For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

Frank,

This has for the most part been a very interesting thread. As I understand it g_day started it as a challenge to believing Christians concerning some aspects of modern physisc and cosmology.

You have more or less hijacked it to saw away at your (familiar to us all) obsessions with atheism. This is certainly your right, and I don't think that anyone here has challenged your right to either your beliefs, or even the opportunity to express them vociferously. However, you have been decidedly lacking in either consideration for others or even ordinary levels of courtesy in shouting down any discussion of the original intent and direction of the thread. Would it not be better for you to, instead start your own thread on a subject of your choosing and take it from there?

ok - only up to page 2
Man err well certain types need boundries - no boundries no ways to measure.

Hey, I was talking to the other Frank ....

Frank

With respect you insult slyly rather than argue your point of view using anything I can see represents consistently complete logic, you evade and say an issue isn't because of your unique definitions of English words.

I love the way you dismiss someone's point of view who read this forums posting rules before posting (courtesy to all, reference your quotes etc). I have tried to present my point of view and reference this clearly to similar views held by leading scientists who developed some of the theories in question. If you see my sum contribution as "regurgitating what the scientists say about reality" I am saddened as being dismissed so casually. The label you just placed on me says my own reasoning its suspect because I'm an unproven novice and if I reference my views well and put them into appropriate context from my own experience you may reduce and dismiss me because I'm parroting. Very good - very patronising, very welcoming. I expect Hanners at elitebastards to do this - but he has the wit and charm and sharp mind able to carry it off without being malicious and he doesn't evade when he gets it wrong. I expected able2know to be about learning - infering open minds, not void or vacant or closed or dismissive - but open. I don't think you once looked at my views openly and gave them any respect, I think you jumped straight into attack mode becuase I stepped onto a definitional irregularity that triggers your anger or contempt.

I see you have nearly 5,000 posts. If you jump into every newcomers' threads, introduce yourself by insulting them or their logic, make cryptic and unsupported comments, use common terms cryptically that you don't define till way later to waste time - as I said what have you actually contributed?

Its a shame because I sense you may have a point of view that is worth considering in your personal view of reality. Its just painfully difficult getting you to define your POV.

If this has wasted both our times - well we both had to make the effort didn't we? I don't mind you retiring with what grace and dignity you can summon from this debate. I am sure everyone here will see you have acted in character.

I put the effort in trying to diagnose your view of reality, because I haven't encountered anyone in my many travels all over the world or across the internet who has professed what I understand is your unique world view.

Further I sincerely apologise to everyone reading this thread for letting it go so far off topic in trying to work out some points of common view and some points of clear difference with Frank. Personally I thought he was worth the effort - and still do.

Two final questions for you Frank if you care to respond:

1) Who in your mind would be in his depth to discuss this thread and/or the directions you have taken it? What skills and experience do you feel are necessary to argue with you? Obivously subject matter knowledge (high energy physics and astronomy) and formal degrees with heavy emphasis in logic are worthless in your mind. You say you were testing my mettle - fair enough but what a way to say hello to a new guy who was trying to play with a straight bat and offer courtesy to all who cared to enter here - I feel its both our loss.

2) Pure curosity - is that picture yours? I chose Einstein because of my appreciation and respect of the man and scientist - not as a subtle or blatant way of saying hey look at me, I'm the smart scientist. It a shame two people who both admire Einstein's contribution to science couldn't get on with more mutual respect at their first encounter. This picture is my avatar on over 20 forums world wide, because I like Einstein poking his tongue out at the world.

george0b1

Exactly right on your first senetence, I wanted to challenge informed Christians as to their POV. I expected to hear honest ones say we don't know - but let's at least spectulate. I admitted I feel a God exists - its part of my makeup. I can't prove it - I think that is a silly game. I would say I don't agree with many sections of the bible and my views aren't those of a traditionalist. I have little to say on the subject of a soul (it is truly beyond my ken) - but I can talk on the underlying science of creation versus current thinking and where the segments of the bible appear dead wrong. I didn't think this would seriously offend a professed agnostic.

