For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

g-day. quantum physics has benefited phys chemistry and many theories and laws have consequently been derived concerning energy states of atoms, therefore THE VERY SMALL has been made accessible and applicable via qm.

Where does one begin to even speculate what the evidence should be to provide some data that string theory is even on the right track. My mind is still stuck in Newtonian and quantum worlds.

Just some thought about the Higgs Boson and its potentially incredible importance...

Theoretical physics moves well ahead of conventional physics, but it stays theoretical until it can make some predictions that can be independently verified.

The super-colliders at Ferme and CERN do just that sort of detection. So on the chart at the bottom of that link you see a Z and W particles to carry force - well they were found in 1983 - pretty conclusively.

The Higgs Boson surrounds other particles and interact with a seperate Higgs Field that permeates all spacetime. When you move any object it has to push Higgs Bosons out of the way but HBs remember are somewhat bound in the Higgs field. So when normal matter pushes Higgs Bosons out of their way this gives us the observed properties of mass, momentum and inertia.

Invent a way to switch off normal matters/energies interaction with Higgs Bosons or the Higgs field itself in the area around a large object and you have inertialess flight, you have defeated gravity you can take a huge step towards travel at lightspeed.

So its a BIG thing!

Theory predicted the HB should sit somewhere beteen 115 GeV and a top quark at 200 GeV. It was expected that only the next generation of supercolliders would be able to detect it - but me might have just got our first look at it!

* * *

The next Generation Haldron collider may be able to prove some of superstring theory, we might be able to see:

1. Energy dissapearing = equating leaking into other dimensions, proving they exist

2. Symmetrical particles or s-particles for every known particle (e.g selectron, sproton, sneutron) - all of which would have greater mass/energy then their normal counterparts.

g_day

Okay. Without too much elaboration, your dualistic universe has become "problematic" to quantum physicists and cognitive scientists for reasons "obvious" to non dualists As said before, we have discussed much of this elsewhere (which you can trace through my threads if interested), but rest assured that "conventional ideas" about "evidence" and "knowledge" have major unresolved philosophical issues associated with them in which "religion" is little more than a distraction.

Is there a way of saying that in simpler (non jargon) English?

Surely faith systems helped science understand evloution had to be more than natural selection to explain why people are basically good when its survival of the fittest. Faith systems helped science understand

evolution = natural selection + sexual selection

and sexual selection allows the better attributes of mankind to be breed in for future survival.

As I said - I don't think science and faith can't play nice - each could borrow readily form each others mechanisms readily without detracting form the grandeur we experience every day.

Our most modern Science holds the Universe as 11 dimensional - what if one of those dimensions is God's spirit? That would put the cat amongst the pidegons

But I agree that for considering Science you don't need God in to get to the bottom of things. I say God uses science - not replaces it. I say God is more about the why do it and the where to from here with minimal on the how things get done. Science is all about the how and offers no purpose to life.

PS

If anyone is interested at all in the last 6 years of cutting edge theoretical physics here is a good place to see lecture by many leading folk including Hawkings:

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/

g_day

Thanks for those references.

I thought I had avoided jargon !
Dualism takes various forms (e.g. Decartes there are two types of "stuff" - mind and matter etc) but the dualism I refer to here is the assumption that the observer can be separated from the observed. This forms the basis of what in philosophy has been called "naive realism". In physics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be taken to be a practical manifestation of this "problem" which has major epistemological (theory of knowledge) import.

It is outside the scope of this thread to discuss the social dynamics involved in "scientists" clinging to particular views of "reality" irrespective of whether "everyday life" is based on a particular view. Einstein's "playing dice" comments are typical of such a debate. I merely draw attention to the relevent literature such as Capra (op cit) and Thomas Khun's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which I
think are fairly essential reading for anybody raising issues about the connection between science and religion.

NB Read Capra on "evolution". You could be in for a shock !

my problem with thebasic Higgs postulates is that e- mass only selectively increases in a charged crystal lattice. Wasnt the real world observation of electron mass increase the germ of his associative mass ideas and hence a mass'inducing' particle?

Not sure - must check.

