NationStates Jolt Archive

I was having a debate with a few friends about the creation of the World, and I thought I would raise the question up to NSG, as I know that you guys could either laugh at my poor debating skills or help me out. This was a pretty simplistic debate, as the participants were neither over 14 or had a good understanding of what they were arguing for, so I dont expect this to present much of a challenge to you intellectuals. :P

Basically, it started off from the basic Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism (me fighting the side of Creationism), and mainly because of their lack of knowledge of the subject, I had them stumped. Then they brought up something which I have not really thought about too much, and confused me a slight bit - Infinity. They claimed that the World has been here for 'Infinity', and although there was an absolutely tiny possiblity that the World would turn out as it is by chance (eg. Life being created from nothing), as the World has been here for 'infinity' amount of time, it would eventually turn out like this. Its hard to put across, but they basically said that in 'infinity', anything and everything possible will happen as it is there for so long, the Earth would go through many cycles and has now eventually arrived in its current state.

Now I had never heard of this theory before, and am fully aware that I may have embarassed myself by raising up a ridiculous senario. I myself find it very hard to believe as I dont believe that infinity itself can be possible, and if you can discredit infinity, you can discredit the theory. I think everything has to have a start, nothing can start from nowhere. The only thing we know to be actually infinite are numbers, which dont physically exist anyway. Now I find it hard to argue the case of Creationism; more specifically Christianity, as I can see how the notion of a God, and the whole ressurection story can seem very dubious, but I believe it as that is the idea of Faith, and I am fine with that. Whereas this idea to me seems much harder to believe, as to many alternate theories.. Anyway. This is more on the subject of infinity. Or whether I am very stupid for not being able to discredit this theory. :P

The earth is not infinitely old, neither the universe. Some people theorise that there is an infinite number of alternate universes however, and claim that in at least one of these universes created since the big bang or whatever, life must have been created also.

By creation, I mean creation by chance and not by a designer.

I was having a debate with a few friends about the creation of the World, and I thought I would raise the question up to NSG, as I know that you guys could either laugh at my poor debating skills or help me out. This was a pretty simplistic debate, as the participants were neither over 14 or had a good understanding of what they were arguing for, so I dont expect this to present much of a challenge to you intellectuals. :P

Basically, it started off from the basic Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism (me fighting the side of Creationism), and mainly because of their lack of knowledge of the subject, I had them stumped. Then they brought up something which I have not really thought about too much, and confused me a slight bit - Infinity. They claimed that the World has been here for 'Infinity', and although there was an absolutely tiny possiblity that the World would turn out as it is by chance (eg. Life being created from nothing), as the World has been here for 'infinity' amount of time, it would eventually turn out like this. Its hard to put across, but they basically said that in 'infinity', anything and everything possible will happen as it is there for so long, the Earth would go through many cycles and has now eventually arrived in its current state.

Now I had never heard of this theory before, and am fully aware that I may have embarassed myself by raising up a ridiculous senario. I myself find it very hard to believe as I dont believe that infinity itself can be possible, and if you can discredit infinity, you can discredit the theory. I think everything has to have a start, nothing can start from nowhere. The only thing we know to be actually infinite are numbers, which dont physically exist anyway. Now I find it hard to argue the case of Creationism; more specifically Christianity, as I can see how the notion of a God, and the whole ressurection story can seem very dubious, but I believe it as that is the idea of Faith, and I am fine with that. Whereas this idea to me seems much harder to believe, as to many alternate theories.. Anyway. This is more on the subject of infinity. Or whether I am very stupid for not being able to discredit this theory. :P

The world hasn't been around for an infinity. it did have beginning.

the world won't be around for an infinity because it will most likely be consumed when the sun goes either Red Giant or definately when it goes nova.

there is NO solid way to prove an infinite thing (in relation to time.) because it's 'lifespan' just may be vastly greater than ours. If a mayfly were to gain sentience and intelligence, it would consider humans a creature of infinite lifespan since the same person would be seen for hundreds or even thousands of their generations.

so what we lable as Infinite (again in relation to time) is just something we don't see the end of.

I was having a debate with a few friends about the creation of the World, and I thought I would raise the question up to NSG, as I know that you guys could either laugh at my poor debating skills or help me out. This was a pretty simplistic debate, as the participants were neither over 14 or had a good understanding of what they were arguing for, so I dont expect this to present much of a challenge to you intellectuals. :P

Basically, it started off from the basic Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism (me fighting the side of Creationism), and mainly because of their lack of knowledge of the subject, I had them stumped. Then they brought up something which I have not really thought about too much, and confused me a slight bit - Infinity. They claimed that the World has been here for 'Infinity', and although there was an absolutely tiny possiblity that the World would turn out as it is by chance (eg. Life being created from nothing), as the World has been here for 'infinity' amount of time, it would eventually turn out like this. Its hard to put across, but they basically said that in 'infinity', anything and everything possible will happen as it is there for so long, the Earth would go through many cycles and has now eventually arrived in its current state.

Now I had never heard of this theory before, and am fully aware that I may have embarassed myself by raising up a ridiculous senario. I myself find it very hard to believe as I dont believe that infinity itself can be possible, and if you can discredit infinity, you can discredit the theory. I think everything has to have a start, nothing can start from nowhere. The only thing we know to be actually infinite are numbers, which dont physically exist anyway. Now I find it hard to argue the case of Creationism; more specifically Christianity, as I can see how the notion of a God, and the whole ressurection story can seem very dubious, but I believe it as that is the idea of Faith, and I am fine with that. Whereas this idea to me seems much harder to believe, as to many alternate theories.. Anyway. This is more on the subject of infinity. Or whether I am very stupid for not being able to discredit this theory. :P

Scientific evidence points to a finite concrete age to the Earth and to the Universe. If they have scientific evidence to the contrary, I suggest they provide it. *nod*

Scientific evidence points to a finite concrete age to the Earth and to the Universe. If they have scientific evidence to the contrary, I suggest they provide it. *nod*

For the record, the Earth is pegged at about 4.54 billion years old, and the universe at >13.7 billion years old.

For the record, the Earth is pegged at about 4.54 billion years old, and the universe at >13.7 billion years old.

They look good for their age. Probably due to healthy eating habits and exercise. :)

Well i think you're all wrong, i think if humans can get over killing each other for fun, and actually work out a solid system of supplying necessities it's possible.
For example look back 200 years, things were infinately different, most language we know now would sound alien then, as for cars, trains, theories on Kantian ehtics, Utilitarian theory, Einstiens workings amongst many others, then i can see the earth being equally different in 200 years, maybe in a thousand years we'l figure out how to stop the sun going supernova, i dunno send a spaceship with some really futuristic chemical and get some planet movers to stop planets colliding that sort of thing, you know playing god.

