Something that causes doubt

[lelinator]

Can’t I make the same claim about your position, and your unwillingness to budge from it? Sauce for the gander, right…?

That would be a logical assumption, given that you really don’t know me well enough to do otherwise. But the real question is…do people tend to fervently believe things for which the evidence is at best ambiguous? And wouldn’t it be best if they weren’t quite so passionate about things that they cannot know to be true?

Yeah, we can disagree, and that’s probably a good thing. But when it comes to people being so certain that their beliefs are right that they would judge the character of other people’s “souls” accordingly, well then I have a problem. When someone’s so-called righteous intentions begin to deleteriously influence their actions, then you can expect that I’ll raise up my banner in opposition.

So, here’s the thing: from your argument, we can’t know anything. And yet, if you accept Freddy’s assertions (above), then that assertion that “we can’t know anything” is patently false! Here’s what we know:

• stuff is disappearing from our ability to observe it
• stuff has been disappearing from our ability to observe it

You missed one:

• There may be stuff that we never have and never will be able to observe.

If you want to be nonplussed by the enormity of God’s creation… well, have at it! Me? I’m pretty impressed by it all.

Here’s the thing though, you don’t need God for that. The atheist can be just as intrigued and awed by the possibilities of what lies beyond the horizon as the theist is. There’s no need to attribute it to God, or to point to it as evidence of God. “I don’t know” is just as inspiring of an answer as God is.

Perhaps people have inserted God as a placeholder for “I don’t know”, and there’s really nothing wrong with that…until that placeholder emboldens them to do, and judge, with a certainty that their stature as mere ignorant mortals doesn’t warrant. When people begin to be self-righteous, that’s when I have a problem.

 

[Inquiry]

Recent studies have shown that the expansion is inconsistent and non-linear. Indeed, some have even shown that the measurements of expansion don’t add up, meaning there is likely more going on than simple expansion.

 

[Freddy]

Considering I spent a while a few days ago showing that light could indeed reach a distant location even if the space between its source and the destination is increasing faster than light, I’m going to say that we are still at ‘may not exist.’

I’ll be eager to read any information to which you could link that shows what’s beyond the observable universe. Failng that, we’ll go with ‘we don’t know’.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

They aren’t now. You can comment as you see fit.

I did comment. I heckled the fact that the attempt is so laughable, that ya’ll can’t even come up with an analogy that fits it!

Let’s play along, though. Here’s the analogy that you’re now presenting:

There’s this box. (Or not. We can’t tell.)

It’s for me. (Or not. We’re not sure.)

And there’s amazing stuff in it! (Or not. We just don’t know.)

Are you edified by the box that you don’t have, that you don’t know contains anything, and you don’t even know whether you’d like the contents within?

(That’s your analogy? And you don’t expect it to get heckled?)

I think that the fact that you are not addressing the problem itself tells us what we need to know.

 

[Freddy]

97% of the universe is un-accessible - even if you left at the speed of light you would not reach it - the fabric of space is expanding and will reach the speed of light and faster ( should be causality) making it un-accessible. The only area we can reach is the local group of galaxies if we can even do that . The visible universe will disappear and only the local group of galaxies will be visible which is also expected to merge into one big elliptical galaxy in the middle of blackness. But we will never know.
Must be Gods plan

Well said. That strikes me as a sensible approach that has been missing from this thread. If I may sumarise:

Whatever is out there is not for us. But it’s God’s plan. We just don’t know what that plan is or who it is for.

The visible universe is about 46 billion light years - we haven’t even seen a lot of the universe the light hasn’t reached us yet but with the expansion of the universe its expected to drop to 15 billion light years

“After another few trillion years, the current cosmic microwave background will have redshifted into insignificance and will no longer be detectable. In this far-flung future, the Universe will have expanded so much that even the closest galaxies will be well beyond our sight. At this time, there will be no visible evidence that the Universe is expanding or that there was ever a Big Bang!” Will the cosmic microwave background disappear? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

Eventually we’ll be back to the scenario pictured in Genesis. THEN it will all make some kind of sense. It sure doesn’t now.

 

[Inquiry]

I can’t tell you what’s going on around Alpha Centauri right now. I’ll know when the light gets here.

 

[Gorgias]

I think that the fact that you are not addressing the problem itself tells us what we need to know.

What’s the problem, then, that I’m not addressing?

I can’t tell you what’s going on around Alpha Centauri right now.

They’re trying to figure out whether the president of Proxima B should be tossed out of office for trying to influence the president of Ross 128b. We’ll know better in another four years…

 

[Freddy]

I can’t tell you what’s going on around Alpha Centauri right now. I’ll know when the light gets here.