Gelisgesti

I have your icon in my webshots of great photos / source unknown. I think Frank was being logical within his own POV, I just couldn't quite grasp it because he uses uncommon defintions of common words to shape his world view. As best I could understand, Frank's key points of view were:

1. Science deals with models either supported or contradicted by data to make comments on observed phenomonia and possible future or past events. It is falliable, especially untested theoretical physics.

2. Advancement of scientific models is more revolution than evolution. We can dismiss current thinking on at least one of two grounds; 1) in the future we will know more and our current thinking will appear infantile or 2) nobody's perfect so our models are too flawed to be seriously considered as grounds supporting a strong argument.

3. People use the word 'belief' to mean 'uncontestable scientific view' to give it false authority and their motives or intelligence are suspect doing so

4. The strong anthrophic principle (infinite or multiple Universes) is the correct explanation on why intelligent life exists on our world in this Universe when people ask why should all the random factors that control our reality be tuned so incredibly to support life.

5. Honest and intelligent folk, worthy to debate with Frank should profess a deep misunderstanding as to the extent of logic systems and scientific process to allow great uncertainity into their POVs before it is acceptable to discuss with Frank.

6. Cryptic undefined terms aren't much of a nussiance

* * *

Okay after this purge back to the topic. More research to do on some of the questions asked, more scienticific thought leaders' POV to reguritate here

Life is like a box of chocolates.

And as such, I reasonably and logically attempted to challenge the "believing" aspect of it.




Please!

I have NEVER argued for atheism in my life -- NEVER at any point in my life. And I am not an obsessive person.

This is, in case you hadn't noticed, the Spirituality and Religion section of an Internet forum designed to discuss exactly the issues I am discussing.

If you do not like what I am discussing -- pass my posts over.




Oh, gimme a goddam break.

Every comment I have made in this thread has been occasioned by something someone else has said -- and mostly, that "someone else" has been G_day, who is the originator of this thread.

I have been reacting -- not hijacking -- and I am right on topic.

Why don't you go whine at someone else!

I would observe that Frank is indeed an obsessive person, and specifically with regard to atheism. He seems to be on a crusade to "prove" that atheism is the equivalent of theism, and he has stated elsewhere in these fora that his view is superior to that of the atheist, as being more "logical" and "honest." When tasked with this, he firmly reiterated his statement that his is the superior point of view. George is directly on target, in my opinion, in saying that Frank is obsessed with atheism--just as the saintly christian is obsessed with sin. I was greatly amused to see G'day's critique of Frank's habit of idiosyncratic definitions in a debate. I completely agree with the following:



and have added the emphasis to the quote in order to point up that i would have added the adjective "tedious."

Everything I have to say to you at present on these points -- I said in my last response to you in the other thread. If something else comes up that I think worth mentioning, you can bet I will do so.




Yep, that's me. Cute, ain't I?




Allow me to make a few guesses here:

I guess, G_day, that we are gonna get along terrifically, you and I.

I guess you will end up loving me and looking forward to what I have to contribute on various issues we both encounter.

I guess you will eventually acknowledge that most of the "mystery" about what I've had to say so far, is not really all that mysterious -- and that any ambiguity you might think exists, actually doesn't

I guess you are eventually going to see and acknowledge that what I have to say about REALITY and EXISTENCE makes more sense than any of the stuff you might get from theists, atheists, or scientists.

So don't fret. We've got a long way to go. This has only just begun. :wink:

Oh, damn. I thought that might be the case, but I had already posted my response and.... :wink:

Oh the things I'd like to say but will hold my tongue - but REALLY Frank - please take an ego pill.

I understand Frank is an agnostic, and is very sensitive because he is superficially often categorized as an atheist. Why the hell are people so ignorant of this difference? Beats me.

But he is a man on a mission, and I understand this by now.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(wipes away tears streaming down face)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, but seriously, Frank, I kid because I love.

Dammit, I LOVE YOU, FRANK!!!!!

Frank - no problem

Damn but you remind me of some Hollywood guy (I'm thinking Nautical movies)???

