Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The Hubblesphere

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 2:58:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hereby declare that we eradicate the use of the term "universe" to describe our Hubblesphere. It is extremely ignorant and misleading to automatically assume that "universe" means our little, tiny, pea-sized Hubblesphere. In fact, it is already accepted that Hubblesphere (sometimes called hubble volume) is the scientific term for our bubble (observable universe), however it hasn't caught on. Once it does though, it will greatly enhance discussions about science and religion, and most of all, cosmology.

No more will people be able to make the self-refuting claim that God is "outside" the "Universe." If "Universe" means everything that exists, and God's not a part of it, God does not exist. What Theists mean to say is that "God" exists outside the Hubblesphere, NOT the Universe.

Discuss.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 3:43:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 2:58:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I hereby declare that we eradicate the use of the term "universe" to describe our Hubblesphere. It is extremely ignorant and misleading to automatically assume that "universe" means our little, tiny, pea-sized Hubblesphere. In fact, it is already accepted that Hubblesphere (sometimes called hubble volume) is the scientific term for our bubble (observable universe), however it hasn't caught on. Once it does though, it will greatly enhance discussions about science and religion, and most of all, cosmology.

No more will people be able to make the self-refuting claim that God is "outside" the "Universe." If "Universe" means everything that exists, and God's not a part of it, God does not exist. What Theists mean to say is that "God" exists outside the Hubblesphere, NOT the Universe.

Discuss.

No, I much prefere Universe;

Uni: One.

Verse: Sentence.

Universe: " Let there be.. "
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 3:56:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The term 'observable universe' is used within cosmology and physics. The meta concept 'universe' while including the observable parts is more than that however - and it's well noted in both cosmology and astrophysics that the universe =/= observable universe and when they use the term it's short hand.

There really is no need for a new term, short of multi verse ideas which need a subsuming definition anyway, and we have one - universe. A 'verse is simply an idea of multiple somethings other than something we have here - and is perfectly fine within the definition and label we already have of 'complete set of everything'.

The issue is more with layman usage as tends to be the case with technical definitions more than any real need to make up a new term for something we already have.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 3:58:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
As for what theists mean, I'd query your analysis. It tends to mean outside the realms of known reality which *is* the universe. Not, sitting just outside the range of our telescopes.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 3:59:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 3:56:12 AM, Puck wrote:
The term 'observable universe' is used within cosmology and physics. The meta concept 'universe' while including the observable parts is more than that however - and it's well noted in both cosmology and astrophysics that the universe =/= observable universe and when they use the term it's short hand.

There really is no need for a new term, short of multi verse ideas which need a subsuming definition anyway, and we have one - universe. A 'verse is simply an idea of multiple somethings other than something we have here - and is perfectly fine within the definition and label we already have of 'complete set of everything'.

The issue is more with layman usage as tends to be the case with technical definitions more than any real need to make up a new term for something we already have.

Like anyone on DDO has the slightest sway in these matters anyway: CUCKOO!
The Cross.. the Cross.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 9:00:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think "Uni"-verse will never be a truly applicable term.

For how could you ever possibly say "this" is it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 9:15:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 2:58:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If "Universe" means everything that exists, and God's not a part of it, God does not exist.

I disagree with your claim that the way "universe" is commonly used refutes God. As a basis, dictionary.com defines universe as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."

Objects. Space. As in physical objects and three dimensional space. If only the Bible taught that God is a physical being confined to a three dimensional body, you'd have a great point. But in fact, you have no point. The Bible teaches that God is a spiritual being (not a physical being) who is not confined by space like we are.

Understanding the universe as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" and saying that God exists outside of this universe is not self refuting in the least. But with your definition of the universe being "everything that exists", I see your point. Nothing that is alleged to be outside the realm of existance could possibly exist. If only that was what the word universe meant.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 12:12:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 3:56:12 AM, Puck wrote:
and it's well noted in both cosmology and astrophysics that the universe =/= observable universe and when they use the term it's short hand.

Hence, why we need a new term.

There really is no need for a new term, short of multi verse ideas which need a subsuming definition anyway,

Yeah, they're sometime called baby univerves or bubble universes.

and we have one - universe.

No, that's misleading.

A 'verse is simply an idea of multiple somethings other than something we have here - and is perfectly fine within the definition and label we already have of 'complete set of everything'.

Ok, universe means "complete set of everything" but our Hubblesphere isn't everything. Which is why the new term is needed.

The issue is more with layman usage as tends to be the case with technical definitions more than any real need to make up a new term for something we already have.

Yes, but there is massive confusion about the Big Bang. I'll tell somebody that the Universe has existed forever and they think I'm crazy and say "the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe." Then I have to explain that the Big Bang does NOT represent the entire Universe. It's just one tiny spec in a much larger Universe.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 12:49:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 12:12:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2010 3:56:12 AM, Puck wrote:
and it's well noted in both cosmology and astrophysics that the universe =/= observable universe and when they use the term it's short hand.

Hence, why we need a new term.

We already have it. Observable universe and Universe. When you say the Hubble sphere = observable universe .. it's just adding an unnecessary layer of definition since its definition is already the term we use.