I know this is a bit roundabout way of saying it, compare what we know know to 200 years ago, they'd think we were gods, (see tanks, lasers, nuclear weapons, medical improvements, penicillin).
All it needs is for there to be less wars and more funding for education and further education.

As for how the universe was created i reckon it was never created, it was infinate, never created never destroyed, as part of some experiment on how far life can go, at the moment the bets are on as to how earth will be destroyed, bloody revolution between superpowers is a popular one, so is a deadly virus, another is a meteorite, but others are trying to veto this idea as it's not sporting.
So once humans die their electrical energy gets downloaded into a sort of chip, which is added into a superbeing, if the person was successful they live again if they fail, they have to be altered by the other ones. As for this computer chip, well you don't have to be aware of it for it to exist (in fact it's far more complex than that, but the computer chip theory is a good lie), probably in dimension we can't prove exists.

PS i understand i have given no evidence for my ideas to exist, they're just possibilities, imaginative ones but still possibilities.
"glory is fleeting, obscurity lasts forever".

They look good for their age. Probably due to healthy eating habits and exercise. :)

You should've seen Earth when she was just ten million years old. She was smoking hot.

I am so going to hell for that.

well you really need to tell the guy who brought up the "Infinty" theory that there is no way that the world has an infinite age. also ask him if he's still (mentaly) in 3rd grade. i don't know about you but the only thing i know is infinite is numbers. though i don't know of any number places high then sextillan(don't kill me if i spelled it wrong). does anyone know if there is a place to find this information (other than google) in a neat list or something?

You should've seen Earth when she was just ten million years old. She was smoking hot.

I am so going to hell for that.

Gaia just called. You're grounded.

Rudy Rucker, Infinity and the Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Infinity-Mind-Philosophy-Infinite-Princeton/dp/0691121273/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198172189&sr=1-1).

I can't say anything as well as he, so I won't. [P.S. See, I can even discuss a single example of infinity because the discussion would be infinite, which is generally difficult for me since there's no beginning so where do I begin?]

But consider stuff like if there's no such thing as a tangible infinity, there is no such thing as a tangible circle either. (Circles are two dimensional, you cannot touch something unless it has 3 or more physical dimensions.) The creation of a word is just a technique to describe a concept. In practice you can define any word or term to mean whatever you want. Rucker discusses things such as even if the universe is X billion years old, there are several ways that a cycle of univeral lifespans can be explained. I.E, if this "new" universe started 13 billion years ago, the "old" universe ended then.

But my whole last paragraph can be considered irrelevant since there are several tangible infinities -- depending upon how you define tangible, which of course there are an exponentially infinite ways to define any term. A common demonstration is recursively dividing a length in half. Ya know take whatever, a piece of string, a rule, and divide it in half. Repeat until bored. Arguably, you can do so forever. Once your down to a molecule, you have half a molecule. Once your down to an atom, you have half an atom. Once you're down to a quark, you have half a quark. Another is simply adding one to the previous sum. Ya know, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and have your children have their children continue your work after you die. After an infinite amount of time, you will have an infinite list of numbers. Even if you define tangible so infinity does not "really" exist, just remember we can define circles so that don't exist. You either believe in circles or you don't, same for infinity and all concepts. (I, for one, don't believe in language.)

Rudy Rucker's book is a popular discussion of the matter. It's been described as the best book for a layman to read about the infinite, and simultaneously it has material for the most advanced students.

I've never had a discussion with someone that didn't believe in at least single infinities, so on a practical level, I have no material prepared to persuade you. I did however feel obliged to offer whatever I could as a response. In short, all debates can, and often do, boil down to an arguement over semantics. Rucker also discusses that "This sentence is true" may not be true. His book is a wonderful journey.

I must say I am with Mad Hatters on this one.

Scientists have measured the age of the Universe based on background radiations in the... well... observable Universe. Considering we know of no physical limit to the Universe, nor can we conceive such a limit or a way to observe it, it is reasonable to assume there is none. I know, I know, absence of evidence is no evidence of absence but the principle of contingency votes with non-existence when existence is unprovable.

Thus the Universe is most likely infinite space-wise.

Time-wise, just because it is limited by the present, it does not follow that it must also have another limit... a beginning. Think of a line in geometry. Cutting a line at one point does not make it any less infinite at the other end. It does not in any way necessitate another limit, thus turning it into a segment.

A better argument would have been, "If you can't get something from nothing, where did God come from?"

I hope these kids aren't in a debate team of any sort. I wonder if they even pay attention in science class.

Also, how do you not understand Creationism? It's as simple as it gets.

A better argument would have been, "If you can't get something from nothing, where did God come from?"

I hope these kids aren't in a debate team of any sort. I wonder if they even pay attention in science class.

Also, how do you not understand Creationism? It's as simple as it gets.

Are you talking to everyone or to the voice inside my head?
what kids? i notice in this post you contribute little to the thread, as better agrument would be to explain creationism then challenge anyone.
Also this post was a little aristocratic "i wonder if they even pay attention in science class", meaning what? if you don't pay attention you're doomed for the rest of your life about not knowing what goes on, on this planet? Science doesn't explain everything, it just attempts to, usually right too.

I must say I am with Mad Hatters on this one.

you're with me? wow. i have a friend

I had a similar debate with one of my block mates at Uni not too long ago; he's a fairly liberal Christian but believes God created it all while I'm taking Astrophysics and am right on the other side. In the end, we both had to agree to disagree but he raised a really could point regarding infinity...

I said that time was infinite: was there before the Universe, will be there afterwards, even before God...blah blah blah. Then he said "But infinity has limits. God could have created infinity." Of course I was like "WTFLOL@U. Infinity can't have limits."

His reply was "Imgaine the numbers 1 and 2. Two finite numbers but between them there is an infinite amount of numbers." Didn't change my views of the start of the Universe but definitely stunned me and will remember that for a long time.

The time the universe existed since the big bang is finite; the time it existed before that may not be.

this is slightly off topic, but the idea of an infinite time line really messes with me, but so does the concept of absolute nothing. when ever i try to think of absolute nothing, my mind conjers up this picture of empty space, but thats not nothing.
i used to be kept awake by this, and before that i was having nightmares about it(I'm 14)
any way, am i alone in this irrational fear of nothing?

this is slightly off topic, but the idea of an infinite time line really messes with me, but so does the concept of absolute nothing. when ever i try to think of absolute nothing, my mind conjers up this picture of empty space, but thats not nothing.
i used to be kept awake by this, and before that i was having nightmares about it(I'm 14)
any way, am i alone in this irrational fear of nothing?

