A very strange universe

[itullian]

great series on those questions…

youtube.com/watch?v=1YRAM3nzYCY&feature=autoplay&list=WLFC421516668B328C&playnext=3

 

[eschator83]

I’m also a fan of CS Lewis and Chesterton - read Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man several times. Can you give a link to that poster you mentioned?

I wanted to express appreciation to Bobby Jim for encouragement to read CS Lewis’ space trilogy (post #15 above). To date my Lewis favorites are Surprised By Joy, The Great Divorce (about Heaven), Mere Christianity, Pilgrim’s Regress–although almost everything I’ve read by him I’ve really enjoyed.

The Ccom groups I referred to are:forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=37 (Inklings) and Chesterton, Lewis, Kreeft (hmm, guess I can’t do two copies at the same time). I’ll work on that some more.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’ve looked into that. Given the technology we have, we simply lack by a huge margin the resources necessary to build sizeable colonies in space, much less terraform planets.

Take the ISS. It cost something like US$150 billion, and yet it has the living space of a small flat. It can accommodate 6 people in quite cramped conditions, with minimal ablution facilities, basic food preparation, no luxuries and one domed porthole to look out of (take a look at the walk-through tour on youtube).

The big problem is getting payloads into orbit. Rocket power technology - like powered flight - is pretty much where it was in the 60’s - it’s no cheaper now to launch a capsule into space then it was 50 years ago. I believe a Soyez launch costs about US$100 million (a Shuttle launch cost US$500 million). As long as things stay like this we are not going to colonise space.

What about developing superior technology? Over the last 50 years scientific research has deepened tenfold our understanding of physics and the laws that govern matter, but has not come up with a cheap and easy way of getting into space and staying alive once up there. It seems to be a basic thing: there are only so many ways of flying in the atmosphere, and all the scientific research does not make atmospheric flight any cheaper and easier, just perhaps a little faster and safer. Ditto for space travel.

There seems to be a limit to the human manipulation of matter and physical laws: the more profound that manipulation is, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. Two brothers using odds and bobs could build the first flying machine, but it takes a whole government research project with hundreds of staff and millions of dollars to build the first atomic reactor. There simply isn’t an alternative to rocket power in order to get into orbit, and it is horrendously expensive.

BTW I had a look at the space elevator concept, but the incredibly long bands (50 000km length) that would be required would be vulnerable to damage by meteorites and other fast flying debris - there is no answer to that objection.

I think it an inescapable conclusion that there is natural limit to human control over nature, and it is a limit that precludes getting off the earth in numbers, though a couple of us might make a visit to Mars. Space is for a few heavily financed explorers, not for mankind as a whole.

Absolutely it would cost a very large sum of money, but it does not mean that it is impossible. Further, with Branson’s investment in space craft, it is more likely that it will not be so expensive to get into space in the future with appropriate technological advancement–I recall hearing something on the order of $100K gets you into space with his shuttle.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’ve been having some conversations with my friends about that. One of the things that concerns us is being exposed to significantly more cosmic and solar radiation on bodies with weaker magnetic fields and weaker ionospheres. Wouldn’t that be a valid concern for colonizing the moon or Mars?

There is a lot of radiation in space. We can negate some of the radiation with aluminum, others would require more work. Like generated magnetic fields. But these are very good concerns to be had.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

If you designed such a system, would you replicate Earth’s system, complete with animal-on-animal predation?

If it were me, I would hope that mosquitoes could be eliminated!

More seriously, I do not know enough about the environmental impacts of eliminating species of animals (or, in the case under consideration, the introduction of some but not all animals) on crop growth, air circulations, and so on. I do presume that there is order to the animal life on earth, but I do not pretend to know what that order is and what functions each animal performs on the grand scale.

 

[GEddie]

Absolutely it would cost a very large sum of money, but it does not mean that it is impossible. Further, with Branson’s investment in space craft, it is more likely that it will not be so expensive to get into space in the future with appropriate technological advancement–I recall hearing something on the order of $100K gets you into space with his shuttle.

In space, but not into orbit.