By the way from SETI - chances of finding another planet capable of sustaining life - anywhere in the galaxy has been decreased to 1 in 10 ^ 20 against, making the Earth incredibly unique!

http://www.konkyo.org/english/seti.html

-extract

Astronomical Parameters Related to Life Supportability on a Planet

1. Galaxy type (.1)

If too elliptical (and therefore not spiral), star formation would have ceased before sufficient heavy elements could be produced and incorporated into a planet to support life chemistry.
If too irregular, radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available in sufficient quantities.

2. Galaxy size (.1)

If too small, the gravitational field of the galaxy will be too weak to hold on to most of the heavy elements produced in supernova explosions. The inertia of the ejected particles will carry most of them into intergalactic space, making them unavailable for later planetary formation.
If too large, radiation levels will be too high for advanced life.

3. Supernova rates and proximity (.01)

If too close or too frequent or too late in the development of a galaxy, life on a planet would be exterminated by radiation.
If too far away or too infrequent or too soon in the development of a galaxy, not enough heavy elements would be available at the time a planet forms for it to later be able to support life.
White dwarf binaries (a hot dwarf star revolving around a larger star companion). These stars are the only place in the universe where there exists the kind of nuclear reaction necessary to produce the element

3. fluorine, which is also necessary for life chemistry. (.05)

If too few, insufficient fluorine would be produced to later be incorporated into a planet to allow life chemistry to proceed.
If too many, that would mean that the stellar density is so great that planetary orbits would be disrupted and life could not be maintained for long periods of time.
If too early in the development of a galaxy, not enough heavy elements would have been available for efficient fluorine production.
If too late in the development of a galaxy, fluorine would have been produced too late to be available for incorporation into a developing planet.
Parent star location. For a variety of reasons, only stars located between the spiral arms of a galaxy could have a life-supporting planet. Likewise, the system must be at the co-rotational radius in order to maintain its

4. favored position. (.00001)

If located within a spiral arm, high stellar density would increase radiation and lead to destabilization of planetary orbits.
If much farther out than our sun, the quantities of heavy elements necessary to make a planet like earth would have been insufficient and the star would eventually get swept into a spiral arm as it caught up with the star.
If much closer in than our sun, it would also be impossible to maintain a favorable location for long, as the star would again be swept up into a high stellar density arm.
Amplitude of vertical motion away from the galactic plane as a stellar

5. system revolves around the galactic center. (.1)

If great enough to carry the system out of line with the rather narrow band of dust clouds that shield a system from the extreme radiation emitted from the galactic core, radiation levels would greatly rise during the twice per revolution period (about every 100 million years) when the star would be outside the protective zone. Such exposure would be catastrophic to advanced life. The sun is one of the relatively few stars that always remains close to the galactic plane.

6. Number of stars in the planetary system. (.2)

Any planet that is revolving around a double star could not maintain a stable orbit, and thus could not support life.
Likewise, a planet not revolving around any star would obviously be far too cold for life. Therefore, there must be one and only one star around which the planet revolves.

7. Parent star birth date with respect to the parent galaxy. (.2)

If much more recent than our sun, the star would not have been in its stable burning phase for a long enough period to support advance life.
If significantly older than our sun (and therefore a star that developed early in the life of the galaxy), there would not have been enough heavy elements available for the formation of an earth-like planet.

8. Parent star age. (.4)

If either much older or much younger than our sun, the star would not be in a stable burning period and the luminosity of the star would change too quickly.

9. Parent star mass.(.001)

If slightly greater than our sun, the star would burn too rapidly and the luminosity would be too unstable. If slightly less than our sun, the range of distances a life-supporting planet could be from the star would become too narrow; and if such a planet were at that exact distance for proper temperature, the tidal forces involved would be so great that the rotational period of the planet would be slowed down much too fast.
Parent star color (which is dependent on surface temperature). (.4)
If either redder (cooler) or bluer (hotter) than our sun, the "bell curve" that represents the radiation coming from the star would be shifted one way or the other. The entire process involved in plants producing food through photosynthesis would be negatively affected, as the percentage of visible light within the total amount of radiation energy (which must be the same in order to have the same temperature on the planet's surface) would be reduced, thus making photosynthesis less efficient. Also, a certain amount of UV light is necessary. This would be significantly reduced with a cooler sun (leading to reduced efficiency in the production of certain nutrients) and significantly increased with a hotter sun (leading to cell damage). (This also, of course, is affected by the ozone shield).