Did you Devide by 0?

Did you Devide by 0?

Not meaning to sound stupid, but what?

this is slightly off topic, but the idea of an infinite time line really messes with me, but so does the concept of absolute nothing. when ever i try to think of absolute nothing, my mind conjers up this picture of empty space, but thats not nothing.
i used to be kept awake by this, and before that i was having nightmares about it(I'm 14)
any way, am i alone in this irrational fear of nothing?

i think it's something everyone's scared of, i think it's also called death, but that could lead into philosophical debate about whether you're dead before you're born (or in state of deadness), then you return to it afterlife.
as for the divide by 0 i don't get it either.

Are you talking to everyone or to the voice inside my head?
what kids? i notice in this post you contribute little to the thread, as better agrument would be to explain creationism then challenge anyone.
Also this post was a little aristocratic "i wonder if they even pay attention in science class", meaning what? if you don't pay attention you're doomed for the rest of your life about not knowing what goes on, on this planet? Science doesn't explain everything, it just attempts to, usually right too.

Woah~ Did someone decide to quit smoking today? :rolleyes:

First of all, relax. Jumping down my throat was completely uncalled for and unprovoked.

Second, I have no idea what voice you're referring to. You might want to increase your prescription.

The OP refers to the debaters as being under 14 so yeah, those kids.

Explain Creationism and then challenge anyone? You've lost me. :confused:

Unless you meant 'rather than challenge anyone.' in which case I'll clarify: The above which I had suggested would be more appropriate for their respective ages than declaring that the world has existed for infinity which sounds more kindergarten than high school.

Finally, "I wonder if they even pay attention in science class" means exactly what it says, but in case you need help reading between the lines, I'll give it:

I'm sarcastically implying that they don't know what they are talking about because of a deficiency in learning of a subject which I should hope would have been taught by the 8th or 9th grade.

In other words, I call dumb where I see it, and if that makes me aristocratic, then so be it.

It is safe to say that something is not within our comprehension. It is, in my opinion, an equal leap in faith to believe the Big Bang Theory, etc. as this still does not explain the existence of something we can not possibly understand. Whether it be rock, matter, God, etc., something is not captured within the finite realm of understanding. We can not interpret the lack of a beginning and an end.

To me, this whole argument begins and ends with the fact that infinity, while basically incomprehensible, is also basically assured, in some form.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e7/Dividebyzero.png



http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4e/I_divided_by_zero.jpg

i think it's something everyone's scared of, i think it's also called death, but that could lead into philosophical debate about whether you're dead before you're born (or in state of deadness), then you return to it afterlife.
as for the divide by 0 i don't get it either.

another thing that i have been thinking about recently is cryogenics, (even more off topic, but i feel the same way when i think about it) what would happen if you froze your self and never woke up? its the same sense of nothing, even though it would be just like euthenasia
also, I'm not afraid of death, but what comes after. i am a lapsed catholic/atheist/pastafarian (by the way, Google that, it has some very good arguments on the big bang/ intelligent design debate) its the sudden lack of setinece that gets me (by the way, i know that isent a word)

Woah~ Did someone decide to quit smoking today? :rolleyes:

First of all, relax. Jumping down my throat was completely uncalled for and unprovoked.

Second, I have no idea what voice you're referring to. You might want to increase your prescription.

The OP refers to the debaters as being under 14 so yeah, those kids.

Explain Creationism and then challenge anyone? You've lost me. :confused:

Unless you meant 'rather than challenge anyone.' in which case I'll clarify: The above which I had suggested would be more appropriate for their respective ages than declaring that the world has existed for infinity which sounds more kindergarten than high school.

Finally, "I wonder if they even pay attention in science class" means exactly what it says, but in case you need help reading between the lines, I'll give it:

I'm sarcastically implying that they don't know what they are talking about because of a deficiency in learning of a subject which I should hope would have been taught by the 8th or 9th grade.

In other words, I call dumb when I see it, and if that makes me aristocratic, then so be it.

Alright that's okay, no i've never smoked, but my dad does (he's sort of like santa big fat and with a white beard and very cheery).
okay maybe i was a little harsh on you, but just calling dumb doesn't mean anything, it just clarifies that you don't like some other people.
If they are dumb then why not enlighten them?

How old is 8th 9th grade? I'm from UK so it's a different system here.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e7/Dividebyzero.png



http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4e/I_divided_by_zero.jpg

Cheers, these (plus hatter ) actuality made me understand divide by zero.
By the way, im not being sarcastic

just as this is such a hot topic, and everyone is online, do you want to move to an off-site chat room?
there is a barely used chat room on a biological website called www.caudata.org
signing up is simple age-email-username stuff
i just think that this conversation could be a lot better if it were all at once

Alright that's okay, no i've never smoked, but my dad does (he's sort of like santa big fat and with a white beard and very cheery).
okay maybe i was a little harsh on you, but just calling dumb doesn't mean anything, it just clarifies that you don't like some other people.
If they are dumb then why not enlighten them?

How old is 8th 9th grade? I'm from UK so it's a different system here.

No sweat. Gave me a bit of a buzz I can ride on for the rest of the day. :)

And finding someone dumb doesn't automatically equate dislike, at least not with me, though I find that trying to enlighten the dumb is an exhaustive and frustrating task that I don't have the patience for.

In Canada, if I remember way, way back, 8th and 9th grade is around 14 years.

Only a Christian would believe in infinity :rolleyes:

No sweat. Gave me a bit of a buzz I can ride on for the rest of the day. :)

And finding someone dumb doesn't automatically equate dislike, at least not with me, though I find that trying to enlighten the dumb is an exhaustive and frustrating task that I don't have the patience for.

In Canada, if I remember way, way back, 8th and 9th grade is around 14 years.

Yes i can see that teaching dumb people can be very exhaustive, but at some point someone's got to tell them not to put their hand in the fire. Someone's got to teach them, and this is an awkward topic for me as well as others explaining the beginning of the universe may be like pushing water uphill, but then you've got to ask yourself why you were pushing water uphill in the first place.
Sorry i started messing about with sayings, anyway what i mean is at some point everyone is going to wonder how they became "real", and it's interesting to imagine the possibilities.
But the main thing that strikes me is that even if you can by argument prove the universe was created or not, you can't go to the start of the universe and watch it happen, or the end and see it die (if it does die), there are many theories but none can be proved, i think it's part of philosophical theory under metaphysics.

