as speculative as imaginary time is a little suspicious.
dm: Imaginary time does not mean he is imagining it. It means calculations of time that use i (the square root of negative 1) in the calculations. Imaginary numbers are used all the time in physics and engineering. Imaginary numbers, for instance, are used to calculate the voltages over the power lines that power your computer.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.

No, even Hawking himself admitted it in his book. Hawking, Brief History, pages, 138–39, 164–65. And he admitted in the book that the universe is in fact constrained by real time.

ed: And also given the peer pressure in academia to not believe in a creator has influenced people I actually know in academia and it may very well have influenced him, he is only human. He is not immune to social pressures.

dm: Sigh.
Once again the breakdown of physics at Planck time has bugged physicists for years. Nobody has resolved it. If you think they have resolved it, but are only pretending they haven't resolved it because the resolution leads to God, then please tell us how it was resolved.

Straw man see above.

ed: It does if you use logical reasoning.
dm: You say this in response to:

the standard model of the Big Bang does not go back before Planck Time. You have been told that many times.

Yes, but the standard model reveals that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a cause.

ed: No, see above where I demonstrate my logic is not bonkers. And no the consensus does agree with as I have shown.
dm: Flapdoodle.

So far you have presented zero actual contemporary references in the literature that verify your claim that the universe went back to a singularity before Planck Time. Zero.

Zero is not equal to consensus.

I provided you with Hawking and Penrose's paper that has never been refuted except by introducing a highly speculative concept. The space-time theorems, in the framework of classical general relativity prove that if the universe contains mass and if the equations of general relativity reliably describe the universe's dynamics then its space and time dimensions must have had a beginning that coincides with the universe's origin.

 

[Ed1wolf]

In that thread we listed the things that you were saying in another thread that had nothing to do with evolution. We invited you to respond there in another thread dedicated to evolution. You refused. Here it is 4 months later and you still haven't responded.

So please don't tell us you have an irrefutable case against evolution, when your claims have already been answered there.

I consider the question of WHO created living things and the universe of much greater importance than the process of HOW the universe and life came into existence. But after I correct some of your misunderstandings of my views on this thread, maybe I will check out your evolution thread. I generally only have time to respond to one thread at a time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

In that thread we listed the things that you were saying in another thread that had nothing to do with evolution. We invited you to respond there in another thread dedicated to evolution. You refused. Here it is 4 months later and you still haven't responded.

So please don't tell us you have an irrefutable case against evolution, when your claims have already been answered there.

I consider the question of WHO created living things and the universe of much greater importance than the process of HOW the universe and life came into existence. But after I correct some of your misunderstandings of my views on this thread, maybe I will check out your evolution thread. I generally only have time to respond to one thread at a time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Even if you're right (and there's a debate to be had there as to whether there is actually evidence) then what you are saying is effectively '...and of course, there is also evidence for an eternal and/or cyclic universe, so we need to keep that in mind'.

Ok I will concede that. But there is also a serious philosophical problem with an eternal universe. If the universe is eternal then we would never reach the present, but yet here we are.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok I will concede that. But there is also a serious philosophical problem with an eternal universe. If the universe is eternal then we would never reach the present, but yet here we are.

Eternal doen't mean infinitely old.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok I will concede that. But there is also a serious philosophical problem with an eternal universe. If the universe is eternal then we would never reach the present, but yet here we are.

But there is also a serious philosophical problem with an eternal God. If God is eternal then we would never reach the present, but yet here we are