LogicalFallacy

Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

Recommended Posts

Hi BAA

I just following the MOTB thread and I noticed you had this line:

"3. But none of Genesis can be true because verse 1 : 1 is totally contradicted, refuted and falsified by the scientific evidence of the origin of the universe"

So, I understand this, however Genesis 1:1 is so vague that whatever scientific evidence I bring up is meet by Christians with "well that's in the bible." So, for example, there was a beginning - the Big Bang. Naturally you can follow that with Genesis 1:1. In fact Christians use this argument by saying that the fact science has discovered a beginning 'proves' the bible. God created the Big Bang and thus formed the heavens and the earth. (An eternal universe on the other hand would pose serious problems for Genesis 1:1) When its pointed out that this (this being what science says about early universe formation) is how suns were formed, and planets etc it's met with "Yes that was God 'creating and forming'".

I personally cannot see any contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and early universe formation due to its innate vagueness... apart from the God bit, but we can't refute God directly with science. (Most likely cause he's not there to refute!) This inability to properly refute Genesis 1:1 might be due to lack of knowledge of the finer points of the discussion on my part so hoping you can shed some light on this.

I was going to PM you, but thought your answers may benefit others. (Also your box is full... lol)

PS if anyone else has input please feel free - I'm not necessarily trying to restrict answer to just BAA biggrin.png
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



Hi BAA

 

I just following the MOTB thread and I noticed you had this line:

 

"3. But none of Genesis can be true because verse 1 : 1 is totally contradicted, refuted and falsified by the scientific evidence of the origin of the universe"

 

So, I understand this, however Genesis 1:1 is so vague that whatever scientific evidence I bring up is meet by Christians with "well that's in the bible." So, for example, there was a beginning - the Big Bang. Naturally you can follow that with Genesis 1:1. In fact Christians use this argument by saying that the fact science has discovered a beginning 'proves' the bible. God created the Big Bang and thus formed the heavens and the earth. (An eternal universe on the other hand would pose serious problems for Genesis 1:1) When its pointed out that this (this being what science says about early universe formation) is how suns were formed, and planets etc it's met with "Yes that was God 'creating and forming'".

 

I personally cannot see any contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and early universe formation due to its innate vagueness... apart from the God bit, but we can't refute God directly with science. (Most likely cause he's not there to refute!) This inability to properly refute Genesis 1:1 might be due to lack of knowledge of the finer points of the discussion on my part so hoping you can shed some light on this.

 

I was going to PM you, but thought your answers may benefit others. (Also your box is full... lol)

 

PS if anyone else has input please feel free - I'm not necessarily trying to restrict answer to just BAA biggrin.png

 

 

Hey LF!

 

In fact, you and I visited this topic fairly recently.  Here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/74685-see-if-you-can-spot-the-problem-with-this-theology/?hl=copernican#entry1127752 Specifically, post # 8, where I wrote this.

.

.

.

These four things listed below, when taken together and correctly applied to the evidence, ensure that cosmology and scripture cannot be reconciled.  

Thus the Bible fails at verse one, falsifying all of it.

Which I call the 'decapitation' of Christianity, making any need to look beyond the first verse... superfluous.

 

The Copernican Principle   https://en.wikipedia...nican_principle

 

Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor) https://philosophyno...rds_as_possible

 

Inflationary Cosmology http://www.ctc.cam.a...lation_zero.php

 

The Infinite Replication Paradox http://www.rationals...ism-t21843.html (See post # 2, by Teuton)

.

.

.

Presumably you'd like me to explain just how these four things should be taken together and correctly applied to the evidence?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! Fail on my part - I do remember that now you mention it. I had only started on Copernican principle. (This is what happens when you try and study too many fields at the same time to build a comprehensive argument. Evolution, history, archaeology, cosmology. Currently been arguing evolution with my father, who apparently can distinguish true science from false science.)

 

I'll set aside some time to study this and post back with my combined understanding. Then we can see if I have applied the principles correctly.

 

Apologies BAA I should have remembered that post!

 

Thanks

LF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! Fail on my part - I do remember that now you mention it. I had only started on Copernican principle. (This is what happens when you try and study too many fields at the same time to build a comprehensive argument. Evolution, history, archaeology, cosmology. Currently been arguing evolution with my father, who apparently can distinguish true science from false science.)