Creationism? Wow...I thought we took care of that as a viable stance on the way the world was created a while ago.

Only a Christian would believe in infinity :rolleyes:

not true, or are you being sarcastic?
Even then what's wrong with being a christian? (apart from the obvious flaws in the bibles and teachings, and mass murder all in name of a higher being).
nothing wrong with infinity, there's always room for more and just because it's too hard to picture doesn't mean it's not there.:D

First off i think on the creationism Vs. infinity sublect infinities wrong. the earth was not around for ever it has a definite start but if you say the universe has been around for infinity then thats true because there was time before the big bang and who knows every quadrillion years the universe can collide and start over again.
Now my theory on creation Vs. Big bang/ evolution is this combine the two... god started the big bang set down the laws of physics and put down several other laws and then sat back and observed and who knows to God our life spans can be like miliseconds because if God has an infinite life span who knows how old God is and the older you get time always seems to speed up so if Gods 867,456,812,375 years old time must be hitting the speed of light
oh and if none of you havn't figured it out yet you can't divide any number by zero because zero can't go in to anything you get infinitey.

[QUOTE=Andrewican texas;13309029]First off i think on the creationism Vs. infinity sublect infinities wrong. the earth was not around for ever it has a definite start but if you say the universe has been around for infinity then thats true because there was time before the big bang and who knows every quadrillion years the universe can collide and start over again.
QUOTE]

The part about God creating the universe (i hope i'm not gravedigging, i apologise if i am), if God is infinite why can't the universe also be infinite?

just remember; Infinity welcomes careful drivers ;)

I must say I am with Mad Hatters on this one.

Scientists have measured the age of the Universe based on background radiations in the... well... observable Universe. Considering we know of no physical limit to the Universe, nor can we conceive such a limit or a way to observe it, it is reasonable to assume there is none. I know, I know, absence of evidence is no evidence of absence but the principle of contingency votes with non-existence when existence is unprovable.

Thus the Universe is most likely infinite space-wise.

Time-wise, just because it is limited by the present, it does not follow that it must also have another limit... a beginning. Think of a line in geometry. Cutting a line at one point does not make it any less infinite at the other end. It does not in any way necessitate another limit, thus turning it into a segment.

Your logic fails where you claim that we know of no physical limit to the universe. We do. It's got a radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years, and is expanding at the speed of light. Ergo, it is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

Your logic fails where you claim that we know of no physical limit to the universe. We do. It's got a radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years, and is expanding at the speed of light. Ergo, it is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

Well that's nice, but i have to say i don't really like logic, i mean it's useful for breaking down arguments into valid/invalid/sound/unsound/deductive/inductive. But all you need to do for logic is convince someone else you're right. and you are.
I was taught it in Philosophy and we often had different answers than the teacher and that's because it's open to interpretation, yes it's useful but it's not definate like maths or science.

Well that's nice, but i have to say i don't really like logic, i mean it's useful for breaking down arguments into valid/invalid/sound/unsound/deductive/inductive. But all you need to do for logic is convince someone else you're right. and you are.
I was taught it in Philosophy and we often had different answers than the teacher and that's because it's open to interpretation, yes it's useful but it's not definate like maths or science.

What?

What?

Sorry, what i mean is that logic isn't always right. but then you could argue about what "right" really is.

So really i was talking about something else.

I must say I am with Mad Hatters on this one.

Scientists have measured the age of the Universe based on background radiations in the... well... observable Universe. Considering we know of no physical limit to the Universe, nor can we conceive such a limit or a way to observe it, it is reasonable to assume there is none. I know, I know, absence of evidence is no evidence of absence but the principle of contingency votes with non-existence when existence is unprovable.

Thus the Universe is most likely infinite space-wise.

Time-wise, just because it is limited by the present, it does not follow that it must also have another limit... a beginning. Think of a line in geometry. Cutting a line at one point does not make it any less infinite at the other end. It does not in any way necessitate another limit, thus turning it into a segment.

The age of the universe thus far can be inferred from two things. The rate at which things are moving apart and the behavior of the most distant objects.

If two cars are moving away from eachother at 100 mph and they are a hundred miles apart, you can infer that they either passed eachother or both started from the same place 30 minutes ago. Same with planets.

Also, as objects get farther away they look as cosmological theories suggest our neck of the woods would have looked that long ago. i.e. objects that are 14 billion light years away look like we think the universe looked 14 billion years ago. A bit like checking those cars gas tanks to see how much gas they have left to see how much driving they've done.

Also, the fact that we don't see anything more than about 15 billion light years away suggests that anything that's there giving off light wasn't there less than 15 billion years ago. Or to put it another way, nothing was there more than 15 billion years ago.

Now to look at it another way. Imagine if you've been asked to check if there are any cars more than 100 miles away right now. You know that a car left, going 100 mph an hour ago, so you run after it to see how far it got. Even if you travel 100 mph, by the time you get to where you thought the car was, it's gone another 100 miles. By the same token, we can't check to see what's 15 billion years away to see if there really is an end to space because in an expanding universe, even the light we send to show us won't get back to tell us, and even the light it has sent still hasn't gotten to us. It's meaningless to talk about what is more than 15 billion light years away because there is no way for us to interact with that point without the ability to travel faster than light.

The part about God creating the universe (i hope i'm not gravedigging, i apologise if i am), if God is infinite why can't the universe also be infinite?

Because the oldest things in it appear to be 15 billion light years away. If there is anything further away than that, it wasn't emitting light 15 billion years ago. That is a spatial/temporal limit < infinity.

I was having a debate with a few friends about the creation of the World, and I thought I would raise the question up to NSG, as I know that you guys could either laugh at my poor debating skills or help me out. This was a pretty simplistic debate, as the participants were neither over 14 or had a good understanding of what they were arguing for, so I dont expect this to present much of a challenge to you intellectuals. :P

...

Now I had never heard of this theory before, and am fully aware that I may have embarassed myself by raising up a ridiculous senario. I myself find it very hard to believe as I dont believe that infinity itself can be possible, and if you can discredit infinity, you can discredit the theory. I think everything has to have a start, nothing can start from nowhere. The only thing we know to be actually infinite are numbers, which dont physically exist anyway. Now I find it hard to argue the case of Creationism; more specifically Christianity, as I can see how the notion of a God, and the whole ressurection story can seem very dubious, but I believe it as that is the idea of Faith, and I am fine with that. Whereas this idea to me seems much harder to believe, as to many alternate theories.. Anyway. This is more on the subject of infinity. Or whether I am very stupid for not being able to discredit this theory. :P

There is a notion called the "Steady State Hypothesis." Ironically, the Big Bang theory was named by Steady-State proponents. Or perhaps I should say, it was named in irony be the Steady State proponents. The term was intended to mock the idea and the name stuck.