Pop-up and back down space flight isn’t much use beyond tourism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Has anyone picked up on the fact that there is something distinctly odd about the universe inasmuch as one considers it as created by God. From the point of view of humanity one can say two things about it: it is incredibly vast and incredibly hostile to life.

Vast yes. Hostile to life. True, but then outer space evidently was not created to provide, in a proximate manner, for our creature comforts or well being. However, one suspects, given the actual universe we do have, that even the outer reaches of the universe may, remotely and tangentily, be for our ultimate well being. At the very least, it provides our artistic sense with vistas and vistas of wonder and our intellects with endless fields of speculation.

1. Incredibly vast. Why create such a big universe? To impress us with God’s power? But the world by itself does that. We don’t need to know about groups of galaxies to believe in God’s omnipotence. So the universe is not made primarily to impress us.

Cheep shot. I’m certain God is not out " to impress us " with His power. On the other hand I’m sure he wants to show forth his Glory. That it also impress, I would prefer to think of as a side effect. No we don’t need to know about groups of galaxies, but isn’t it all very interesting - and a wonderful addition to the beauty of the earth.

1. Incredibly hostile to human life. With the exception of an extremely narrow band on planet earth extending about 6 km up and 4 km down, life cannot survive in the universe. You would die in space in seconds, a little slower on Mars, quicker on Venus or any of the gas giants, instantaneously if too close to any sun. Even if there are habitable oases on other planets (not proven), we cannot reach them. The universe is not made for us.

Again, only hostile if you go out there. So, apparantly we were not supposed to go out there. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. That the universe is not made for us is personal opinion only.

I’m looking for sources to any in-depth thinking on the subject. I have a little theory of my own but would like to hear what others think. Thank you!

How about checking into Book 5 of the Summa Theologica, God’s Will and Providence, Book 8, Creation, Variety, and Evil, and Book 11, Man.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I was just trying to point out that if we start down the path of questioning divine design (a path that is probably not advisable but is something we like to do) you have to be careful, when looking at one detail such as animal-upon-animal predation, to try to sort out things that were part of the original design from those things that are a diminuation of the original design due to the entrance of evil onto the stage. **Was animal-on-animal predation part of the original design? Is it something that developed after the fall? **These types of questions are difficult to answer, but I think it is something to consider before jumping to statements like “x is going on in the world today, why did God design it that way?” The reason we pray “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is that not everything that happens on earth right now is necessarily part of the original plan or design.

As yet I’ve not had much success in getting theists to commit to when the fall was supposed to have taken place. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from the fossil record that there has been animal-on-animal predation long before humans appear in that record.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think that the the admittedly inexact Drake equation, coupled with all of the recent discoveries of new planets, leads inexorably to a good prediction that there are other habitable planets in the universe. Some of them are no doubt inhabited. Does this deny the existence of God? Not at all, any more than the “discovery” of North America and its indigenous peoples did.

 

[IneedGod]

Intersting thread.

What amazed me is the size of the planets they now are claiming to know about.
Some are so large our sun disappears next to it, and of course the earth is smaller than the sun.
This tiny planet, that is smaller than a speck in comparison is the one God made for us…
It can really make you feel insignificant! Do we know for sure that we are the only beings God created?
Lots of questions arise thinking on those things. I look forward to finding out in heaven (I hope)

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

As yet I’ve not had much success in getting theists to commit to when the fall was supposed to have taken place. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from the fossil record that there has been animal-on-animal predation long before humans appear in that record.

The fall of the angels predates the fossil record, and could quite arguably have affected nature.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

As yet I’ve not had much success in getting theists to commit to when the fall was supposed to have taken place. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from the fossil record that there has been animal-on-animal predation long before humans appear in that record.