10. Parent star luminosity relative to the introduction of new life forms on a planet. (.0001)

If the rate of introduction of life forms that decreased the greenhouse effect were too slow, the increase in luminosity would have resulted in a runaway greenhouse effect.
If the rate were too fast, then the too rapid reduction in the greenhouse effect would have resulted in runaway glaciation.

11. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount of radiant energy impinging on the surface) (.1)

If significantly greater than the earth's, runaway glaciation would develop.
If significantly less than the earth's, runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

12. Distance from parent star (.001)

If slightly farther out, the planet would become too cold to maintain a stable water cycle (also resulting in runaway glaciation).
If slightly closer, the planet would be too hot to maintain a stable water cycle (also resulting in runaway greenhouse effect).

13. Surface gravity (escape velocity) (.001)

If stronger, the planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane, both of which would be detrimental to life.
If weaker, the planet's atmosphere would loose too much water.

14. Orbital eccentricity (.3)

If much more than the 1.6% it is, seasonal temperature differences would become too extreme.

15. Axial tilt (.3)

If much greater than the ideal of 23.5 degrees, the surface temperature differences between summer and winter for most of the planet would be too extreme for advanced life.
If much less than 23.5 degrees, the regions of the earth with climates suitable for advanced life would be greatly narrowed.

16. Rotation period (.1)

If much longer than 24 hours, the diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
If much shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great, as the forces that drive the winds become much stronger.

17. Age of the planet (?)

If too young, the rotation period would be too fast for all but primitive life.
If too old, the rotation period would have been braked by tidal interaction to the point where it would be too long.

18. Collision rate with asteroids and comets during early and subsequent periods of planet's history (.1)

If much greater than earth, there would be too much destruction of habitat and too many species would become extinct.
If much less than earth, the planet would have received too little of the heavier elements necessary for life. In other words, the planet must have high levels of outside material coming in during its early history, and much less later on.

19. Magnetic field of the planet (.01)

If too strong, electromagnetic storms would be too severe (i.e., they themselves, along with a too powerful van Allen Belt, would become sources of detrimental radiation).
If too weak, life on land would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.

20. Gravitational interaction with a moon (.1)

If much greater than that between the earth and its moon, the tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
If much less, instabilities in the rotational axis of the earth would cause climatic instabilities; the movement of nutrients in coastal regions would be insufficient.

21. Thickness of the crust (.01)

If much thicker than the earth, too much oxygen would be absorbed in oxidation and then fixed in the crust without being available for recycling within the atmosphere. The crust can be thought of as a layer of "rust" covering the earth. If too much oxygen is taken up into this "rust", then too little is available for the atmosphere in the form of C0 2, H2O or 0 2. Likewise, plate tectonics would not operate efficiently.
If much thinner than the earth, volcanic and tectonic activity (the movement of plates that cause earthquakes) would become too intense for advanced life to thrive.

22. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere (.01)

If much greater than 21%, organic material would burn up too easily (fires would start and get out of control much too frequently).
If much less than 21%, advanced animals would have too little to breathe.

23. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (.1)

If much larger, advanced life chemistry would proceed too quickly
If much smaller, advanced life chemistry would proceed too slowly.

24. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (.01)

If much higher, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
If much lower, plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.

25. Water vapor level in atmosphere (.01)

If much higher, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
If much lower, rainfall would be too sparse for advanced life on land.

26. Atmospheric electric discharge rate (.1)

If much greater, too much fire destruction would occur.
If much less, too little nitrogen would be transferred from the air to the soil.

27. Ozone level in upper atmosphere (.01)

If too high, surface temperatures would be lower, restricting life zones.
If too low, surface temperatures would rise and more importantly, increased UV radiation would be harmful to life.

28. Soil mineralization (.1)

If either too nutrient poor or too nutrient rich, the diversity and complexity of life forms becomes more limited.

29. Seismic activity(.1)

If too intense, the impact on advanced life forms would be too devastating.
If too weak, nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

30. Oceans-to-continents ratio (.2)

If either much greater or much smaller than the roughly 3 to 1 ratio of earth, the diversity and complexity of life forms becomes much more restricted.

