For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

Just dropping in with a quick comment as to:



As one who follows science with more than a passing interest, I have never really seen this all encompassing assumption, relating to the first part of this question, expressed by the representatives of the science community. So, this merely allows the questioner to pose the question we see. But the question is permitted only if we accept the implication that intelligence, and thereby human existence, is somehow allowed. This implies an "original choice" generated by an "intent". In turn, if we accept this premise, this intent assumes some powerful entity or designer.

There is no need to invoke such intent. Given a specific environment such as we find here on our planet, there is a wealth of evidence to support the self organization of matter, self replicating molecular structures, life, intelligence and even human free will without the philosophical prosthesis of mystical all powerful beings.

The relevant and most sophisticated question is not how intelligence was "permitted" but the history of its self evolution from such beginning points as the Big Bang (although early cooled down Earth would do nicely for me). It is the interaction of chemicals with their surrounding environment, molecular self replication, the evolution of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotes leading eventually to "us" that would constitute the greatest story ever told for me.

It has been expressed that science and religion (Belief in GOD) can co-exist and this is true. But although scientists seem to have little problem with this concept, theists continually perceive themselves bumping up against scientific facts that they then seem to find "disprove" the existence of such a Deity. It is then that those of faith seem to encounter doubt. At this point personal decisions beg to be made. It is when the faithful then choose to kill the scientific messenger with exhortations against such powerful evidence provided by science that they then begin to build their logical houses upon sandy soil.

Respectfully,

JM

JLN, man is also the WORST at measuring things.

Relative

On the advancement of our civilisation's level of technology - I believe the source was British Telecoms Key Strategic Thinker and Futurist. At the moment all I can find to his future predictions for the next 70 years are:

http://www.btexact.com/white_papers/downloads/WP106.pdf

All very spectulative. Somewhere in the future we may have a better understanding of physics that uncovers primordal energy sources or ways of manipulating matter and energy that look like magic in a far as what we can do today. You can't predict innovations and breakthroughs, nor when they may happen.

So even things like the speed of light being a constant and conservation of matter and energy are just effects of 4 of the supposed 10 or 11 dimensions of our reality. We may find there truly are 11 dimensions and by manipulating the predicted hidden dimensions be able to 'apparently' bend the laws of the 4 know dimensions we have today.

All very spectulative - but in 2 years or 20,000 years we might be there.

Terry,

Thanks for the update on the grand colour scheme I missed that - the universe now matches the colour of my kitchen!

Now to your excellent points above:

1. Nothing that we have found in the universe so far requires a creator. Everything seems to be explainable by natural laws. Saying "God did it" adds no information to the theory, and just leaves us with the same questions, but an added complexity that violates Occam's Razor. What did god make the universe out of, did he have a choice of physical laws, why did he create it, where did god come from, does god have a physical presence, etc.

Random chance in the fine tuning of constants to permit intellgent life seems too remote to contemplate unless the Universe is infinite (a bouncing - Big Bang / Big Crunch model) or there are infinite universe according to experts in genetics and theoretical physics.

Natural laws as we understand them reveal no data on why the constants of physics are what they are.

* * * My Personal Beliefs follow * * *

One creation model may be God interacted with two carefully selected membranes in M-Theory and caused them to interact to form a new membrane (A + B = C), where this membrane inherited just the laws and physical constants we percieve today.

Yes God could choose the pyhsical laws by mixing the right membranes in the right way together. Picture it as a hyper complex mathematical translation function.

Why do it - the Golden question? Maybe to create us in an indeterminate world and see what given intelligence and free world we would do. Maybe by examining us he determines more about himself. An act of creation may be an act of love. Maybe one day we will be elevated to have alot more of his characteristics, knowledge and powers and promote his agenda for the infinte membranes or within this reality.

No idea where god comes from, maybe God is a wave function of the infinite membranes. I am not fit to answer this question.

God exists outside this universe. I believe as per Hawkings that God only interacts with this Universe thru his/its laws of reality (as he knows them not our limited understanding of physics) and within the scope of preserving free will to us or any other promise he has made us that puts a constraint on his behaviour or style and frequencies of interaction. So as an example - within our reality God is as bound by the Uncertainity principle as we are. I am unsure how God's spirit interacts with our conciousness and dreams!


2. There is no logical reason to create billions of galaxies with billions of stars each just to provide one planet to breed human beings on. One could argue that god created gazillions of planets with intelligent life, of course. But how could we feel "special" if he did?

