(June 25, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

---

(June 25, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You're still missing the point. If the Milky Way Galaxy is 13.2 billion years old that means that it's about the same age of the Universe, according to a popular theory. Some people conclude that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old based on the speed of light from the most distant galaxies. So you have a paradox. If the farthest object is 13.7 billion years away and it's fully formed as a galaxy would you have been able to have seen it 13.2 billion years ago from the Milky Way? Remember, such objects are all around us so it's just not one object that we're talking about.

Don't forget: there are countless galaxies between us and the farthest ones.

So what do you think?

---

You're missing the point.

The galaxy that now appears to be 13.7 billion years away, appears as it did 13.7 billion years ago from our frame of reference. It's actually been receding away from the milky way, and is now substantially farther away (on the order of 46+ billion light years).

You're going to have to connect the dots, because whatever it is you're attempting to illustrate makes zero sense.

So are you saying that if we were looking through our telescope 13.2 billion years ago that we would see the Universe that we see now?

Are you also saying that the Universe has expanded 32.3 billion light years in 13.7 billion years?

(June 26, 2014 at 1:37 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 25, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

---

---

You're missing the point.

The galaxy that now appears to be 13.7 billion years away, appears as it did 13.7 billion years ago from our frame of reference. It's actually been receding away from the milky way, and is now substantially farther away (on the order of 46+ billion light years).

You're going to have to connect the dots, because whatever it is you're attempting to illustrate makes zero sense.

So are you saying that if we were looking through our telescope 13.2 billion years ago that we would see the Universe that we see now?

Are you also saying that the Universe has expanded 32.3 billion light years in 13.7 billion years?

No, he's saying if you stood on a planet in one of the furthest galaxies in the Hubble volume and pointed a telescope at where Earth is now, it wouldn't be there.

If you were looking through a telescope 13.7 billion years ago, there would be a lot of superheated plasma and debris in the way.

(June 26, 2014 at 2:05 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(June 26, 2014 at 1:37 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So are you saying that if we were looking through our telescope 13.2 billion years ago that we would see the Universe that we see now?

Are you also saying that the Universe has expanded 32.3 billion light years in 13.7 billion years?

No, he's saying if you stood on a planet in one of the furthest galaxies in the Hubble volume and pointed a telescope at where Earth is now, it wouldn't be there.

If you were looking through a telescope 13.7 billion years ago, there would be a lot of superheated plasma and debris in the way.

Of course the Earth wouldn't be there because it isn't as old as the Milky Way Galaxy. Besides, you can't see a planet this small, especially from a distant galaxy.

Since there's no evidence of superheated plasma and debris in the field of vision today there wouldn't have been any in the way 13.2 billion years ago when you looked out into space.

To be clear the contention is that the distant galaxies we see are 13.7 light years away. So that means that they existed in the form that they are in 13.7 billion years ago. Do you agree?

Now, my question was that since the Milky Way Galaxy is supposed to be about 13.2 billion years old if you were an observer at that time, 13.2 billion years ago, and looked out into space would you see the distant galaxies that you see now in addition to all of the ones between them and the Milky Way?

Of course you wouldn't see the current stars we see now because they weren't in existence then but the galaxies were. And since we can see countless galaxies today they should have been visible 13.2 billion years ago because our galaxy existed at that time. Do you agree?

Don't confuse galaxies with individual stars, which come and go. Galaxies do merge and we are merging with the Milky Way now. Our Sun is a native of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.

Now to restate the question: You're floating around the Milky Way Galaxy 13.2 billion years ago looking out into space. The Universe at that time is supposed to be 13.7 billion years old as measured by the time it takes for light to reach us from the farthest object. So as you're looking out into space were are all of the galaxies that we can now see within 500 million light years of the new Milky Way Galaxy? Do you understand the question?

This is a depiction of objects today that are within 500 million light years of us. http://www.myastrologybook.com/Universe-...-years.htm

The “observable” universe is thought to consist of roughly:
- *10 million superclusters
- *25 billion galaxy groups
- *350 billion large galaxies
- *7 trillion dwarf galaxies
and *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars
(of which, almost 30 stars go supernova per second)
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/from-...niverse-2/

Could all of this material fit within a ball 500 million light years in diameter? You can ignore the *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars and just concentrate on the 350 billion large galaxies and 7 trillion dwarf galaxies.

Quote:You're floating around the Milky Way Galaxy 13.2 billion years ago looking out into space. The Universe at that time is supposed to be 13.7 billion years old as measured by the time it takes for light to reach us from the farthest object.

B-mine.

A little clarification here. The universe, in your example, would be 26.9 billion years old (as of today...give or take), correct?

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 26, 2014 at 2:05 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: No, he's saying if you stood on a planet in one of the furthest galaxies in the Hubble volume and pointed a telescope at where Earth is now, it wouldn't be there.