 

I'll set aside some time to study this and post back with my combined understanding. Then we can see if I have applied the principles correctly.

 

Apologies BAA I should have remembered that post!

 

Thanks

LF

 

No problem, LF.

 

Take your time, but do please take into account something else I wrote in post # 8. 

 

"Theists always cheat when trying to reconcile science with Genesis 1 : 1"

 

Hint:

They do not apply the Copernican principle correctly to the process of cosmic Inflation.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump - just to keep this topic active. I'm still working on it. I wrote something beautiful the other day about all this and I've lost it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump - just to keep this topic active. I'm still working on it. I wrote something beautiful the other day about all this and I've lost it. sad.png

 

And I'm preparing the necessary info for whenever you're ready, LF.

 

No rush and no pressure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point of argument further down the line is that Genesis does not tell us in any real way about origins, at all.

 

It's cut off at 1:1 with the science, but if they try and move forward there's a myriad of problems following in the wake.

Light before the sun, moon and stars. What light? An evening and morning, a first "day" without the "sun" - which is the method for marking days, years, months and time in general. Its stated clearly that the creation of the sun, moon and stars was for the purpose of marking days, but not until the fourth day. Three "days" go by with no way of calculating "days." Genesis 1 also has grass growing on the dry land on the third "day," one day before the existence of the sun, moon and stars.

Liberal Christians will part with the fundies and say that it's not written literally.

Obviously. We can cross literally true off the list of possibilities thereby cutting the head right off of every literalistic, YEC Fundie.

That leaves the liberals with only the option, symbolic.

 

But symbolic of what? The liberal thinkers will come up with Old Earth Creation (OEC) ideas. Perhaps the days are symbolic of millions or billions of years and can include evolution.

 

Not so fast. The problem remains. How were billions of years going by before the existence of the sun? How were any days or years taking place on earth with no sun? The fourth "day" would be the fourth cluster of billions of years considering the idea that the days weren't literal. And this only makes the OEC apology worse! Grass growing on dry land billions of years (a day) before the existence of the sun, moon and stars? The order and arrangement is always off whether going with literal days or billions of years.

 

So what now? If we can't take it literally and when taken symbolically the order and arrangement still doesn't work, it's time to ask the glaring question of who wrote this, when, and was it original to the writer or was it adapted from earlier creation accounts?

It's simply near eastern mythology retold, quite late, by Jewish writers making use of what they had available at the time. Do you want to dissect it as mythology for the believer?

When analyzed closely it becomes apparent that the writer(s) only used a 7 day order simply for the sake of using the sacred number of 7. The number 7 was a sacred number long before any of this was written down, in the east and west. The only reason that there are 7 chakras, 7 stations of Mithras, or 7 of anything in mythology is because the ancients observed 7 distinct luminaries in the sky - the sun, moon and only the five visible planets. This is referred to as the mystery of 5 and 7. And you guessed it, it applies directly to the loaves and fishes variants as well. It's old stellar mythology. 

The writer sits down and lays out an order for creation (keep in mind that Genesis 2 is older and doesn't have this order). And it's done according to correspondence.

Day 1 - Light expanse of heavens >>>>>>>> Day 4  -  Sun, Moon and stars to inhabit the heavens.

Day 2 - Separation of Sea and Air >>>>>>> Day 5 - Sea and Air Creatures to inhabit the Sea and Air.

Day 3 - Emergence of dry land >>>>>>> Day 6 - Land creatures to inhabit the dry land, tale ending with man.

Day 7 - Rest from creating. Sacred day with no more activity.
 

The writer lays out 3 environments of existence, and then pairs them with 3 corresponding sets of inhabitants to inhabit the environments of existence. And that leaves the 7th day with no purpose other than rest. Now if it weren't for trying to fit the creation account into the number 7 from the outset, the writer could have made a 6 day creation account. But it's worked to conform to the stellar mythology of 7, such as the 7th heaven and so on. And that brings us to the fact that it was written when the cosmology of the day thought that the earth was flat and that there were waters below and above the earth, 7 heavens, and so on. And the only thing that I've found corresponding to the light of the first day, is the fact that old mythology in Egypt and elsewhere incorporates the milky way as a light of its own, a mother goddess that gave birth to the sun, moon, and stars out of its celestial womb. And that's likely why it's paired with the environment and not the inhabitants. 