Isn't amazing how easy it is to step on an invisible landmine when you start a conversation. Imagine what life as a professional diplomat must be like. /shudder

One thing I do note is we don't seem to have too many Christians posting here /shrug

Also of concern - folk who want to balance a creationist God vs some other plausible creation factor allowing intelligent life all have to fall for an infinite something in their equations, either:

1) Strong anthrophic principle (which I see as a possible variant within M-Theory) = infinite Universes

2) Bouncing Universes (Big Bang <-> Big Crunch) = infinite time -> infinite Universes

3) God = infinite power / focus

We do have folk saying maybe Universal constants changed slowly over time to allow each constant to drift to a point that they are now tuned to permit life, thus avoiding infinities.

Personally I wonder about this one - but note i) it has little evidence, ii) no theoretical underpinning and iii) too many factors have to converge over way too short a timeframe and be too finely tuned to make the odds vs random chance seem at all plausible.

Also we have the some hope for the undiscovered grand unifiying prinicple we might one day find out that would link all the laws of physics and set our constants at their exact values with meaning behind each. But I'll take a wait and see approach on that one.

I am very wary of infinities. Very small or very large numbers aren't so bad - but infinities allow you to hide all manner of wrongs. I still remember Uni - second year physics our lecturer giving us a classic paper on 50 ways to fudge physics exams, two lovely points:

1. Got the right answer but the wrong sign? Easy! Turn them both into vectors and say But the vectors are anti-parallel (ed. opposite directions), hence we must reverse the sign!

2. Stuck in an equation and need a known number, any number whatsoever, to pop out but can't figure out how to legitimately get to this number? Simple! Pick on a formulea and say But this is a field effect covering all of space, so integrate X over all infinity... and you can pretty much just write down any number you like!



Infinities are BIG unknowns - they make a system extremely power but hard to manage.

there goes your need for boundries again

G'day, there don't seem to be too damned many christians at this site, at least those who are willing to stick their necks out. There are too many here who would rush to attempt to chop of their heads if they did.

There is something that an artist uses to 'endow' a painting with 'perspective' or 'point of view'. It is called a vanishing point .... a point or points on the canvas that lends depth of field or a spatial position to the observer that imparts an understanding of what the artist would portray, a view of his mind, his reality.

If I were God I would be able to place my creations into the center of their reality in such a manner that infinity flowed away from the center of their being/consciousness ... toward all conscious foci, converging or diverging accordingly with the limits of their perception/conception forming the limits of their 'reality' or sphere of existance.

The answer to the 'big' question is that all things spatial are a 'capacity' not to be, until it is ...... that 'capacity', is not unlike time .... a second is not a second until it passes,

G__day, I can picture a universe naturally coming to a state of harmony. I know that statement isn't much for logic, but it really doesn't seem like to big of a stretch of the imagination. Just as on a much smaller level an ecosystem may reach a point of harmony. If there are too many wolves they will kill all of the deer and die; if there are too many deer they will eat all of the vegetables; and if there is too much vegetation it will... aw crud, I don't know, mutate and kill wolves or something. I should just erase that last line... Anyway, ecosystems balance on their own, meeting constants which would be very difficult to recreate if systems did not reach some sort of equilibrium on their own. It doesn't seem so amazing to me that a larger system could do the same.

As far as infinities, the word is too often used to mean "a vast imponderable ammount." Infinite time is never REQUIRED for any possible event, for example, but if we do not know the exact ammount of time required it is too easy to say, "Well, it would happen given infinite time."

SCoates,

I think the distinction is between the admitted tendencies of dynamic systems to find (in many cases) a quasi equilibrium among their dependent variables, subject to the various dynamical processes and parameters that define the system, and the values of those dynamical parameters themselves. It is the basic processes and the dynamic parameters that balance them which determine if equilibrium in its broadest sense is possible at all. As G_day has very clearly explained, an extrordinary fine tuning of the dynamic parameters of our universe is required to make our lives possible.

That the ecosystems you cite can achieve a degree of balance (and that is not always true) is merely more evidence of the amazing fine tuning of our universe.

Oh, really.

Well, what I am saying about REALITY and EXISTENCE is that I do not know and that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess.

And you don't consider that to make more sense than the stuff theists, atheists and scientists offer?

Hummmm!

And I, you, Joe!