Personally I don’t have a problem with a world of animal predation, viruses, and all the rest, being created as such right from the outset. With God, an effect may precede a cause in time, such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception, caused by the merits of Christ’s Passion which postdated it. The flaws in the natural order are a mirror image of the state of fallen human nature, and are caused by it, even though the sin of Adam postdated the creation of the world.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Personally I don’t have a problem with a world of animal predation, viruses, and all the rest, being created as such right from the outset. With God, an effect may precede a cause in time, such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception, caused by the merits of Christ’s Passion which postdated it. The flaws in the natural order are a mirror image of the state of fallen human nature, and are caused by it, even though the sin of Adam postdated the creation of the world.

…and if the universe wasn’t strange enough all on its own…

 

[Justin_Swanton]

…and if the universe wasn’t strange enough all on its own…

Looked at from the optic of the doctrines of the Fall and the Resurrection of the Just the universe makes perfect sense. Its size (we will have all eternity to explore it), its inaccessibility (not for us just yet) and - on earth - its quirky side (we live in a world tailormade for fallen beings).

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

In space, but not into orbit.

Pop-up and back down space flight isn’t much use beyond tourism.

ICXC NIKA

Yes up-and-back flights are only useful for tourism, but you must agree that this is only the beginning of private space missions. Give it a few hundred years and we’ll have AirMoon lines from Cape Canaveral (or possibly somewhere else) to the moon base!

 

[ReapReason]

Has anyone picked up on the fact that there is something distinctly odd about the universe inasmuch as one considers it as created by God. From the point of view of humanity one can say two things about it: it is incredibly vast and incredibly hostile to life.

1. Incredibly vast. Why create such a big universe? To impress us with God’s power? But the world by itself does that. We don’t need to know about groups of galaxies to believe in God’s omnipotence. So the universe is not made primarily to impress us.
2. Incredibly hostile to human life. With the exception of an extremely narrow band on planet earth extending about 6 km up and 4 km down, life cannot survive in the universe. You would die in space in seconds, a little slower on Mars, quicker on Venus or any of the gas giants, instantaneously if too close to any sun. Even if there are habitable oases on other planets (not proven), we cannot reach them. The universe is not made for us.

Why then did God make it the way it is?

I’m looking for sources to any in-depth thinking on the subject. I have a little theory of my own but would like to hear what others think. Thank you!

The Natural Evolution of the Universe is the reason it is the way it is. God has not arranged it that way; he merely created the laws by which physical nature expresses itself, and he sustains these Laws and its natural effects in existence.

The real question is why did God create a naturally evolving universe.

If this question has not been explored, its only because a large vocal number of paranoid delusional Christians are pitting religion against science.

What a sad society I live in.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

It is then unnecessary to investigate whether there be beyond the heaven Space, Void or Time. For there is a single general space, a single vast immensity which we may freely call Void; in it are innumerable globes like this one on which we live and grow. This space we declare to be infinite, since neither reason, convenience, possibility, sense-perception nor nature assign to it a limit. In it are an infinity of worlds of the same kind as our own.

– Giordano Bruno, 1584. (tr. Singer)

 

[colmywaykurtz]

With God, an effect may precede a cause in time, such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception, caused by the merits of Christ’s Passion which postdated it.

This rings a familiar chord for me. I don’t believe in time travel, per se, but I do tend to believe that some kinds of causality can reach backward through time—for instance, that prayers for those already deceased can be effective. God is omniscient; back in that earlier time, He is aware of prayers made for somebody in the future. I believe He takes those into account.

 

[st_albans]

Interesting topic. If I were a believer in the scriptures (which I am), I would think God love me/us. But also, I think he is omni-curious. Anthropomorphically speaking, we cannot imagine, literally cannot, the mind of the omniscient Being. From our perspective, boredom would arise. However, I believe He to be a Being who loves me/us as His children, but also loves the act of creation as much as that which He has created. I also think he loves to Fly Fish. Especially for that big bass in the corner of this particular pond I have in mind that seems to be avoiding my best tied bass flies…good luck, and tight loops.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Looked at from the optic of the doctrines of the Fall and the Resurrection of the Just the universe makes perfect sense. Its size (we will have all eternity to explore it), its inaccessibility (not for us just yet) and - on earth - its quirky side (we live in a world tailormade for fallen beings).

This one’s going in the folder.