There really is no need for a new term, short of multi verse ideas which need a subsuming definition anyway,

Yeah, they're sometime called baby univerves or bubble universes.

and we have one - universe.

No, that's misleading.

Not at all, Universe means 'all' it is no way misleading since there is no 'greater than all' - there may be silly misuse, but that the fault of the user not a problem with the term and what it defines.

A 'verse is simply an idea of multiple somethings other than something we have here - and is perfectly fine within the definition and label we already have of 'complete set of everything'.

Ok, universe means "complete set of everything" but our Hubblesphere isn't everything. Which is why the new term is needed.

And it's definition is... yeah, the term we use. It's not a new 'thing' that needs categorising. It already has one.

The issue is more with layman usage as tends to be the case with technical definitions more than any real need to make up a new term for something we already have.

Yes, but there is massive confusion about the Big Bang. I'll tell somebody that the Universe has existed forever and they think I'm crazy and say "the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe." Then I have to explain that the Big Bang does NOT represent the entire Universe. It's just one tiny spec in a much larger Universe.

No, that's a hypothesis at best in which case you say our big bang created our little 'verse within the context of multiverse postulation which all together makes the Universe.

There is no evidence for multiverse anyway and again goes back to layman misuse. We shouldn't change terms in science simply because people are too lazy to read science articles.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 5:05:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 9:15:05 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
At 3/2/2010 2:58:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If "Universe" means everything that exists, and God's not a part of it, God does not exist.

I disagree with your claim that the way "universe" is commonly used refutes God. As a basis, dictionary.com defines universe as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."

Objects. Space. As in physical objects and three dimensional space. If only the Bible taught that God is a physical being confined to a three dimensional body, you'd have a great point. But in fact, you have no point. The Bible teaches that God is a spiritual being (not a physical being) who is not confined by space like we are.

Understanding the universe as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" and saying that God exists outside of this universe is not self refuting in the least. But with your definition of the universe being "everything that exists", I see your point. Nothing that is alleged to be outside the realm of existance could possibly exist. If only that was what the word universe meant.

This.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 11:51:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@nick and pcp

Ok, so you guys are saying that "Universe" does NOT mean "everything that exists"? So then what term do we use?

@Puck

It seems we agree because you conceded that:

"observable universe (Hubblesphere) =/= Universe"

Which is my point. And we should not equivocate these terms, yet it happens all the time and causes confusion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 1:23:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 11:51:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems we agree because you conceded that:

"observable universe (Hubblesphere) =/= Universe"

Which is my point. And we should not equivocate these terms, yet it happens all the time and causes confusion.

Or you could pay attention to where I specifically state the error is in layman misuse and the term you propose redundant. :P
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 2:36:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 11:51:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@nick and pcp

Ok, so you guys are saying that "Universe" does NOT mean "everything that exists"? So then what term do we use?

We can still use the term "universe" to describe everything in the cosmos, i.e., everything in three dimensional space. However, if one believes that God and angels exist and that they are spiritual beings (not confined to three-dimensions), then the universe is not EVERYTHING that exists. You can use whatever term you want to refer to the cosmos (use the term "cosmos" if you want). I have no opinion on your advocation of using hubblesphere. Go for it.

My only point was that saying that God is outside of the universe is not self refuting of God, because those who believe in God do not believe that "the universe is all that exists." Your argument was deductive (nothing that is outside the realm of existence exists) but not reasonable. No one who believes that God is outside of the universe would define the universe as everything that exists. And dictionary.com didn't either.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 2:41:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
why is this in the religion section?

also don't you think "observable universe" is more informative than hubblesphere?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 5:08:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 5:05:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/2/2010 9:15:05 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
At 3/2/2010 2:58:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If "Universe" means everything that exists, and God's not a part of it, God does not exist.

I disagree with your claim that the way "universe" is commonly used refutes God. As a basis, dictionary.com defines universe as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."

Objects. Space. As in physical objects and three dimensional space. If only the Bible taught that God is a physical being confined to a three dimensional body, you'd have a great point. But in fact, you have no point. The Bible teaches that God is a spiritual being (not a physical being) who is not confined by space like we are.

Understanding the universe as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" and saying that God exists outside of this universe is not self refuting in the least. But with your definition of the universe being "everything that exists", I see your point. Nothing that is alleged to be outside the realm of existance could possibly exist. If only that was what the word universe meant.

This.

Not this. You can't accept the definition that the universe = set of all things, go on to define things as anything physical, and then postulate an ontologically different kind of thing in contrast to defeat the assumed definition. If you believe spirits exist, then it's simply subsumed under the umbrella term "everything," or universe.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 6:13:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 5:08:32 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Not this. You can't accept the definition that the universe = set of all things, go on to define things as anything physical, and then postulate an ontologically different kind of thing in contrast to defeat the assumed definition. If you believe spirits exist, then it's simply subsumed under the umbrella term "everything," or universe.

Yes, that. You are slightly misconstruing nick's post in any case. He is saying that he is accepting the definition universe = "set of all things IN SPACE" which would not include God. He never defined things or objects as necessarily physical.
Some term like "everything" would be "all existent things" which would include God.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!