 

 

This is the shock and awe approach.

 

 

You should start with BAA's discourse on Genesis 1:1 and then follow through with the rest of it into how nonsensical the entire story is along side of science and how it's a reflection of previously known myths. And it gets rather uncomfortable for the opposing view after all of this. I once did an over 40 page thread with an apologist trying to get away from what I've stated above. He couldn't do it. And the admin on the site finally closed the thread.

 

Mythology is the simplest explanation. 

 

And once arriving at the simplest explanation, you can then proceed to address the fact that the Bible doesn't offer anything in terms of origins in any way, shape or form. There's not the Bible on one hand and Science on the other. There's only Science when it comes to trying to answer the question of origins. So let's kindly stop trying to counter Science with the Bible for crying out loud....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to a thread about contradictions in Genesis: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/75260-contradictions-in-genesis/#.WJRy7_krLIU

 

The article was formatted into an entire book. Yes, there's an entire book about the contradictions in Genesis. And the problems start right at the beginning with 1:1. And writer opens up some more depth about the light of day 1. I still think that it has to do with the milky way myths because they were present in the near eastern creation myths that the Bible writers used. But long story short, they thought that light and day existed independently of the sun, that the sun simply inhabited the environment of "day." And that makes a lot of sense with regard to the milky way myths where the sun was born out of the celestial light womb in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've actually come independently to the thought that the ancient writers didn't realize that the Sun caused the light, but rather they thought it to rule the day. Possible reasons for this could be that light will appear before you see the sun, and will remain after the sun has gone down, thus they may not have figured out that light actual comes from the sun.

 

Interesting... Joshpantera you are giving us heaps to read. "Then we shall be as gods knowing truth from bullshit" :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little something to kick off our discussion about the Copernican principle, LogicalFallacy.

 

(Please note that there's no pressure for you to respond quickly.  Just do so at your leisure please.)

 

The Southern Cross and the Pointers.  A view you'll no doubt be quite familiar with.

 

 

crux2small.jpg

 

Now for some stats.

In ascending order, here are the (approximate) distances in light-years of the six main stars in the pic.  Crucis is Latin for Cross, btw.  The Pointers form part of the constellation Centaurus, which lies next to the Cross in the southern skies.

 

Alpha Centauri - 4

Gamma Crucis - 88

Alpha Crucis - 321

Beta Crucis - 353

Delta Crucis - 364

Beta Centauri - 390

 

Ok, so here are three questions for you, to get you thinking about how the Copernican principle works.

 

1.

Since the light from the nearest of these stars has taken 4 years to reach us, are we seeing it as it is now (Feb 2017) or as it was in 2013?

 

2.

Can we know how Alpha Centauri looks today (02/13/2017), or must we wait until 2021 to find that out?

 

3.

What basic assumption about the nature of the universe are we relying on, when we do the calculations for questions # 1 and 2 ?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BAA

Snap - I have been going over the material in the last few days and writing stuff down.

 

Changed description after more research

So first, if I give a quick description of my understanding of the Copernican principle. Basically the Copernican principle states that earth does not occupy a privileged position in the universe - essentially we are not the center of either our solar system, our galaxy, or the universe as a whole. It also states that on very large scales the universe is the same everywhere, and looks the same when viewed from any location.

As a side note, I would say that if this is true, then we should expect that in one direction we should see less stars, and they will be closer, and in another direction we should see more stars and find that the furthest is far further than the furthest in the other direction. This might be inductive reasoning and I'm not sure if its correct. It's based on the assumption that if we are not in the centre, then we are closer to one 'edge' of the universe than the other, meaning we should see more stars looking toward the furthest edge... if that makes any sense.

 

[Oh I may have found the answer to my own assumption here: "The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principleSo we should not expect to see less stars and closer even if we are not at the center?]

1.