My point too! I ponder perhaps exactly this much initial big bang energy/mass was required to set our physical constants to their precise levels within the laws of physics that hold sway. So from my above A + B = C equation. Perhaps 11 dimensional C sets the laws of physics accoring to your interaction function F(A,B), but the starting Energy levels or ratio of Higgs Bosons determine your physical constants within those laws. So if Big Bang starting energy was half or double perhaps C or h would be radically different. Maybe this is wht we have so many stars - left over by products of a Big bang necessary to create a Universe with precisely these rules and constants.

3. The fossil record, DNA evidence, and observation clearly show that life evolved on earth over the last 3.8 billion years. For the first 3 billion years no multi-celled animals existed. There is no logical reason for the delay if life was created. There is no need for god if life evolved.

Agree with your first two sentences. But I believe God works consistently within the Universe to abide by its (his) laws - else reality would be warped and maybe irreperably damaged. So I ponder God may constraint himself to act physically like an uber-scientists who knows all the tricks and backdoors to physics in our Universe, but just doesn't magic things in and out breaking the laws of (his) reality he created on a whim. That is a perfect reason for the timeframe science observes.

4. 99% of all species that ever existed on earth are gone. They were replaced by other species, which were replaced by still other species, each one becoming more like the forms we see living today. Why would a god make and discard so many prototypes before coming up with the current models?

Evolution does this directly, to abide by God's will and plan. The world is indeteriminate at the quantum level - something God must have explicitely wanted. Too God gifts us free will - so this would also constrain him magicing things around at random.

5. The human body does not reflect good design practices, with everything from birth defects, autoimmune diseases, injury-prone joints, useless appendages that cause problems (wisdom teeth, sinuses, appendix), to unwanted body hair. If a god created woman, he is sadistic as well as an incompetent engineer. Many other animals are not optimally designed, but reflect the tinkering you would expect if they evolved naturally.

As per the above, free will and conserving the laws of reality allow us to evolve over time. If God kept interfering or short cutting things, or if the Universe was not indeterminate the whole Universe and us would be no more than a gigantic slide rule or Matrix program. There would be no point to it. God would already know its outcomes. Non determinism is the key IMHO to understanding God's greatness. I ponder that God is not evolving too! (Heresey in many religions)

6. There is no logical reason to create parasites to infest, cripple and kill innocent children who have no access to medical care. Why would god want or allow parasites to torment wild animals? It does make sense that a mindless process of evolution produced them.

As per 4 and 5 above.

7. There is no consensus in the world about which god is the true one, and some of them claim that anyone who does not believe as they do will go to hell. There is no rational basis for choosing among them, and most people believe whatever they were taught to believe as children. Most claim divine revelation as their basis. Some have mutually exclusive beliefs, so they can't all be right. Since god has failed to indicate CLEARLY AND TO EVERYBODY which religion is right, one must assume that either god doesn't care what people believe, or he simply doesn't exist. If he doesn't care, he might as well not exist.

Agreed - because of my above points and because I see Religion as a work (in progress) of mankind's - meaning its fundamentally flawed to be no better or worse than our best attempts as imperfect creatures. Also God gave us all free will - sinner and saints, prophets and liars and politicans - you can't do that unless you're hand off and subtle in your leadership style. If God instantaneously zapped all bad people - there wouldn't be much free will and maybe he'd have subverted his own plans!

8. A study of the world's religions shows that the concept of god has evolved along with human societies. Gods are generally modeled on human traits and desires, rather than being independent of them. Therefore, it seems that god was created by man to explain the unknown and give man a way to affect his fate: by propitiating the gods with rituals, prayer and sacrifice.

Agreed - as per my point 7 logic. Religion is makind reaching towards an external being complex. Faith is an internal personal view. Religion is an external, codified dogma (loved the movie Dogma by the way )

9. There is no indication that god intercedes in any way in human existence. Heartfelt prayers by his most faithful followers go unanswered, and it is despicable to say that "sometimes the answer is no" when you have prayed for the life of your child to be spared or a disaster to be averted. If god makes no difference in the world, his existence is unnecessary.

See points above on free will + we can't tell what God is doing. If I pray for a war and you don't how can God satisfy us both? If I pray for God to come - and you pray for him not to - again confusion. Free will has to mean God interacts rarely and/or in spirit to guide us towards lifes goals and successes.