If you were looking through a telescope 13.7 billion years ago, there would be a lot of superheated plasma and debris in the way.

Of course the Earth wouldn't be there because it isn't as old as the Milky Way Galaxy. Besides, you can't see a planet this small, especially from a distant galaxy.

Hypothetical telescope, assuming one had a telescope powerful enough to pick out individual planets at extreme distance, any more than one could stand on a planet at the edge of the Hubble volume. But otherwise correct.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Since there's no evidence of superheated plasma and debris in the field of vision today there wouldn't have been any in the way 13.2 billion years ago when you looked out into space.

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what...-big-bang/

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: To be clear the contention is that the distant galaxies we see are 13.7 light years away. So that means that they existed in the form that they are in 13.7 billion years ago. Do you agree?

Unclear phrasing, but the light we receive from them in the best photon buckets we have originated 13.7 million years ago, because of the speed at which light travels.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Now, my question was that since the Milky Way Galaxy is supposed to be about 13.2 billion years old if you were an observer at that time, 13.2 billion years ago, and looked out into space would you see the distant galaxies that you see now in addition to all of the ones between them and the Milky Way?

That's sort of a silly question, isn't it? It's sort of like asking if you took a selfie with your great great grandfather, how your hair would be styled, and whether or not you'd be wearing a The Damned t shirt.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Of course you wouldn't see the current stars we see now because they weren't in existence then but the galaxies were. And since we can see countless galaxies today they should have been visible 13.2 billion years ago because our galaxy existed at that time. Do you agree?

No. I don't agree that the galaxies we see now existed prior to the universe, or that our galaxy existed in it's present form .6 billion years after the universe began.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Don't confuse galaxies with individual stars, which come and go. Galaxies do merge and we are merging with the Milky Way now. Our Sun is a native of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.

Just what do you think we are measuring when we observe distant galaxies?

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Now to restate the question: You're floating around the Milky Way Galaxy 13.2 billion years ago looking out into space.

Uh huh.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Universe at that time is supposed to be 13.7 billion years old as measured by the time it takes for light to reach us from the farthest object.

So you're roughly doubling the best estimate of the age of our universe for some hypothetical.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So as you're looking out into space were are all of the galaxies that we can now see within 500 million light years of the new Milky Way Galaxy? Do you understand the question?

The Hubble volume is estimated to be 14 billion light years in diameter. The Milky Way is estimated to be 100,000 light years across. I'm not sure if neither you not I understand the question you're asking.

But, as an aside: I claim no expertise, but If you formulate the question in a way I can actually understand what you're asking, I'm in a position to txt your question to several astrophysicists, and people in the space program with experience building orbital telescopes, and would love to ask it.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: This is a depiction of objects today that are within 500 million light years of us. http://www.myastrologybook.com/Universe-...-years.htm

The “observable” universe is thought to consist of roughly:
- *10 million superclusters
- *25 billion galaxy groups
- *350 billion large galaxies
- *7 trillion dwarf galaxies
and *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars
(of which, almost 30 stars go supernova per second)
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/from-...niverse-2/

Could all of this material fit within a ball 500 million light years in diameter? You can ignore the *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars and just concentrate on the 350 billion large galaxies and 7 trillion dwarf galaxies.

I don't think you appreciate the scale we're discussing here, and I don't think personal incredulity should be a real factor.

http://htwins.net/scale2/

You keep saying 500 million light years, which I've only heard refer to the potential size of a galaxy. The universe appears to be significantly larger.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducator...verse.html

(June 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Why are they all so fucking illogical and idiotic? Moreover, why are so many people dumb enough to be "persuaded" by them?

In my opinion, the best arguments I've heard for god's existence where the cosmological argument, the argument from miracles and some variations of pascal's wager. They sound more convincing or at least not so annoying or fallacious as the typical argument of 'the bible says it therefore god exists and I am right!'

1- The cosmological argument is more or less the following:
- Everything that exists needs to have a beginning of it's existence
- There is no know beginning of the universe (before the big bang, what created the big bang?)
- Therefore a god must exist
This argument fails for 3 reasons, at least from my perspective - Firstly, the universe doesn't need to have a beginning, it could have always existed; secondly, just because currently there is no known cause for the big bang that doesn't mean we won't find out just like we have been finding out facts we didn't know of 200 or 300 years ago; and finally, even if the premises were true it doesn't necessarily mean a god exists, it could have more causes, just because we can't explain something it doesn't mean that it was magically caused by god

2 - The argument from miracles:
This argument says that certain unexplained events are a product of god, such as people magically recovering from an incurable illness and other similar facts. This argument can easily be dismissed - Firstly, some things are not explainable currently but will be so in the future (most of them actually), and secondly, even if it was true we might as well argue that some recovered from an illness because of the power the human mind has rather than god, once again, it doesn't mean god caused the cure, it could be from a unicorn, the power of the human mind or even complete random