Since the light from the nearest of these stars has taken 4 years to reach us, are we seeing it as it is now (Feb 2017) or as it was in 2013?


We see everything in space as it was in the past. So we are seeing it as it was in 2013. Similar to the Supernova1987A - it exploded 168000 years ago, but we only saw it in 1987.


2.

Can we know how Alpha Centauri looks today (02/13/2017), or must we wait until 2021 to find that out?


We can never know what a star looks like today (Short of developing some amazing technology or being there at the time) as the light takes time to reach us. In 2021 we will see Alpha Centauri as it was today.

3.

What basic assumption about the nature of the universe are we relying on, when we do the calculations for questions # 1 and 2 ?

 

I would say that we are relying on the assumption that time is constant and speed of light is constant, and that from our present time and location we can look at objects (stars etc) far away and see them as they were depending on how many light years away they are. Thus we can calculate the age of the universe by looking far far away, calculating the time the light has taken to reach us and thus the age of the universe. 

 

How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? 

 

 

I have the weirdest feeling I've missed something... but I'll let BAA elaborate on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wait on your update (no rush!) before responding to your three answers or your 'snap'-related comments that preceding them, LF.

 

Cheers,  smile.png

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I've updated post.... lets see how close or far away from the mark I am.

 

And here is my understanding of Parsimony - I found this less difficult to apply to the subject matter... assuming I'm correct of course :D Hopefully this isn't jumping the gun, but while my mind is actually working I thought I'd post :)

 

Parsimony:

The basic concept here is to come up with an explanation that is as simple as possible. Therefore if an explanation does not need God, then do not introduce God into the equation. Occam’s razor – don’t make more assumptions than is necessary to the explanation.

 

(Is it legitimate to introduce God to explain how everything first started?)

 

So it is important to ask oneself for thing ‘x’ is it necessary to introduce the concept of a god?

 

I would say the overarching application of parsimony is that we have an explanation for the "creation of heavens and earth" that does not require any God therefore we do not need to introduce God as an explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BAA

 

Snap - I have been going over the material in the last few days and writing stuff down.

 

Changed description after more research

So first, if I give a quick description of my understanding of the Copernican principle. Basically the Copernican principle states that earth does not occupy a privileged position in the universe - essentially we are not the center of either our solar system, our galaxy, or the universe as a whole. It also states that on very large scales the universe is the same everywhere, and looks the same when viewed from any location.

 

As a side note, I would say that if this is true, then we should expect that in one direction we should see less stars, and they will be closer, and in another direction we should see more stars and find that the furthest is far further than the furthest in the other direction. This might be inductive reasoning and I'm not sure if its correct. It's based on the assumption that if we are not in the centre, then we are closer to one 'edge' of the universe than the other, meaning we should see more stars looking toward the furthest edge... if that makes any sense.

 

[Oh I may have found the answer to my own assumption here: "The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principleSo we should not expect to see less stars and closer even if we are not at the center?]

1.

 

Since the light from the nearest of these stars has taken 4 years to reach us, are we seeing it as it is now (Feb 2017) or as it was in 2013?

 

We see everything in space as it was in the past. So we are seeing it as it was in 2013. Similar to the Supernova1987A - it exploded 168000 years ago, but we only saw it in 1987.

 

 

2.

 

Can we know how Alpha Centauri looks today (02/13/2017), or must we wait until 2021 to find that out?

 

We can never know what a star looks like today (Short of developing some amazing technology or being there at the time) as the light takes time to reach us. In 2021 we will see Alpha Centauri as it was today.

 

3.

 

What basic assumption about the nature of the universe are we relying on, when we do the calculations for questions # 1 and 2 ?

 

I would say that we are relying on the assumption that time is constant and speed of light is constant, and that from our present time and location we can look at objects (stars etc) far away and see them as they were depending on how many light years away they are. Thus we can calculate the age of the universe by looking far far away, calculating the time the light has taken to reach us and thus the age of the universe. 

 

How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? 

 

 

I have the weirdest feeling I've missed something... but I'll let BAA elaborate on this.

 

Hey LF!