The Steady State Hypothesis has been largely discredited, but there are a few fossils who still believe it. They aregue that because new matter does enter into the universe the expansion of the universe accomodates it.

But the hypothesis has been unable to explain why even supergalaxy clusters give us no visible light from more than 15 billion light years away (they should if they were always there.)

Also, the known rate at which new matter enters the universe is not enough to explain the expansion, and why winding the "clock" back would lead to a crunch. btw, the matter isn't new per se. But when pairs of particles and anti-particles appear, they usually destroy eachother. If they appear near a black hole, sometimes the anti particle gets sucked in and destroys part of the black hole instead, leaving a brand new particle to float around the universe.

Your logic fails where you claim that we know of no physical limit to the universe. We do. It's got a radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years, and is expanding at the speed of light. Ergo, it is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

:confused:

source?

The age of the universe thus far can be inferred from two things. The rate at which things are moving apart and the behavior of the most distant objects.

If two cars are moving away from eachother at 100 mph and they are a hundred miles apart, you can infer that they either passed eachother or both started from the same place 30 minutes ago. Same with planets.

Also, as objects get farther away they look as cosmological theories suggest our neck of the woods would have looked that long ago. i.e. objects that are 14 billion light years away look like we think the universe looked 14 billion years ago. A bit like checking those cars gas tanks to see how much gas they have left to see how much driving they've done.

Also, the fact that we don't see anything more than about 15 billion light years away suggests that anything that's there giving off light wasn't there less than 15 billion years ago. Or to put it another way, nothing was there more than 15 billion years ago.

Now to look at it another way. Imagine if you've been asked to check if there are any cars more than 100 miles away right now. You know that a car left, going 100 mph an hour ago, so you run after it to see how far it got. Even if you travel 100 mph, by the time you get to where you thought the car was, it's gone another 100 miles. By the same token, we can't check to see what's 15 billion years away to see if there really is an end to space because in an expanding universe, even the light we send to show us won't get back to tell us, and even the light it has sent still hasn't gotten to us. It's meaningless to talk about what is more than 15 billion light years away because there is no way for us to interact with that point without the ability to travel faster than light.

Inference is all nice and dandy but it is not logically acceptable as truth. In mathematics, where the patterns given are not subject to any interpretation other than their one possible meaning it's fine, but when you are talking about the Universe, you can only make such inferences if you have perfect knowledge of what you are talking about. (e.g.: How do you know that the background radiation spectrum scientists used for these estimates is the only one out there? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)

And even if this was true then it still reveals nothing about the early times of the Universe.

Because the oldest things in it appear to be 15 billion light years away. If there is anything further away than that, it wasn't emitting light 15 billion years ago. That is a spatial/temporal limit < infinity.

It may not have been emitting light (or other radiation) that we today can measure.:)

Or it has been emitting light, but according to the second law of thermodynamics all things tend towards entropy, including electromagnetic waves (I can't quite remember the name of the phenomenon in which EM waves drop in the spectrum) so it got to a point where it ceased to be observable.:) If that source is sufficiently far away in space and time then it would not have been observable. I know this is only speculation but you are the first people to claim that the Universe has a wall 15 billion light years away - no scientist/physicist ever said that (to my knowledge).

His reply was "Imgaine the numbers 1 and 2. Two finite numbers but between them there is an infinite amount of numbers." Didn't change my views of the start of the Universe but definitely stunned me and will remember that for a long time.

This isn't stunning so much as it is basic calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function).

Some basic calculus would also provide an explanation for the proper use of the concept of "infinity," rendering this thread unnecessary.

(eg. Life being created from nothing)


As much as I'm told they exist, I have yet to run into any authority in the biological sciences who claims that life came from nothing. Probably because such a claim would be scientifically unsound, and thus absurd.

As much as I'm told they exist, I have yet to run into any authority in the biological sciences who claims that life came from nothing. Probably because such a claim would be scientifically unsound, and thus absurd.

Did you miss the thread about artificial bacteria?

Did you miss the thread about artificial bacteria?

Does someone claim that "made my man" means "made from nothing?"

It may not have been emitting light (or other radiation) that we today can measure.:)

Or it has been emitting light, but according to the second law of thermodynamics all things tend towards entropy, including electromagnetic waves (I can't quite remember the name of the phenomenon in which EM waves drop in the spectrum) so it got to a point where it ceased to be observable.:) If that source is sufficiently far away in space and time then it would not have been observable. I know this is only speculation but you are the first people to claim that the Universe has a wall 15 billion light years away - no scientist/physicist ever said that (to my knowledge).

We're not claiming that there is a wall. We're saying that there's a limit. A wall implies that there's something on the other side.

It may not have been emitting light (or other radiation) that we today can measure.:)

Or it has been emitting light, but according to the second law of thermodynamics all things tend towards entropy, including electromagnetic waves (I can't quite remember the name of the phenomenon in which EM waves drop in the spectrum) so it got to a point where it ceased to be observable.:) If that source is sufficiently far away in space and time then it would not have been observable. I know this is only speculation but you are the first people to claim that the Universe has a wall 15 billion light years away - no scientist/physicist ever said that (to my knowledge).

Red Shifting. It's the EMR equivalent of the Doppler effect.

And I never said that it was a wall 15 billion light years away. See my analogy with the 100 mph car.

We can see things that are 15 billion light years away and they are not at the threshold of observable radiation. White light appears as microwaves it gets so redshifted, but radiation further to the violet end would still be observable if it was there. Its absence indicates that if anything is there now, it wasn't there 15+ billion light years ago.

I was having a debate with a few friends about the creation of the World, and I thought I would raise the question up to NSG, as I know that you guys could either laugh at my poor debating skills or help me out. This was a pretty simplistic debate, as the participants were neither over 14 or had a good understanding of what they were arguing for, so I dont expect this to present much of a challenge to you intellectuals. :P

Basically, it started off from the basic Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism (me fighting the side of Creationism), and mainly because of their lack of knowledge of the subject, I had them stumped. Then they brought up something which I have not really thought about too much, and confused me a slight bit - Infinity. They claimed that the World has been here for 'Infinity', and although there was an absolutely tiny possiblity that the World would turn out as it is by chance (eg. Life being created from nothing), as the World has been here for 'infinity' amount of time, it would eventually turn out like this. Its hard to put across, but they basically said that in 'infinity', anything and everything possible will happen as it is there for so long, the Earth would go through many cycles and has now eventually arrived in its current state.