That I am not interested in as it has no bearing on the matter at hand. Please let me know if you have any links that can show us what is outside the observable universe. Not educated opinion or proposals or best guesses. If you think you know, I want you to tell us how you know.

 

[Inquiry]

No, that was something outside the observable universe. It won’t be observable till the light gets here. It’s just as outside the observable universe as the part you are talking about, it’s just going to take longer for the light to get here for your bit.

 

[Freddy]

No, that was something outside the observable universe. It won’t be observable till the light gets here. It’s just as outside the observable universe as the part you are talking about, it’s just going to take longer for the light to get here for your bit.

Well you just be sure to let me know when you think the light gets here and we can talk about it then.

 

[Inquiry]

That’s the point, it’s the same issue whether you are talking about 1 light year or a billion.

 

[BT3241]

There is an issue though - there are two ways to predict it one is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don’t agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we’re missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras and they don’t agree so there is a problem.

 

[Freddy]

That’s the point, it’s the same issue whether you are talking about 1 light year or a billion.

Perhaps read up on the cosmic event horizon. Here’s a summary:

‘The cosmic event horizon is also a sphere centered on us, which is the boundary inside which light, if it is emitted today , may still reach us sometime in the future. If it is emitted outside this horizon, the expansion of the Universe ensures that the light will never reach us.’ Why is there a difference between the cosmic event horizon and the age of the universe? - Astronomy Stack Exchange

Please note the last sentence.

'…there are events that are spatially separated for a certain frame of reference happening simultaneously with the event occurring right now for which no signal will ever reach us, even though we can observe events that occurred at the same location in space that happened in the distant past. While we will continue to receive signals from this location in space, even if we wait an infinite amount of time, a signal that left from that location today will never reach us. Cosmological horizon - Wikipedia

Likewise above.

So can we be edified by that about which we have no knowledge?

 

[Inquiry]

I’m familiar with the concept, but recent studies have been showing inconsistent results in regards to the expansion of the universe. Indeed, some have shown the expansion is only a recent phenomenon, some have shown it is happening inconsistently, and some are showing two different rates of expansion. Until that gets resolved, I’m not assuming this to be the case.

 

[Freddy]

I’m familiar with the concept, but recent studies have been showing inconsistent results in regards to the expansion of the universe. Indeed, some have shown the expansion is only a recent phenomenon, some have shown it is happening inconsistently, and some are showing two different rates of expansion. Until that gets resolved, I’m not assuming this to be the case.

So you’ve changed from ‘it doesn’t happen’ to ‘I found something that suggests that it happens at different rates.’

I have to put that down as progress. It was always too much to expect: ‘I see what you mean but I disagree with your conclusion’. That would need you to agree with something I posted.

Such is forum life.

 

[Inquiry]

I changed nothing. In order for the universe to expand such that light really could never catch up, certain things would have to be true. Given the studies in recent years we cannot assume them to be true. I think I’ve said that about three times now.

 

[Gorgias]

So can we be edified by that about which we have no knowledge?

You have knowledge. You don’t have data, but your very link demonstrates that we know something. And yes, we can be edified by the mysteries of the universe, even the ones we cannot currently see!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So can we be edified by that about which we have no knowledge?

You have knowledge. You don’t have data, but your very link demonstrates that we know something. And yes, we can be edified by the mysteries of the universe, even the ones we cannot currently see!

Then post a link that tells us what there is in the unobservable universe. As I said, not guesses or proposals. If you don’t know, and you can’t - it’s forever beyond our reach, then say so. Your intransigence is perplexing.

 

[Gorgias]

Then post a link that tells us what there is in the unobservable universe.

It’s not intransigence on my part, I think, but yours. I’m not claiming it’s observable – rather, from your post, it’s clear that its existence is knowable. That’s all I’m claiming. Once I know it, I can be affected by it. On the other hand, your continued insistence that “knowable” must imply “observable” is intellectually dishonest, it seems. Literally, you take my claims of “knowable” and attempt to cast them as unreasonable unless they’re also claims of “empirically observable”. That’s just disappointing.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then post a link that tells us what there is in the unobservable universe.

It’s not intransigence on my part, I think, but yours. I’m not claiming it’s observable – rather, from your post, it’s clear that its existence is knowable. That’s all I’m claiming. Once I know it, I can be affected by it. On the other hand, your continued insistence that “knowable” must imply “observable” is intellectually dishonest, it seems. Literally, you take my claims of “knowable” and attempt to cast them as unreasonable unless they’re also claims of “empirically observable”. That’s just disappointing.

I think you’ve spent so much time arguing against the obvious that you have forgotten the original point. That there may well be an infinity of something beyond what we can know that is forever beyond our reach. So it is obviously not for us.

If you want to express amazement at the glory of God because of that then you are free to do so and I will remain bemused by that fact.