 

Yes!  Your three answers are right on the money.  Also, good work on those updates.   goodjob.gif

Your reading on the cosmological principle is leading you in the right direction.  There won't be more or less stars in any given direction of space.  Everywhere will average out the same.  And this assumption was tested by the Hubble Space telescope a number of years ago.  It was instructed to stare at a seemingly blank piece of sky, not too far from the North Pole star Polaris for almost ten days straight, to see what was there.  The resulting image is known as the Hubble Deep Field North (hdf-n).  Then it swiveled thru 180o and did the same thing, looking at an area of space not far from the celestial South pole.  This was the Hubble Deep Field South (hdf-s).  Here's what the two images look like.

 

HDF-N_and_HDF-S.jpg

 

Even though the patterns of galaxies and stars are different, statistically they average out as the same.

The number of galaxies in a given area, the density of them across each image and the ages of their stars all seem to agree with each other.   Therefore, this experiment is an elegant confirmation of two basic assumptions that scientists make about the universe.  It confirms that we are correct to assume that the speed of light has remained constant for billions of years.  If it hadn't, then the age of the galaxies in the two hdf images wouldn't match up.  The galaxies in one image would appear younger or older than the other.   

 

It also confirms that the universe appears the same (is isotropic and homogeneous) wherever we look.

So, if we could instantly zip the planet Earth a trillion light years in any direction and get the Hubble to do the same experiment again, the results would be same.  The universe would still look the same in every direction.  There is no preferred location and nowhere is any more special than anywhere else.  Everywhere is equal and there is no absolute frame of reference by which anything can be measured.  No center and no edge.  No privileged place anywhere.  Everything is relative to everything else.

 

So, when scientists talk about the 'edge of the universe', they don't mean a real, physical edge.

Instead they mean a visual horizon, beyond which we cannot see.  An edge to how far we can look out and look back in time.  If the universe were static and not expanding, then it'd be easy to calculate how far we can possibly see.  Looking 1 light year out means looking back 1 year in time, right?  So, if our telescopes tell us that the universe originated 13.7 billion years ago, that's how far out we could see and how far back in time we could look.  Looking due north, we could see 13.7 billion light years, at galaxies that appeared 13.7 billion years old.  Looking due south, we would see the same distance and see galaxies that appeared to be that age too.  To us, the universe would have a radius of 13.7 billion light years and a diameter of twice that, 27.4 billion light years.  

 

We seem to be sitting at the center of the universe, but we aren't any more at it's physical center than a yachtsman at sea sits at the center of this world.  

His horizon isn't any kind of physical edge - it's just the limit of how far he can see from his vantage point.  If he were to sail a hundred miles in any direction, without sighting any land or any other fixed point of reference, the view would be exactly the same.  The picture below could have been taken in the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian oceans.  Without any further visual clues, he just can't say where he is.  So this seascape is an earthly parallel to the Hubble images.  Everywhere looks the same and we only seem to be in the center of everything.  

 

1.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:160)

 

Ok, I said that the universe would be 27.4 billion light years across if it were static, LF.

But we know from observations that it isn't static.  The universe is expanding.  Every cluster of galaxies is (generally speaking) moving away from every other one.  So, if we factor the measured rate of expansion into our calculation of the universe's diameter, the result is much more than 27.4 billion light years.  The current estimate is 93 billion light years, making the visual edge (horizon) 46.5 billion light years away from us - in every direction. 

 

Now, I given you quite a lot to consider, so I'll leave it there and let you digest my words.

Please get back to me with any questions that come to mind or if any I wrote is confusing or unclear, please let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BAA

 

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten this and will respond.

Thanks

LF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi BAA

 

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten this and will respond.

Thanks

LF

Good to know, LF.   :3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! EUREKA! I just had an epiphany about being at the centre of the universe, which is what BAA is saying, but I kinda 'got it' now.