Now I had never heard of this theory before, and am fully aware that I may have embarassed myself by raising up a ridiculous senario. I myself find it very hard to believe as I dont believe that infinity itself can be possible, and if you can discredit infinity, you can discredit the theory. I think everything has to have a start, nothing can start from nowhere. The only thing we know to be actually infinite are numbers, which dont physically exist anyway. Now I find it hard to argue the case of Creationism; more specifically Christianity, as I can see how the notion of a God, and the whole ressurection story can seem very dubious, but I believe it as that is the idea of Faith, and I am fine with that. Whereas this idea to me seems much harder to believe, as to many alternate theories.. Anyway. This is more on the subject of infinity. Or whether I am very stupid for not being able to discredit this theory. :P


First you have to consider that there's multiple sizes of infinity, then pick which infinity you will work with. :rolleyes: No one seems knows that there's infinite sizes of infinity, so I present you with another paradox. I know you're going to say "Shit, he derailed the discussion" but I must show you

Inference is all nice and dandy but it is not logically acceptable as truth. In mathematics, where the patterns given are not subject to any interpretation other than their one possible meaning it's fine, but when you are talking about the Universe, you can only make such inferences if you have perfect knowledge of what you are talking about. (e.g.: How do you know that the background radiation spectrum scientists used for these estimates is the only one out there? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)

And even if this was true then it still reveals nothing about the early times of the Universe.

Um, inference is what science is all about. You observe the data and then make inferences based on it. Then you set up experiments to see if your pretictions, based on your inferences, are correct.

Unless you're going to take a 15 billion light year ruler, inference is what we go on.

No one interacts with the world based on raw data. To claim that inference is not enough is the same mistake creationists make when they say that evolution is "just a theory."

And early times of the universe are revealed by the fact that because it takes so long for light to get to us, what we see appears as it did as far back in history as its distance in light years indicates.

e.g. when we look at the sun it appears as it did 8 minutes ago because it is 8 light minutes away. By the same token, when we look at things that are 15 billion light years away they just look like clouds of radiation, which indicates that's what the universe was 15 billion years ago. When we look farther than 15 billion light years away we see nothing. Indicating that that's what was around more than 15 billion years ago.

This isn't stunning so much as it is basic calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function).

Some basic calculus would also provide an explanation for the proper use of the concept of "infinity," rendering this thread unnecessary.

Lol, I know about limits of functions, thank you :-) I simply stated that I'd never thought of infinity in that way and that it made me think quite hard about it.

As for "life forming from nothing", it didn't form from "nothing". The simplest way to describe how life began is through chemical reactions. All that "life" really is is a load of these; brain works through eletrical signals caused by chemical changes, resipration/digestion etc. All chemicals, nothing sinister.

Meh... Evolution has been observed (in butterflies for example), whereas this has not only not been observed, but neither can it ever be observed... speculating about unprovable facts is called pseudo-science not science. And this was supposed to be a philosophical debate as far as I am aware.

I believe you are under the impression I do not understand what you are saying. I do very well. You are saying that if you cannot see anything more than 15 billion light years away it must mean that there was nothing there 15 billion years ago. But you have a very limited observation point. For example, take 15 billion years old system on the right and another one to the left, diametrically opposite. From either, if you observe the other (if indeed you could do this), what conclusion would you reach? That the Universe is 30 billion years old? what about what you can observe on the opposite side of us, of the chosen system?

Meh... Evolution has been observed (in butterflies for example), whereas this has not only not been observed, but neither can it ever be observed... speculating about unprovable facts is called pseudo-science not science. And this was supposed to be a philosophical debate as far as I am aware.Philosophy is not about science, you should know that. Philosophy is almost the opposite of science. Creationism is a philosophical theory that probably can never be proved one way of the other. We can, however, look at what we know and figure out what is most likely, and that is what this debate, I think, is about.

Philosophy is not about science, you should know that. Philosophy is almost the opposite of science. Creationism is a philosophical theory that probably can never be proved one way of the other. We can, however, look at what we know and figure out what is most likely, and that is what this debate, I think, is about.

But science, like various philosophies has some axioms it relies on. And the fact that, from limited data, we so easily conclude that the Universe is likely not to be infinite does not disprove that it may be infinite (you know... you can't have more of a quantity in the conclusion than in the argument to the same parameter... basic logic).

But science, like various philosophies has some axioms it relies on. And the fact that, from limited data, we so easily conclude that the Universe is likely not to be infinite does not disprove that it may be infinite (you know... you can't have more of a quantity in the conclusion than in the argument to the same parameter... basic logic).

It also doesn't disprove the idea that the universe is a giant purple chicken. Doesn't mean we should give that idea serious consideration.

It also doesn't disprove the idea that the universe is a giant purple chicken. Doesn't mean we should give that idea serious consideration.We should. I'll start a thread!

It also doesn't disprove the idea that the universe is a giant purple chicken. Doesn't mean we should give that idea serious consideration.

Yes, this purple chicken you speak of, when was it created? does it have any resemblance to the chickens we have on earth?
Perhaps the numbers of chickens indicates that it is actually copying the universe for the best survival characteristics, in terms of long term survival, ie if the universe can last so long looking like a chicken maybe i can.
(did you know that for every human on earth there are 3 chickens?)

Yes, this purple chicken you speak of, when was it created? does it have any resemblance to the chickens we have on earth?
Perhaps the numbers of chickens indicates that it is actually copying the universe for the best survival characteristics, in terms of long term survival, ie if the universe can last so long looking like a chicken maybe i can.
(did you know that for every human on earth there are 3 chickens?)Talk about it in the thread!

I think everything has to have a start, nothing can start from nowhere.

A circle extends infinitly. It has neither an end, nor a start. A line, also extends infinitly. (No, this is a line, not a segment or a ray).

Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed.

I therefor view the universe in a circle. It had no beginning and has no end. It just exists, I think you can attempt to retrace the past of the universe, but you will never find the beginning.

Also think from this perspective. The universe is relevant to everything within it including space. Space is nothingness. So technically, whether or not there was ever any matter in space, we know the universe has infinitly existed because you cannot create nor destroy nothingness, or zero.