31. Global distribution of continents on earth (.3)

Having considerably more land area in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere helps to balance the effects of the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, with its perihelion in January and its aphelion in July. At the perihelion maximum, the northern hemisphere winter (southern hemisphere summer) receives about 6.7% more solar energy than the southern hemisphere winter (northern hemisphere summer) receives at the aphelion minimum. This difference is compensated for by the moderation of the larger oceans in the south. If a considerably larger portion of the earth's land were in the Southern Hemisphere, increased seasonal temperature variations in both hemispheres would severely restrict appropriate habitats for many forms of life.

Probability of all necessary parameters occurring on one planet

In order to calculate the probability for the existence of other life supporting planets in the universe, at least two other factors must be taken into account. First of all, it needs to be recognized that a number of the above parameters are interdependent, and thus a simple multiplication of individual probabilities will give too low a figure. Thus, a dependency factor needs to be added in.

On the other hand, the dependency factor is at least partially canceled out by a longevity factor, in that all of the parameters must be maintained within acceptable limits for very long periods of time. In the case of the earth, that means almost 4 billion years!

How large are these factors? Dr. Hugh Ross uses in his estimates 10 ^ 9 for the dependency factor and .0001 for the longevity factor. Putting all of these factors together, that means that the probability of the 33 parameters mentioned above that have estimated probability factors to all come together in one planet comes out to one in 10 ^ 42 (or 10 ^ -42)! As there are a number of other parameters being researched for their sensitivity to the support of life on a planet at the probability of finding a Jupiter-like planet as part of a planetary system and numerous other factors not included in the figures above), the odds are probably many orders of magnitude worse! Even if one is generous and makes the dependency factor a million times greater the odds still only rise to 10 ^ -36!

As there are at the most only approximately 10 ^ 23 stars in the entire universe, it becomes quite obvious that the odds of finding even one star with a life supporting planet is very small - about 10^ -20 according to the probabilities listed above. One can, of course, argue with some of the probability estimates for specific parameters, as different scientists using different assumptions and rationales will no doubt come out with different probabilities for at least some of the planetary parameters. The figures used above are, according to Dr. Ross, rather optimistic figures, and thus the probability is high that many of these parameters are even further restrictive. Likewise, it should be added that while we can directly observe only the 9 planets of our own solar system, we have literally trillions of stars that we can observe and make measurements on. Thus, the figures for the stellar parameters are far more certain.

Hmm, interesting claims dr. Ross makes.
I didn't know the tide turned so much against sentient life. I am aware of Fermi's paradox, the Sagan formula and other educated guesses about the life and the universe.

I wonder how many more will I see in my life

Relative

Yes, G, I am sure you would -- just as I would like to have a discussion with you about the specifics of how you would handle a flop of Qd, 7c, 3h a case holding of A, K of Spades in a Hold 'em tourney.

One would provide me with lots of opportunity to show what I know about a subject that is obscure to many -- and the other would provide you that opportunity.

BOTTOM LINE: Scientists have always thought they are on the cutting edge. Our scientists are no different.

Frankly, I see our scientists placing too much stock in what they can see and infer from what they can see -- just as scientists of all ages have done the same thing.

I cannot explain it any better.

I find the explanations of REALITY given by theists to be wanting.

I find the explanations of REALITY given by athesits to be wanting.

I find the explanations of REALITY given by scientists to be wanting.

We have no idea of what the REALITY of EXISTENCE is -- and my guess is that the amateurish pronouncements of today's scientists one day will provide laughs for scientists of the future.

Mostly I just leave this area be...and devote myself to discussions with theists and atheists.

But you are using "science" in a very weird way in this thread -- and I felt an obligation to respond.

g'day, g___day;

i would like to add another factor into your treatise on the availability of 'life' sustaining environments in neighbouring parts of the universe.

the elements you have retrieved, and listed above are those pertaining to 'life as we know it', and not, necessarily all, or any 'life'.

one famous story, for example, by a highly respected physicist (who's name, unfortunately escapes me), by the title of "The Dragon's Egg", describes life on the surface of a neutron star; an environment which would be readily discarded as 'unsuitable for 'life (as we know it)'.
humanity has habitually concentrated only on possible forms of life that we would readily recognize as such, and be able to relate to; even communicate with. Rather than exploring any phenominon which could be the result of the acretion of matter, energy, or anything which could demonstrate a purposefull 'event' able to generate an 'effect' on it's environment - 'intelligent life'.