3 - Pascal's wager:
Since it is impossible to say for 100% if a god exists or not, the disadvantages of not believing would be more serious if god exists (eternal punishment), whilst the cons of believing even if god didn't exist would be simply to abstain from certain sinful behavior and some pleasures. According to pascal, if you choose to believe you increase your chances already with eternal reward, it's preferable to believe by a matter of safety, since even if god doesn't exist you will cease to exist and have nothing to lose in trying to enter heaven in case god exists. This argument is usually dismissed using the popular phrase 'What if I chose the wrong God' - While it makes sense, I do not support this counter argument since by believing in a god/religion you are already increasing your chances, at least the probability of eternal reward is slightly higher, and choosing the wrong god or not believing will get you the same punishment (in case god exists). The main counter argument, in my opinion, is that if a god existed, since god has certain characteristics that grant him supreme authority, would know your reasons for believing and most likely would be mad for you having faith not genuinely but merely by reasons of entering heaven to benefit your own self, in a sense that faith derived from pascal's wager seems a like hypocrite and forced.

I hope I helped with this, if there is any more theist argument that has great importance let me know.

(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Now, my question was that since the Milky Way Galaxy is supposed to be about 13.2 billion years old if you were an observer at that time, 13.2 billion years ago, and looked out into space would you see the distant galaxies that you see now in addition to all of the ones between them and the Milky Way?

You appear to be operating under the assumption that the expansion rate of the universe is constant (e.g. everything within our visible horizon has always been within our visible horizon).

This is not the case. You're ignoring the inflationary epoch, where the universe expanded extremely rapidly for a very short period of time, and you're also ignoring that the expansion rate of the universe is apparently accelerating today, but that it has not always been so.

So, I'd have to say the answer to that question is a qualified "no".

(June 30, 2014 at 9:56 am)blackout94 Wrote:

(June 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Why are they all so fucking illogical and idiotic? Moreover, why are so many people dumb enough to be "persuaded" by them?

In my opinion, the best arguments I've heard for god's existence where the cosmological argument, the argument from miracles and some variations of pascal's wager. They sound more convincing or at least not so annoying or fallacious as the typical argument of 'the bible says it therefore god exists and I am right!'

1- The cosmological argument is more or less the following:
- Everything that exists needs to have a beginning of it's existence
- There is no know beginning of the universe (before the big bang, what created the big bang?)
- Therefore a god must exist
This argument fails for 3 reasons, at least from my perspective - Firstly, the universe doesn't need to have a beginning, it could have always existed; secondly, just because currently there is no known cause for the big bang that doesn't mean we won't find out just like we have been finding out facts we didn't know of 200 or 300 years ago; and finally, even if the premises were true it doesn't necessarily mean a god exists, it could have more causes, just because we can't explain something it doesn't mean that it was magically caused by god

2 - The argument from miracles:
This argument says that certain unexplained events are a product of god, such as people magically recovering from an incurable illness and other similar facts. This argument can easily be dismissed - Firstly, some things are not explainable currently but will be so in the future (most of them actually), and secondly, even if it was true we might as well argue that some recovered from an illness because of the power the human mind has rather than god, once again, it doesn't mean god caused the cure, it could be from a unicorn, the power of the human mind or even complete random

3 - Pascal's wager:
Since it is impossible to say for 100% if a god exists or not, the disadvantages of not believing would be more serious if god exists (eternal punishment), whilst the cons of believing even if god didn't exist would be simply to abstain from certain sinful behavior and some pleasures. According to pascal, if you choose to believe you increase your chances already with eternal reward, it's preferable to believe by a matter of safety, since even if god doesn't exist you will cease to exist and have nothing to lose in trying to enter heaven in case god exists. This argument is usually dismissed using the popular phrase 'What if I chose the wrong God' - While it makes sense, I do not support this counter argument since by believing in a god/religion you are already increasing your chances, at least the probability of eternal reward is slightly higher, and choosing the wrong god or not believing will get you the same punishment (in case god exists). The main counter argument, in my opinion, is that if a god existed, since god has certain characteristics that grant him supreme authority, would know your reasons for believing and most likely would be mad for you having faith not genuinely but merely by reasons of entering heaven to benefit your own self, in a sense that faith derived from pascal's wager seems a like hypocrite and forced.

I hope I helped with this, if there is any more theist argument that has great importance let me know.

The only argument for "god," though I'm happier with the term "intelligent force," that I find mildly interesting is the argument from design; the existence of a Universe finely-tuned for organisms such as us. Even still this argument is little more than wishful speculation.

They all amount to crap arguments really. So even if you pick out the best among them, you're still picking out crap from crap.

I've always wanted to argue in favor of religion, debate style, on these boards. I'm def going to do it at some point, I just have to find a religion to argue in favor of, and a person to flesh out the other side.