10. "Is he (God) willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" [Epicurus, 350-?270 BC]

God fulfills his own plans and agendas. God limits himself in accordance to furthering these plans and promises he made to himself or us. So Evil and Randomness and Chaos are part of God's design at present - Free will and non-determinism are the benchmark - except at some watershed events in history - only he knows why!

Remember - this is my own current and personal belief system - not absolute facts, but hopefully at least reasoned ideas!

Your assumptions are indeed well-reasoned, whether or not they are correct.

I still don't see why god must be seperate from the universe? He could simply have organized this world from matter which already existed.

Again, perhaps the universe is our playground in the hereafter. God surely has something in plan for us other than "being happy." He is not merely going to assign us to heaven or hell, then forget about us. That would be pointless. He must have some plan for us, which involves this big back yard.

SCoates

Nope to your he shaped matter that was already there - I think we were created from a combination of two or more pre-existing membranes. Meaning God pre-dated our universe in "GodTime" not our Realities Time function or mankind's perception.

Physics seems to say things started at the Big Bang.

Agree your last point - maybe he wants company and we are on the way to becoming more like him and he is learning about himself in the process of our development / evolution / enrichment. Don't know what he will do with this knowlegde - maybe change himself and us further?

truth
Perhaps so, SCoates, but who else measures things? To say that man is the measure of all things means, to me, that he creates the standards, scales, or units of measurement and that he does it for specific and general human ends. Without man, size has no meaning or use value.

That's my point. It's just like saying "You're my favorite mom" to my only mom. Technically she's also my least favorite. It wasn't meant to be a useful point, just an incidental one.

Thoughts on the Big Bounce = Infinite (?) Big Bangs <-> Big Crunches

Something in me is against this mechanism - although one stage removed - endless interactions between membranes in M-Theory could be permissible. Why one and not the other. Let me rant

A Big Bang starts with something and exists in zero spacetime. Even if the initial energy/mass was high enough to close all universal spacetime , could it also suck in the vaccuum of spacetime itself - rather than just consume ordinary energy and matter? Because the vaccuum of space has quantum energy that acts like negative mass or energy (because of its location) to inflate space - accelerating the rate at which galaxies move away from each other. I am not sure that gravity can suck in quantum foam becuase that is what you'd need it to do. It wouldn't be strong enough to barely grab virtual particles and anti-particle pairs in less than 10 ^ -35 seconds as they appear and annihilate each other - unless it can project into the realities of other close membranes to apply a nearly constant (time wise) force (but time mightn't exist as a dimension of these other quantum realities.

If all the energy mass of our Universe was collapsed in one place - but spacetime was still outside this singualirty plus its event horizon - what would trigger a big bang. You'd need to relate to M-Theory to allow a secondary Big Bang becuase Einstein's physics don't apply within the boundary of the event horizon - unless its a Grav Star (spinning, finite sized core rather than zero sized singualrity). The Big Bang worked because spacetime wasn't present. Does a Big crunch even eat spacetime - how does our reality pertrude into the cosmic foam of other realities to do this - gravity or some extra M-Theory dimensional force?

To hold to this theory you'd need a much better understanding of black holes, quintessence, M-Theory and the Higgs Boson and other ultra-high energy particles. Because black holes raise entropy by losing all contained information in a system - meaning multiple possible pasts and futures according to Hawkings - each equally true. Notch one more one up to the uncertainity principle.

Finally you'd need more understanding between black holes and membrane interactions to propose more credible membrane / membrane interactions given a partially digested Universe. Nowhere in our science do black holes vomit forth realities once they eat too much. In our membrane of existence blackholes only emit Hawking radition at their event horizons. Black holes might create new membrane s- but our theoretical physics and M-Theory isn't advanced enough yet to propose credible models.

Black holes in spacetime and Big Bang singlarity creation events (membrane / membrane interactions) may be the start and end of a process or may be not that related. As a Big Bang exists before the laws of physics for a membrane are created and the Balckholes exists within those laws - but possible transfers membrane dimensions to another reality.

I wonder if you are thinking a black holes eats all this reality and spews out another Universe with different 11 dimensions and different initial energy/mass levels and different universal constants. To hold that view we'd need to know alot more about gravity and its effect across membranes - not just within our own.

I am curious. If you did not support a god involved with any of the involved systems; rather, if we removed him from the equation, then what events would accompany the initial stages of a universe, or the final stages of one. Do you believe once a universe is entirely spent it is entirely diffuse, or entirely dense? And would it ultimately remain in that state? Seriously, forgive me if I am not following , but your theories don't seem to leave room for any sort of universal regeneration.