some 'other' forms of life, rather than the biologically evolved one with which we are (somewhat) familiar, might be more plentifull, more robust (therefore more lasting), but perhaps less 'evident' to us, particularly on the basis of what we choose to search for.

very "other" forms of life may be far more prolificly represented in the universe, but, until we widen the parameters of our search, may elude us until, perhaps they initiate an interchange.

i might also add that 'other' forms of intelligent existence would be very unlikely to be 'dangerous' by intent, since they, unlike ourselves, probably are not the 'damaged' survivors of a caustic, competetive, paracitic system; pitting each specie against every other, even while requiring all to function together as a 'biosphere' or perish.

our unique, and bizaar form of life may, indeed be very 'rare' (i hope!).

Frank

I guess you were talking about cards...

Seriously your dismissing all science as revolutionary rather than evolutionary is highly flawed - tending towards bad psuedo-science that I only enjoy in my Monthy Python - "if she weights as much as a duck its because she's made out of wood so she will float which means she's a witch and we must burn her!"

What gives you the right to say all science is wrong because you choose to pretend its revolutionary not evolutionary for the most part. I see no way you can hope to support that claim in general. As you said - your views are a "guess", its not proven or rigorously modelled system check to found a belief on. You remind me of Thomas Covenant - the Unbeliever - in the famous series by Stephen R. Donaldson (Lord Foul's Bane etc). You express a need to Unbelieve and doubt things - but its not based on rigorous scientific examination is based on intrinsic doubt.

I can't tell you credibly that the more you play cards the less you really learn because the more random chances you see actually do occur. It's a house built on sand. If you want to tear down all of science its a hurclean task, but theoretical physics is up to be proven or disproven - its fair game!


BoGoWo - thanks - I was waiting for that actually!

Yes - you could have life in a frozen world far from the Sun that had very deep oceans and underwater volcanic vents - such as Jupiters moon Europa.

Perhaps intelligent life could be Silicion or Germanium based - again altering the odds. More esoteric again is what about beings that manifested as ultra complex and aware standing waves of energy - that would turn the calculations of probability upside down.

Another possibility is a race of beings like us in a another membrane close to our own - but far, far more technologically advanced - tunnelling through into our reality from their universe one day.

Frank is so much fun to play with! (because of his 'petrified' fence top stance, and in spite of an underlying searching intelligence!)

'lifeforms' are where you find them..........................

And just where did you ever read that I said "all science is wrong...?"

Don't answer that. I NEVER HAVE SAID ANYTHING THAT COULD EVEN BE MISTAKEN FOR THAT BY ANYONE READING WHAT I HAVE TO SAY WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Creating straw men and arguing against them is small.

Don't indulge in it, G. You look bad when you do.





Another straw man.

While the additional possibilities for life, or intelligent life on other planets are feasible, I really don't think they sway the probability very far. Especially considering the probability cited above (as 1 in 10^20) cannot realistically be considered very accurate. There are just far too many factors at play. While, indeed, I must admit they certainly tried to be thurough.

SCoates

Like all Science - you propose a model, refine it, look to its predictive powers, look for anamolies in your data and refine it further etc.

I think its the start of a Journey of refinement. I agree - the accuracy and the precision of this assessment is unknown - but we can work to improve the model and start to assess both its accuracy and more importantly precision - and know when and where to look for outliers that would show us a different model/reality.

Frank

When you say

You are making a broad, vague and inclusive assessment. You didn't make a qualified statement like "I find the statements by some scientists" you said "by scientists" which is inclusive.

Similarily "Science gives us guesses about REALITY and EXISTENCE" is inclusive, when you should have qualified it to say "areas of" scientific research.

My observation is that your semantics are too open or vague - I was just showing you this imprecision in your statements. Like your universe / UNIVERSE forward references where you argued without first defining your terms of reference - the context and meaning of your views where unintentionally obscured.

I can't discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your stance unless you clarify your views stating in more precise terms what you do believe, what you don't and what you are unsure of in the key areas of your assessment.

When you say "Modern science may be as far away from the truth about EXISTENCE and the UNIVERSE" - that "may" is too broad - its covers to many possiblites to be specific and useful. Its like me saying "you may or may not be right or wrong in specifics or generalities that are constant or will vary over time in areas that will be revealed either by science or something else by a man or a women or something else..."