 

It is quite possible for it to look like we are in the centre of the universe, and in fact its hypothetically possible for data to 'confirm' we are in the centre even if we are not. This is because as the universe expands out in all directions from us we can only see a maximum of a certain distance - 13.8 billion light years because of the time it takes light to travel.... but we can see this far in ALL directions, making it seem like we are in the centre because we have no ultimate frame of reference. We don't know where any centre might be if it did exist, and there are no edges or centre for us to measure off to get a relative distance from. So even with the estimated visual edge at 46.5 billion years we can't actually see that far. In fact even given 46.5 billion years (If we could jump forward in time) we still wouldn't be able to see the edge because in those billions of years the edge has expanded... meaning we will always appear to be at the centre even if we are not! (BAA's sitting in the ocean beyond visual land distance example - regardless of where you are in the pacific, if you are beyond visual land distance every location appears to be the centre)

 

We don’t know where or even if there is an edge to the universe. It’s like an event  horizon and we can’t see or understand anything beyond it in our current capacity.

 

"In cosmology, the event horizon of the observable universe is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future. This differs from the concept of particle horizon, which represents the largest comoving distance from which light emitted in the past could have reached the observer at a given time. For events beyond that distance, light has not had time to reach our location, even if it were emitted at the time the Universe began. How the particle horizon changes with time depends on the nature of the expansion of the Universe. If the expansion has certain characteristics, there are parts of the Universe that will never be observable, no matter how long the observer waits for light from those regions to arrive. The boundary past which events cannot ever be observed is an event horizon, and it represents the maximum extent of the particle horizon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

 

Thus we have no way of knowing if our position is privileged or not.

 

However the idea that everything rotates around earth can be shown as false as everything is moving away from us… not around us.

 

BAA does this answer my own question adequately "How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? "

 

(PS sorry for taking so long, but its only just kinda hit me after a lot of re-reading and watching lectures on YouTube.... quite an exciting moment I had there... I hope I'm right :D )

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea one way or the other.  

 

I love it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 5:06 PM, Joshpantera said:

No idea one way or the other.  

 

I love it! 

 

Well to quote Pitcher Hitchens during a debate after quoting Job 38:2-6

 

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

 

Hitchen's then says "The answer, ladies and gentlemen, from the opposition is they haven't a clue. Nor have I, Nor has anybody in this room. We haven't the faintest idea. Nothing that any of us could say here tonight could convince anybody they they knew God existed" 

 

And I think the opposite applies. The best that can be done is said that on the basis of what we can ascertain there appears to be/not be any god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got it, LF!  :D  :clap: :goodjob:

 

The first step in understanding how the Copernican principle works is to realize that nobody and nothing, anywhere and anywhen can be assumed to have a privileged view of the universe.  That all viewpoints are relative to each other and not absolute.  Our reliance on an absolute frame of reference had to be discarded when Einstein's work superseded that of Newton, a century ago.   Most people think that Einsteinian relativity refers only to gravity and to the speed of light.  But it goes further than that.  General and Special relativity require us to assume that the location of anyone and anything isn't absolute, but relative to all other locations.  

 

Good work, btw.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 2:23 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

Ha! EUREKA! I just had an epiphany about being at the centre of the universe, which is what BAA is saying, but I kinda 'got it' now.

 

It is quite possible for it to look like we are in the centre of the universe, and in fact its hypothetically possible for data to 'confirm' we are in the centre even if we are not. This is because as the universe expands out in all directions from us we can only see a maximum of a certain distance - 13.8 billion light years because of the time it takes light to travel.... but we can see this far in ALL directions, making it seem like we are in the centre because we have no ultimate frame of reference. We don't know where any centre might be if it did exist, and there are no edges or centre for us to measure off to get a relative distance from. So even with the estimated visual edge at 46.5 billion years we can't actually see that far. In fact even given 46.5 billion years (If we could jump forward in time) we still wouldn't be able to see the edge because in those billions of years the edge has expanded... meaning we will always appear to be at the centre even if we are not! (BAA's sitting in the ocean beyond visual land distance example - regardless of where you are in the pacific, if you are beyond visual land distance every location appears to be the centre)

 

We don’t know where or even if there is an edge to the universe. It’s like an event  horizon and we can’t see or understand anything beyond it in our current capacity.

 

"In cosmology, the event horizon of the observable universe is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future. This differs from the concept of particle horizon, which represents the largest comoving distance from which light emitted in the past could have reached the observer at a given time. For events beyond that distance, light has not had time to reach our location, even if it were emitted at the time the Universe began. How the particle horizon changes with time depends on the nature of the expansion of the Universe. If the expansion has certain characteristics, there are parts of the Universe that will never be observable, no matter how long the observer waits for light from those regions to arrive. The boundary past which events cannot ever be observed is an event horizon, and it represents the maximum extent of the particle horizon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

 

Thus we have no way of knowing if our position is privileged or not.