SCoates - great, insightful question!


My God is a God of uber science - the part of him that is uber spirit and a personal God I have not considered as deeply.

Yes all the mechanisms I described could possible be unguided and evolved by chance. So my God is mostly a very, very subtle God if he exists at all! He acts only infrequently like a catalyst - not as a primary cause most of the time!

The fact someone comes along and says to ancient man I am a God or I come from God influences my belief - even if we understand him imperfectly and even if the bible has serious signal to noise ratios.

I choose to wish to be part of a grander scheme I don't understand, one that has a purpose that is beyond me. But this is because its in my personal make up - its an internal factor in my make up - not an external factor. So I call this faith not science.

To me science is the how not the why. Science can't prove God, so my Science has to allow for him to be there or not else I am hopeless biased! But my science can pick holes in bad science or lack or thought - it just doesn't prove or disprove God.

So I suppose I might as well ask, "What if we removed the aspect of gravity. Then how would your equations work?" Still, you do use God as a buffer between the extent of your theories and the extent of reality as you percieve it (which I don't consider a bad thing). When the argument is brought against me that the universe can opperate on its own, and life evolve on its own, WITHOUT god (developing recreation of all sorts of life, and even ecosystems. lifeless portions of space notwithstanding), my response is "Well God sure did a good job setting things up."

If, for example I created a robot which was capable of creating additional robots exactly like itself, I have in a sense created an innumerable ammount of robots. You cannot argue that I had no part, for the robots create themselves just fine without any interference.

Removing Gravity would be like removing chicken from chicken madasga, or like removing odds numbers from mathematics!

Equations that require spacetime make no sense if your remove spacetime. Remember Einstein defined Gravity as the curvature of spacetime - not a force in itself.

I never use God as a buffer. God is an added extra. My world works perfectly well with or without a God. God is watching things develop - like a quiet director in a play - in my world. I am sure we don't often even notice his directions nowadays - they are too subtle for us.

I think God did a great job setting up what he wanted. Remember from the Uncertainity Principle - observing a situation changes it - God is observing us in very subtle ways so as not to overtly change things.

You may create as many robots as you wish I am sure if you can build self replicating machines you have a sense of purpose and determination or experimenation you wish to satisfy in doing so. You don't do it becuase you already know the answer - its a trip, an adventure - you wish to discover something about robots or yourself or the environment. They are not just discarded toys if you have planned well.

Several of you folks seem convinced there is a God -- and are even able to offer comments about what the God is like.

I see absolutely NO unambiguous evidence that there is, in fact, a God -- and it appears to me that at best, you folks are simply pulling a guess out of thin air.

If in fact that is not what you are doing -- would you be so kind as to itemize the evidence that you suppose unambiguously points to the existence of a God -- so that we can discuss it.

If you are, as I am suggesting you might be, simply pulling a guess out of nothing, it would be nice to see you acknowledge that fact.

It would also be nice for you, Frank, to do more than just bang your figurtive fist on the table here, demanding that others prove what they don't claim can be proven. Why not attempt a proof of your own views? Explain, if you will, the origins of the universe and the questioning intelligence of mankind?

Frank,

I have given you what I view as the likely mechanisms of creation - whether you believe in a God or not - I hope you can see some value in the espoused views of some clever people.

I have also tried to identify flaws and weaknesses in other views - like an infinitely bouncing Universe over all time thereby allowing all random chances to happen.

I doubt you will every find unambiguous evidence, there is too much colinearity in a God that uses science to complete his deeds rather than magic. You are always left with plausible denials.

I may equally point out you likely do have something positive to contribute to the discussion. Its up to you if you wish to deliver to your full potential here.

Please remember why I started this thread, if you are able to contribute to it I would be greatly pleased.

g_day

I opened discussion on this TV programme some time ago but can't find the thread. However I recently re-raised Polkinghorne's (episode one) contribution on a current "Agnosticism" thread in relationship to justifications for my own atheism.

<<It may be significant that "spontaneous appearance of structure" without recourse to "causality" is now accepted by theoretical physicists, and therefore theistic scientists no longer require "God" as a " prime mover". Polkinghorne ( celebrated Cambridge physicist and theologian) for example said recently in a TV programme that "God was required to account for a sense of morality, not as an explanation of existence" (Paraphrased). >>

I never asked for proof of anything -- so please do not put words into my mouth. And since you seem to be doing a bit of figurative fist banging yourself, don't you think it inappropriate to be calling the kettle black?





