nothing is moving. — Devans99

So if nothing is moving, how is something moving faster than light?

You wrote "Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other atfaster than the speed of light. "

OK I should of phrased it:

Parts of the universe are inflating apart from each other at faster than the speed of light.

My point is that someone explained to you that all phenomena are natural, and if there's ever a phenomenon that is supernatural, the natural world can never interact with it. You disregarded this and proceeded with repetitions of previous claims regarding the supernatural, which is by definition and by valid argument impossible for you to discuss. What you insist is supernatural is based on the natural world and your perception of it, yet you maintain a stance whereby you preach its Truth as though incontrovertible.

I was in simplistic terms conveying the humour I see in your paradoxical message of Truth and total disregard for rationality.

" inflating apart from each other " isn't motion?

I gave the definition of supernatural I'm using - not of spacetime. Spacetime was clearly a creation so that implies the existence of the supernatural.

No the galaxies don't move, space inflates. Think of the rubber band example - from the perspective of a dot on the band, stretching of the band involves no movement.

No the galaxies don't move, space inflates. — Devans99

I've not once said anything about galaxies per se.

Is space moving?

Space is space - nothing - so I don't think it can be said to be moving. The particles within it are moving but not space itself.

Do you have a beef with the speed of light speed limit by any chance?

Space is space - nothing - so I don't think it can be said to be moving. — Devans99

If space is nothing, how is it doing anything, such as inflating?

You can't prove creation, and in no way in any of your commentary have you pointed to anything but its absence.

You can move goal posts around to suit your fancy, and you can define whatever word as whatever meaning regardless of the tradition of language, but if you continue to do so no rational person will take your position seriously, and you'll only succeed in contradicting yourself. People will argue with you only because it's easy or humorous, or people will ignore you because you speak only of Truth and Proof in relation to paradoxes.

Do you have a beef with the speed of light speed limit by any chance? — Devans99

I have a beef with us positing nonsense under the rubric of science. Nonsense like "nothing can move faster than the speed of light" while we also say "X is moving faster than the speed of light"

Or nonsense like "space is nothing" while we also claim that space is doing things like inflating.

This a great mystery. The mechanism of expansion is unknown. What we do know is distance galaxies have redshifts of greater than 1 (the speed of light) and we need a mechanism to account for it that does not involve FTL.

You can't prove creation, and in no way in any of your commentary have you pointed to anything but its absence. — whollyrolling

If you want to debate whether the universe is a creation or not, I suggest this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

I have laid out all the evidence there. IMO it is clearly a creation.

This thread I had intended for a discussion of God's attributes.

This a great mystery. The mechanism of expansion is unknown. What we do know is distance galaxies have redshifts of greater than 1 (the speed of light) and we need a mechanism to account for it that does not involve FTL. — Devans99

Why re the part I bolded? As I said earlier, if we have evidence that things are moving faster than the speed of light, then "Things can't move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances" is obviously incorrect. It's a problem to worship theories, so that we figure the theory must be correct, so that recalcitrant evidence must be accounted for some other way (whereupon we make up some incoherent nonsense in order to not have to retool our theories).

- The speed of light speed limit is one of the best empirically established facts in science
- It is also predicted theoretically (see Maxwell)
- It makes intuitive sense. If there was no speed limit; it would be possible to accelerate things unto infinite velocities and straight out of the universe (this is possible with Newtonian mechanics)

So I see FTL as extremely unlikely, hence space is inflating FTL and the speed limit is being obeyed.

The speed of light speed limit is one of the best empirically established facts in science — Devans99

Not if there's empirical evidence of things moving faster than the speed of light.

But we have an explanation - space is expanding. Only distant galaxies appear to recede at FTL, all nearby galaxies do not. This supports the idea that space is expanding - with expansion, the further things are apart, the faster the distance between them increases (think of stretching a rubber band again).

FTL is just too far fetched.

But we have an explanation - space is expanding. — Devans99

You just said that space is nothing. But it's doing something.

I don't think anyone can explain it at present - we don't know exactly what is going on. Astronomers talk of the metric expanding. So it is maybe space is not doing anything but 'the ruler' by which we measure space is expanding.

It's making up incoherent nonsense so that we can theory-worship.

The theory fits the facts IMO.

What is your counter theory?

How can you discuss the attributes of something that is impossible for any natural thing to interact with, something supernatural? Shouldn't you first demonstrate that your creator is something other than a natural phenomenon with a beginning and an end? I don't need to read your Proof again.

What you're basically arguing is that the Big Bang is God.

What is your counter theory? — Devans99

That if we have evidence that things are moving faster than the speed of light, then "Things can't move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances" is obviously incorrect.

If creation was a natural phenomenon we would see more than one instance of it - in fact with infinite time, we'd see an infinite number of creation events (Big Bangs). Thats not what we see. Natural events come in pluralities. The Big Bang was a singleton, hence unnatural/supernatural.

What you're basically arguing is that the Big Bang is God. — whollyrolling

I believe that God causing the Big Bang is the mostly likely explanation.

That if we have evidence that things are moving faster than the speed of light, then "Things can't move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances" is obviously incorrect. — Terrapin Station

How does your theory account for the fact that only distant galaxies appear to move FTL and closer galaxies do not?

There is a relationship between how far a galaxy is away from us and how fast it is receding - how does your theory explain that?

How does your theory account for the fact that only distant galaxies appear to move FTL and closer galaxies do not? — Devans99

I don't think we know exactly why that's the case yet. We'd simply describe it (primarily mathematically, since that's the preferred language of physics). The thing to do is not to just make up stuff that's incoherent to explain it.

I don't think we know exactly why that's the case yet — Terrapin Station

Inflation explains it perfectly though - just like an expanding balloon, the further apart the dots/galaxies are, the faster the distance between them increases.

You can perhaps see why I am reluctant to accept your theory when the established theory is so in agreement with the facts.

There have been numerous speculations, theories and observations concerning "big bang" events. The big bang is not believed to have been an isolated incident, and there is a growing body of evidence in support of this. At present, even with science and physics in support of such a concept, I believe it's premature to make bold claims of Proof either way.

There have been numerous speculations, theories and observations concerning "big bang" events. The big bang is not believed to have been an isolated incident, and there is a growing body of evidence in support of this. — whollyrolling

You are referring to the theory of Eternal Inflation? That is the dominant cosmological theory and it posits a common first cause for all the big bangs.

There are of course some less popular cosmologies out there, but they typically posit time is past eternal - which is impossible - because infinite regresses are impossible and other reasons I've posted here before. CCC by Penrose is one such example theory.

You haven't sufficiently demonstrated any of the things you're stating as if they're incontrovertible facts.