 

However the idea that everything rotates around earth can be shown as false as everything is moving away from us… not around us.

 

BAA does this answer my own question adequately "How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? "

 

(PS sorry for taking so long, but its only just kinda hit me after a lot of re-reading and watching lectures on YouTube.... quite an exciting moment I had there... I hope I'm right :D )

 

 

 

 

 

It's not as cut and dried as true or false, LF.

 

Please remember that proofs (where there is 100% confidence in a result) only happen in math.

Every other branch of the sciences deal with evidence and they attempt to explain what is observed in the light of that evidence.  Confidence in that evidence can be very high, but it cannot be total and absolute.  Therefore, when a scientist speaks about something being falsified, they don't mean totally falsified.  They mean falsified as well as the evidence will permit.

 

So, when it comes to the universe rotating around us, please refer to this thread...  

...where the Dude and I have covered this very issue.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dude,

 

Science cannot conclusively show (with 100% confidence) that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.07178.pdf

 

However, the above paper strongly supports the Copernican principle (the assumption that the Earth is not in the center of the universe) and equally strongly presents evidence against the idea that the universe is rotating or spinning in way - either around us or relative to us.   Where science sharply diverges from religion is how many of it's basic assumptions need not be taken on faith, but can be stringently tested and checked.  This paper is just such an example.   

 

A fundamental assumption in the standard model of cosmology is that the Universe is isotropic on large scales. Breaking this assumption leads to a set of solutions to Einstein’s field equations, known as Bianchi cosmologies, only a subset of which have ever been tested against data. For the first time, we consider all degrees of freedom in these solutions to conduct a general test of isotropy using cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization data from Planck. For the vector mode (associated with vorticity), we obtain a limit on the anisotropic expansion of (σV /H)0 < 4.7 × 10−11 (95% CI), which is an order of magnitude tighter than previous Planck results that used CMB temperature only. We also place upper limits on other modes of anisotropic expansion, with the weakest limit arising from the regular tensor mode, (σT,reg/H)0 < 1.0 × 10−6 (95% CI). Including all degrees of freedom simultaneously for the first time, anisotropic expansion of the Universe is strongly disfavoured, with odds of 121,000:1 against. 

 

In plain English this is what the above means.  

The scientists examined every possible way the universe could be moving, spinning or revolving, either around us or relative to us.  All degrees of freedom = every which way.   The key to understanding how the CMB can give us this information is found in this sentence, lower down in the paper.

 

The anisotropic expansion in these models imprints a signal in the CMB since photons redshift at different rates depending on their direction of travel [3, 4], an effect known as shear.

 

In a nutshell, if the universe were in any kind of rotary motion, that effect would be imprinted (and therefore visible) as sideways shear in the CMB data.  But the many tests run by these scientists have found that the odds are 121,000 to 1 against there being any such motion.  While this is not 100% conclusive evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, it is still very strong evidence that it doesn't do so.   This paper is a powerful and highly-relevant example of science severely testing it's own basic assumptions - and finding them confirmed to very high levels of confidence.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

LF wrote: Thus we have no way of knowing if our position is privileged or not.

 However the idea that everything rotates around earth can be shown as false as everything is moving away from us… not around us.

 BAA does this answer my own question adequately "How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? "

 

 

 

BAA, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this challenge the notion of the Copernican Principles assumption that we 'do not' have a privileged position? 

 

If we have no way of knowing if our position is privileged or not, then the Copernican Principles suggestion that we DO NOT goes too far.

 

I'm just pointing this out in passing. It's just that I'm thinking that I remember you using the CP in the context of discourse against the christian notion that we DO have a privileged position, by suggesting that the CP shows that we DO NOT. Am I understanding this correctly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 

LF wrote: Thus we have no way of knowing if our position is privileged or not.

 However the idea that everything rotates around earth can be shown as false as everything is moving away from us… not around us.