Don't you wish you could be more specific?

No I don't wish I could be more specific. I wish you could be more open minded -- and less enamored with yourself.

But if you want to suppose that we know enough about this world in which we live to actually discuss the implications of the (apparent) size of it vis-a-vis Christianity -- go for it.

I can use a laugh no matter how it comes my way.

In the meantime, I am happy to have shared my agnostic opinion with you -- and I am thoroughly enjoying your thread.

Be careful with that "fence top stance" stuff, Bo.

You play with the bull; you gonna get the horn. :wink:

Frank

I am glad you are enjoying this thread and if you are laughing I am sure that is great for your health.

I am sure you don't wish you could be more specific - if you were specific your statements could be judged in some way - keeping them so vague means there is nothing tangible to criticise. It's probably just the rest of us that wish you were more specific (although that is me going out on a limb).

I either chuckle or shake my head when I read your "Science is wrong but we don't know where it is wrong cause we don't know everything and what we do know will all be dis-proved in the future by more theories that we don't know - but they will laugh at us until they too become the past and more folk laugh at them... only the wise know that they don't know everything but I being wise don't know what I don't know but at least I am wise enough to know that I don't know it".

That sort of vague logic is dribble. And then I hear infinite Universes knocked and supported - but not by proven science to dis-count analysis of random factors happening unguided in our Universe, come on - which do you choose metaphysics, psuedo-science - give us something tangible and we can steer this thing somewhere.

I am so glad you don't write cook books (do you ?) with that level of precision. I can see it now:

1. Take some stuff
2. Do something with it
3. Don't do it wrong
4. Ignore advice that is different to mine
5. Be prepared to get it right or wrong
6. When its ready you should stop
7. If you do do it wrong don't be sure of it because in the future this might actually be proven to be right

I can't actually see that you have a well defined point of view - all you have expressed so far is a broad theme - which is very nice - but it doesn't say anything.

If someone challenged me to support or criticise your views - first we'd have a long argument over what the heck you probably mean.

The fence must be lovely - but why don't you get down of it and land somewhere?

* * *

PS

What I am surprised is that no one has tried yet is the line of reasoning that says the Universe is so suited to life / the universal constants are so well balanced - not because of any grand unifying law, or an infinite multiverse or infinite series of big bangs <-> big crunches or an infinte God or infinte luck - but because the constants aren't constants - they are changing slowly over time - and they have finally passed through a zone where they foster the conditions for life to be nutured in the Universe.

This is a much more credible theory that could be possibly be confirmed - by looking for time driven changes in the key constants - either by looking well back in time by examining deep space astronomy - or in high energy colliders. I seem to recall in 2001 theorists asking is the speed of light changed after billions of years - saying this can be checked if light passed though cosmic dust and was frequency shifted, although the physics is beyond me.

for example:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

or

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/lawsofphysicschange82901.htm

Thank you -- and I am a laughing a lot.




If you were as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you would be wishing for something quite different. You would be wishing you could gain the confidence to acknowledge what you do not know -- and to be able to express that acknowledgement without the pretence you bring to so much of what you write.




You are a master of straw man building -- and I have found that people who build straw men to argue against are basically very insecure individuals -- no matter how much front they put on.




Yes it is -- but since it is an invention of yours and has absolutely nothing to do with what I have written or with the philosophy I espouse -- it is a mark against YOUR ability to deal logically with things.




I've given you something tangible.

I do not know the answers to questions about reality -- and the answers furnished by theists, atheists, and scientists should all be taken with more than just a few grains of salt.

Try dealing with that tangible. You might come out of denial.




Actually, since my family owned restaurants and since I have managed several restaurant/bars -- I have written lots of recipes for entrance to various recipe contests around the country.

And I do a damned good job of writing those recipes.

I do not need advice on things like that from an officious individual such as you.

In any case, in my next post, I will offer you one of my recipes. Perhaps you will try it and let me know what you think of it.




It doesn't say what you want it to say -- that is your problem.




I am most assuredly not a fence sitter, but people like you who like to consider your guesses as gospel sometimes want to characterize my acknowledging that I do not know and am not willing to make a guess...

...as fence sitting.

More fodder for laughter!

Yer a card, G. Thanx.