My views are that I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base the kinds of guesses I see being made here.

How does one go about "proving" that one does not know something -- other than by simply acknowledging it?

That is why I asked the people who seem convinced there is a God to furnish the evidence upon which they are basing that guess -- so we could, as I mentioned quite clearly, discuss it.





I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS -- and I suspect nobody else here does either. And I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base the kinds of wild guesses I see being made here.

But if you folks will present your evidence, we can discuss it.

What is your problem?

Just got back from a bus trip so im gonna catch up qnd see what ive missed since Wed. im glad you unposted that long link . Now my laptop can present everything nicely.

That was condescending; inappropriate; unnecessary; and illogical.

I have already made VERY VALUABLE contributions to this thread.

I have warned the participants that to put too much FAITH in the so-called science pointing you in the direction you are headed -- is about as logical as putting too much FAITH in Christianity or Hinduism or Zeus.


We know very, very little about this universe -- and we know goddam near nothing about the UNIVERSE , if there is such a thing.

In my opinion, that contribution of mine far exceeds in value any of the other stuff going on.

I'll keep at it -- and perhaps those of you who do not see (or who refuse to see) the value of what I am contribution will eventually see the light. (Condescension intended!)

fresco,

I agree, I think faith and science should be de-coupled. I don't think faith should come into play once science fails - the 'God did it' recourse. I think the Universe and science should be explainable up to the limits of our intellect and our grip on the laws of physics themselves.

As I said before I think God played uber scientist during creation - so evidence of his action will be subtle, hard to find and always disputable. From my perspective this is because God wants us to have and exercise free will rather than a huge bias towards him.

Ask is faith rational and I would say simply maybe - maybe not. I lean towards faith is simply not a rational act nor frame of mind.

This affects its truth in few ways - because it make what you believe in subjective - introducing greater randomness of what your God is - and so most folk are likely to not have a perfect view of God. But does this matter? Probably not too much - believers simply act like an external hidden hand is guiding them (to borrow from Keysinian economics).

Having faith is one thing, acting on it is a whole lot tougher.

Frank,

You asked for unambigious evidence, well call it playing with semantics but that is clearly asking for proof. But that is a reasonable request and I have tried to give you my views and rational as clearly and openly as I can.

You feel my last response was beneath you? Sorry but I didn't accuse you outright of making things up - pulling it of my arse - and then when the links were posted to show the source of these suppositions I didn't hear an apology for your explicit acquisitation.

You are making a big assumption when you say "We know very, very little about this universe -- and we know goddam near nothing about the UNIVERSE , if there is such a thing." That's a very subjective call - how do you know this for fact - what is your basis for measurement?

Last I agree with you Frank, I think you do believe you are offering a lot to this discussion, and as I said before I encourage you to keep trying. Just remember contribution is both a matter of form and content. All you seem to be saying is "knowledge evolves so trust nothing" - it will all be changed tomorrow. Now that is me exercising the first of the traits you felt my last post delivered to you.

How about we just show our maturity and argue the point - not the man. If you wish to dismiss the state of our current level of science and the validity of our scientific process - you'd better table some factual, complete and exhaustive critique and solid statistical analysis rather than give isolated examples of theories being refined.

An example - MOND or Modified Newtonian Dynamics - altering Netwons laws by a very small factor until you consider cosmic distance scales (from memory the change equals C ^ 2 divided by the size of the Universe) predicted a great many results that we have since seen. It didn't just fit existing data well, it predicted new results which have since been proved. To me a theorum with strong predictive powers that can be later validated stands above an unproven conjecture (e.g. dark matter and dark energy). Remember too Einstein was not awarded a Nobel prize for his incredible theories of special and general relativity - but for the photo-electric effect showing the duality of light as waves and particles. Evidence for relativity was only discovered 20 years after his theories were published.

I am curious as to your statement "if there such a thing as the Universe". To me you are questioning reality and conciousness to voice those views. Yes we could be programs in a giant computer like the matrix - so what? Yes you can learn lesson from Buddhism, Christianity or any of the other 5,000 faith/life systems recorded to date - so what?

Your arguments seem to be conclusions rather than reasoning. I want to hear more of your views on life, the universe and everthing.