A circle extends infinitly. It has neither an end, nor a start. A line, also extends infinitly. (No, this is a line, not a segment or a ray).

Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed.

I therefor view the universe in a circle. It had no beginning and has no end. It just exists, I think you can attempt to retrace the past of the universe, but you will never find the beginning.

Also think from this perspective. The universe is relevant to everything within it including space. Space is nothingness. So technically, whether or not there was ever any matter in space, we know the universe has infinitly existed because you cannot create nor destroy nothingness, or zero.

But you can't get a perfect circle, so it must start somewhere.
But other than this little quibble your post is convincing

I believe you are under the impression I do not understand what you are saying. I do very well. You are saying that if you cannot see anything more than 15 billion light years away it must mean that there was nothing there 15 billion years ago. But you have a very limited observation point. For example, take 15 billion years old system on the right and another one to the left, diametrically opposite. From either, if you observe the other (if indeed you could do this), what conclusion would you reach? That the Universe is 30 billion years old? what about what you can observe on the opposite side of us, of the chosen system?

No. The fact that it is expanding in all directions at the same speed indicates that the universe would be about 30 billion light-years wide and 15 billion years old. Much the same as if two cars travel away from each other at 100 mph for an hour they will be 200 miles apart.

But since we can see tremendously energetic phenomena 15 billion light years away with a fairly comfortable margin for visibiilty means that if there were anything comperable a little further away then we'd be able to see it by now unless it didn't exist 15 billion years ago.

The universe is expanding, and at the rate we see it expanding we can calculate that about 15 billion years ago it would have all been in the same spot.

This tells us that the universe got its start 15 billion years ago.

The fact that nothing travels faster than light tells us that since everything we see got started in the same spot and we don't see anything older from further away, then the universe is also 30 billion light-years wide. We don't know that another big bang didn't also happen 50 billion light years away at the same time, but it doesn't make sense to talk about it in a scientific sense because it can't be measured, or interacted with. It's the same reason science doesn't ususally talk about God. Not because we think he doesn't exist, but because he can't be tested. And besides, if there was another Big Bang, it would be another universe, not this one.

Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Sure it can. Happens all the time.

No. The fact that it is expanding in all directions at the same speed indicates that the universe would be about 30 billion light-years wide and 15 billion years old. Much the same as if two cars travel away from each other at 100 mph for an hour they will be 200 miles apart.

But since we can see tremendously energetic phenomena 15 billion light years away with a fairly comfortable margin for visibiilty means that if there were anything comperable a little further away then we'd be able to see it by now unless it didn't exist 15 billion years ago.

The universe is expanding, and at the rate we see it expanding we can calculate that about 15 billion years ago it would have all been in the same spot.

This tells us that the universe got its start 15 billion years ago.

The fact that nothing travels faster than light tells us that since everything we see got started in the same spot and we don't see anything older from further away, then the universe is also 30 billion light-years wide. We don't know that another big bang didn't also happen 50 billion light years away at the same time, but it doesn't make sense to talk about it in a scientific sense because it can't be measured, or interacted with. It's the same reason science doesn't ususally talk about God. Not because we think he doesn't exist, but because he can't be tested. And besides, if there was another Big Bang, it would be another universe, not this one.

Ouch... with this post you've killed your position.

So then? The Universe is 30 billion light years across and 15 billion years old hmm? And we just Happen to be in the middle?:rolleyes: As in the Universe is 15 billion years old in all directions? as in what it would look like if we were, say, at the centre of... uhm... well an observation sphere? Scientifically and logically: which is more likely? that we are in the centre of the Universe and observation from our perspective will hit a 15 billion year wall all around?; or that we observe a constant limit that applies in all directions, that applies to our current observation techniques?

Also there is no evidence that the rate at which the expansion takes place now (including the acceleration factor) is consistent through earlier periods, because, well, we weren't there to observe it. Consider that balances of black matter and anti-gravity with matter and gravity, even though overall should be consistent, must not necessarily be homogeneous (i.e. not all galaxies distance from each other - e.g. the recent thread about the milky way as a cannibal galaxy, or seehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13818793.100-science-galactic-cannibalism-has-made-milky-way-big-and-fat.html) ) so what we observe now, need not be the general case. That's why I maintain that inference in this case isn't at all useful.

Also as regarding to the speed of light, you are quite misinformed. c is merely a constant, not an absolute threshold for the speed of particles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Justifications_for_FTL_travel)

Sure it can. Happens all the time.

As per quantum physics? Which has no observable patterns of movement and causality? Yet you support that 20 years of astronomical measurements make observations absolute, inviolable truth and thus we can safely infer the age of the Universe? When you've just ditched causality?

:confused:

Ouch... with this post you've killed your position.

So then? The Universe is 30 billion light years across and 15 billion years old hmm? And we just Happen to be in the middle?:rolleyes: As in the Universe is 15 billion years old in all directions? as in what it would look like if we were, say, at the centre of... uhm... well an observation sphere? Scientifically and logically: which is more likely? that we are in the centre of the Universe and observation from our perspective will hit a 15 billion year wall all around?; or that we observe a constant limit that applies in all directions, that applies to our current observation techniques?

You still don't understand how it works. We're not in the exact center. If you were to look out at the universe from any other position it would look pretty much the same. The fact that we can't see more than 15 billion years ago tells us the chronological age of the universe. The limit on the expansion of the universe confirm its size. (the wike you linked to is all conjecture.)


Also there is no evidence that the rate at which the expansion takes place now (including the acceleration factor) is consistent through earlier periods, because, well, we weren't there to observe it. Consider that balances of black matter and anti-gravity with matter and gravity, even though overall should be consistent, must not necessarily be homogeneous (i.e. not all galaxies distance from each other - e.g. the recent thread about the milky way as a cannibal galaxy, or seehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13818793.100-science-galactic-cannibalism-has-made-milky-way-big-and-fat.html) ) so what we observe now, need not be the general case. That's why I maintain that inference in this case isn't at all useful.

You can't expel inference from science. Inference is the act of interpreting raw data. There's no way to tell the age of anything without inference. The odometer in my car reads 72,000, I infer from that that my car has been driven seventy-two thousand miles. Complaining about inference is dumb.

There are variables that may not have been accounted for in measuring the current expansion of the univers and extrapolating into the pase, but that calculation agrees quite closely with the fact that nothing seems to be visible from more than 15 billion light-years away.