 BAA does this answer my own question adequately "How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? "

 

 

 

BAA, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this challenge the notion of the Copernican Principles assumption that we 'do not' have a privileged position? 

 

If we have no way of knowing if our position is privileged or not, then the Copernican Principles suggestion that we DO NOT goes too far.

 

I'm just pointing this out in passing. It's just that I'm thinking that I remember you using the CP in the context of discourse against the christian notion that we DO have a privileged position, by suggesting that the CP shows that we DO NOT. Am I understanding this correctly? 

 

Josh,

 

As I understand it, there are three possibilities in play here.

The first being that we do occupy a privileged position, the second that we do not and the third being that we don't know if we do or not.  The key to understanding why we don't go with the 'don't know' option is Einstein's theory of general relativity (GR).  If you look at post # 21, from Sunday, I refer LogicalFallacy to GR, because it is fundamental to the workings of the Copernican Principle (CP).   

 

GR has been so well tested and it's predictions so well confirmed, that scientists are confident enough to discard the 'don't know' option.

We do know enough and we do know it well enough to use GR and the CP as working assumptions that have held good for decades and have stringently tested by every means we can think up.  Our confidence in GR enables us to make working assumptions about what we cannot see and can never see.  As I will now illustrate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_Galaxy

This lovely galaxy lies over 10 million of light years away, so we are seeing it as it was, long before Homo Sapiens evolved.  It's possible for the Hubble space scope to resolve some of it's brighter stars.  But what isn't possible is for any of our instruments or satellites to resolve and observe any planets that might be orbiting the stars of M51.  So, we just don't know if they are there or not.  That being the case, are we justified in invoking the CP and assuming that they are there?

 

Please let me know if you think we can't make that assumption, because we don't know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing seems to have taken a misunderstanding turn. It looks like LF proposed that we have no way of knowing if our position in the universe is privileged or not. And asked you if that answers his own question:  "How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? "

 

It looked like a clever response to me, which I expressed. He found the middle way between the theist and atheist argument of claiming privilege (theist) verses claiming no privilege (atheist). You then posted fireworks and praise. And I wondered if you understood what he meant by suggesting that we don't know whether or not there is a privileged position in the universe. Because it seems to question the CP. 

 

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

s I understand it, there are three possibilities in play here.

The first being that we do occupy a privileged position, the second that we do not and the third being that we don't know if we do or not.  The key to understanding why we don't go with the 'don't know' option is Einstein's theory of general relativity (GR).  If you look at post # 21, from Sunday, I refer LogicalFallacy to GR, because it is fundamental to the workings of the Copernican Principle (CP).   

 

So you definitely do take the position that there is no privileged position in the universe and you do cite the CP for that analysis. I must have missed post #21 or forgot about it. So GR is the part of the CP that would suggest that the option LF mentioned above about not knowing one way or the other can be ruled out.

 

 

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

GR has been so well tested and it's predictions so well confirmed, that scientists are confident enough to discard the 'don't know' option.

We do know enough and we do know it well enough to use GR and the CP as working assumptions that have held good for decades and have stringently tested by every means we can think up.  Our confidence in GR enables us to make working assumptions about what we cannot see and can never see.  As I will now illustrate.

 

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

his lovely galaxy lies over 10 million of light years away, so we are seeing it as it was, long before Home Sapiens evolved.  It's possible for the Hubble space scope to resolve some of it's brighter stars.  But what isn't possible is for any of our instruments or satellites to resolve and observe any planets that might be orbiting the stars of M51.  So, we just don't know if they are there or not.  That being the case, are we justified in invoking the CP and assuming that they are there?

 

Please let me know if you think we can't make that assumption, because we don't know.

 

Briefly, we can assume that all stars have planets as we observe here and abroad. Even though they're out of scope. It's a logical deduction based on the fact that stars seem to go hand in hand with planets. We don't know, but we assume based on thinking that it ought to be like what we do perceive. 

 

How does GR show the error in concluding that we do not whether or not there's a privileged position in the universe? You mentioned that because everything is relative there's no privileged position, but does that necessarily eliminate the option #3, that we do not know one way or the other? 

 

I think that's the meat of the question that LF was asking you previously.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now