Also as regarding to the speed of light, you are quite misinformed. c is merely a constant, not an absolute threshold for the speed of particles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Justifications_for_FTL_travel)

That's all science fiction. There is no evidence of anything surpassing the speed of light in a vacum. Once matter approaches that speed its mass approaches infinity, meaning that there is not enough power in the universe to propel even a speck of dust to the speed of light.

You still don't understand how it works. We're not in the exact center. If you were to look out at the universe from any other position it would look pretty much the same. The fact that we can't see more than 15 billion years ago tells us the chronological age of the universe. The limit on the expansion of the universe confirm its size. (the wike you linked to is all conjecture.)

I am afraid you don't quite understand this either. How can they tell something is 15 billion years old? Only by calculating how far they are in light years. Galaxies don't have it written into them their age. You said yourself that nothing we observe is farther thus it cannot be older. And from where we are looking we cannot see anything farther than 15 billion light years away, in all directions. How else can I interpret this?

Oh and from the fact that something we see is 15 billion light years away implies what we see is 15 billion years old, it does not follow that we must see anything older farther away. Not to mention that there is no way of determining the age of what we are observing prior to the moment we are observing 15 billion years later.



You can't expel inference from science. Inference is the act of interpreting raw data. There's no way to tell the age of anything without inference. The odometer in my car reads 72,000, I infer from that that my car has been driven seventy-two thousand miles. Complaining about inference is dumb.

There are variables that may not have been accounted for in measuring the current expansion of the univers and extrapolating into the pase, but that calculation agrees quite closely with the fact that nothing seems to be visible from more than 15 billion light-years away.


Very inadequate example. The odometer has been set up to count the miles, whereas there is nothing similarly mechanic in the Universe. And complaining about inference isn't dumb especially considering that you do not even have perfect data for what you are observing now, let alone prior moments. You don't account for all variables involved yet you just infer away... riiiight.


That's all science fiction. There is no evidence of anything surpassing the speed of light in a vacum. Once matter approaches that speed its mass approaches infinity, meaning that there is not enough power in the universe to propel even a speck of dust to the speed of light.

Actually it's all theoretical physics. The same theoretical physics you use to determine your age of the Universe. It may have been hijacked by SF but it is all theoretically possible and there are an increasing numbers of studies that support that they have observed faster than light speeds. Google it:)

I am afraid you don't quite understand this either. How can they tell something is 15 billion years old? Only by calculating how far they are in light years. Galaxies don't have it written into them their age. You said yourself that nothing we observe is farther thus it cannot be older. And from where we are looking we cannot see anything farther than 15 billion light years away, in all directions. How else can I interpret this?

Oh and from the fact that something we see is 15 billion light years away implies what we see is 15 billion years old, it does not follow that we must see anything older farther away. Not to mention that there is no way of determining the age of what we are observing prior to the moment we are observing 15 billion years later.

If there was anything with the energy of a quasar further away and old enough to have been sending light our way 16 billion years ago, we would see it even if it was 16 billion light-years away. If the universe is infinite (your original argument was with my contention that it is not) then not only should we be able to see things that are further away than 15 billion light-years, but we should also be able to see galaxies, or at least super-galaxies, that look very much like our own because they would have been there 15 billion years ago, perhaps dying out only to allow their remaining elements to fuel galaxies on a collision course.


Very inadequate example. The odometer has been set up to count the miles, whereas there is nothing similarly mechanic in the Universe. And complaining about inference isn't dumb especially considering that you do not even have perfect data for what you are observing now, let alone prior moments. You don't account for all variables involved yet you just infer away... riiiight.

That's what makes it a perfect example. I was trying to point out to you that inference cannot be taken out of science. No matter how cut-and-dry you think you knowledge is, it is still only an inference based on your data. All an odometer tells you is where the numbers on your car are. It doesn't tell you if those numbers are there because the car drove that far or because someone cracked open the odometer and wound it back.



Actually it's all theoretical physics. The same theoretical physics you use to determine your age of the Universe. It may have been hijacked by SF but it is all theoretically possible and there are an increasing numbers of studies that support that they have observed faster than light speeds. Google it:)

No, it's conjectural. Nothing has ever been done to show that any of the variables in that wiki have ever had a hand in the formation of the universe. Those things only happen in tightly controlled environments.

And this is the last I will say to try to explain the cosmos to you. If you ever find yourself in New York please visit the Hayden Planetarium at the Museum of Natural History. They've got all sorts of models to show you how it works that show the scale of the universe all the way down to sub-atomic particles.

If there was anything with the energy of a quasar further away and old enough to have been sending light our way 16 billion years ago, we would see it even if it was 16 billion light-years away. If the universe is infinite (your original argument was with my contention that it is not) then not only should we be able to see things that are further away than 15 billion light-years, but we should also be able to see galaxies, or at least super-galaxies, that look very much like our own because they would have been there 15 billion years ago, perhaps dying out only to allow their remaining elements to fuel galaxies on a collision course.

Mhmm, so the 15 billion years old galaxies would be dying? Like an instant after the Big Bang?

You really don't get it do you? If there was a Big Bang 15 billion years ago then what we should see 15 billion light years away should be the projection of the point from where the Big Bang originated. But what do we see? Fully formed galaxies far along their development cycle.

That's what makes it a perfect example. I was trying to point out to you that inference cannot be taken out of science. No matter how cut-and-dry you think you knowledge is, it is still only an inference based on your data. All an odometer tells you is where the numbers on your car are. It doesn't tell you if those numbers are there because the car drove that far or because someone cracked open the odometer and wound it back.

Except the odometer was made with the specific purpose of measuring the distance covered (that or to deceive you about it). What you are basing your inferences on, was not created with the purpose, and whether or not they are accurate is mere speculation, particularly when you haven't (as you yourself said) accounted for all variables.


No, it's conjectural. Nothing has ever been done to show that any of the variables in that wiki have ever had a hand in the formation of the universe. Those things only happen in tightly controlled environments.

Mhmm. So real physical phenomena happens only in human made conditions? Ok so how is that relevant to your point? What I've said is that c is merely a constant, not an absolute real limit to the Universe, which is a basic assumption behind your previous point and behind your whole cosmology. The very fact that these phenomena are possible is contrary to the assumptions of your whole cosmology, regardless of the conditions in which they occur. Your cosmology says these cannot occur, yet they are shown to be possible. Ok?


And this is the last I will say to try to explain the cosmos to you. If you ever find yourself in New York please visit the Hayden Planetarium at the Museum of Natural History. They've got all sorts of models to show you how it works that show the scale of the universe all the way down to sub-atomic particles.

:rolleyes: ... also in America, Creation Museums.