A very strange universe

[Justin_Swanton]

Sort of vaguely on the subject, I’ve always been curious about NASA’s almost obsessive drive to find evidence of life in the solar system. What motivates it? I used to put it down to the scientific establishment looking for proof of evolution, but I think now there is more to it than that. A universe totally devoid of life except for earth just does not ring with the contemporary mindset (though it is quite acceptable to a Catholic one). Any thoughts?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Sort of vaguely on the subject, I’ve always been curious about NASA’s almost obsessive drive to find evidence of life in the solar system. What motivates it?

Human curiosity. The same thing that drives all basic scientific research. I am curious too, and excited.

I used to put it down to the scientific establishment looking for proof of evolution, but I think now there is more to it than that. A universe totally devoid of life except for earth just does not ring with the contemporary mindset (though it is quite acceptable to a Catholic one). Any thoughts?

I want to see life elsewhere. It would show that life on Earth is not a fantastic one-time fluke, but confirm that the universe is actually designed for life. I believe life has to arise anyplace where the conditions are rright, because I assume an origin of life by natural causes, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I bet the universe is teeming with microbial life. Higher species will only thrive under very special conditions, and will be much, much rarer. Intelligent life will only arise where God has decided to infuse a rational soul into biological beings, like He did with us humans.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

A couple of links that might be of interest:

The unfeasability of space colonisation in the present state of affairs here

The downside of the NASA space programme here

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Human curiosity. The same thing that drives all basic scientific research. I am curious too, and excited.

Mmm. The quest for life is more focussed than simple curiosity. Curiosity is not directed - one studies the unknown indiscriminately. The quest for life on the other hand is very focussed. It’s as if the directors of NASA and related agencies presuppose that life must have existed elsewhere than on earth and want to find proof for that presupposition, to the point of designing their probes primarily to find that proof.

I want to see life elsewhere. It would show that life on Earth is not a fantastic one-time fluke, but confirm that the universe is actually designed for life. I believe life has to arise anyplace where the conditions are rright, because I assume an origin of life by natural causes, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I bet the universe is teeming with microbial life. Higher species will only thrive under very special conditions, and will be much, much rarer. Intelligent life will only arise where God has decided to infuse a rational soul into biological beings, like He did with us humans.

Which would seem to indicate that a settled conviction about the truth of evolution is the driving force behind the quest for life off the earth.

Take the opposite view: suppose that life does not arise spontaneously out of a collection of amino acids, but needs directional organisation to arise. Suppose also that the universe is not designed for life, but that one planet needs to be very carefully adjusted - also by directional organisation - to become a suitable habitat for living organisms. Thus far the hard evidence not only does not contradict these two suppositions, but, if anything, confirms them.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Which would seem to indicate that a settled conviction about the truth of evolution is the driving force behind the quest for life off the earth.

Well, evolution is true. Next question.

Take the opposite view: suppose that life does not arise spontaneously out of a collection of amino acids, but needs directional organisation to arise. Suppose also that the universe is not designed for life, but that one planet needs to be very carefully adjusted - also by directional organisation - to become a suitable habitat for living organisms. Thus far the hard evidence not only does not contradict these two suppositions, but, if anything, confirms them.

Then you have not informed yourself properly. BTW, life did not arise spontaneously out of a collection of amino acids. Read my article.

 

[ricmat]

Sort of vaguely on the subject, I’ve always been curious about NASA’s almost obsessive drive to find evidence of life in the solar system. What motivates it? I used to put it down to the scientific establishment looking for proof of evolution, but I think now there is more to it than that

Human curiosity. The same thing that drives all basic scientific research. I am curious too, and excited.

It’s a lot of money spent on “curiosity.” And oh oh the excitement…“We’ve noticed hydrogen and oxygen, from which water can be made, in distant nebulas…therefore it’s virtually certain that life will appear there…” Uh-huh.

I want to see life elsewhere.

Of course you do. We discussed that in the evolution threads before they got shut down.

It would show that life on Earth is not a fantastic one-time fluke, but confirm that the universe is actually designed for life.

And…so what if it’s a one time fluke. Is that bad? Is that good? Is it better to say that the universe was designed for life than to say that the earth within the universe is designed for life?

I believe life has to arise anyplace where the conditions are rright, because I assume an origin of life by natural causes…

So why exactly did life arise on earth only one, exactly one, time? Why are there not multiple trees of life in this environment which is so suited for life?

I bet the universe is teeming with microbial life.

Those places which we’ve actually been at, or up close to show no such evidence. It’s not teeming on the moon, or on Mars, or Venus. Or anywhere in between. You lack evidence to support this bet. Although you may hold it as a matter of faith, I suppose.

When you find evidence that the universe is teeming with life outside earth, let me know. I’ll be glad to second the motion for your Nobel Prize.

Well, evolution is true. Next question.

Ah. Well, that explains your position pretty well.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Only vanity could lead to that conclusion! If you were omnipotent what would you create? Something that human beings would think is the right size?!

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.

The universe is not made solely for us. That doesn’t imply that God did not have us in mind…

Why then did God make it the way it is?

Because Love knows no bounds!

 

[norain]

the fact that we’re here tells me it was made for us.

 

[tafan]

Why do we consider the universe so vast? If anything, modern physics teach us the universe only works because if it’s vastness; or rather one could say it is vast because of the way it works.

But God is infinite, so it is not that vast relative to Him. And I would argue it is not that vast relative to us, considering the vastness of the human mind ( remember we are made in God’s image, not the universe).

And it is not that vast considering the needs of us to survive. After all, we are created to depend bodily on our material world, which is based on the physical laws created by God. And these laws lead directly to a vast universe.

I don’t claim to know God’s creative plan, but I think it falls along these lines , ie it is what we need to survive.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Only vanity could lead to that conclusion! If you were omnipotent what would you create? Something that human beings would think is the right size?!

That’s just the point, unless I’m missing something basic here. God can create precisely what He pleases the way He pleases. Did he create the universe as it is just to impress us with His omnipotence? It seems not, as it would be a case of radical overkill. One then can try to understand why God made it the way it is (as far as we can understand the mind of God).

The universe is not made solely for us. That doesn’t imply that God did not have us in mind…

Read my other posts…you’ll see I take this a little further. I also like Chesterton’s idea that God found making suns so much fun He didn’t want to stop.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Those places which we’ve actually been at, or up close to show no such evidence. It’s not teeming on the moon, or on Mars, or Venus. Or anywhere in between.

Of course not.

You need to think in the dimensions of the sheer vastness of the universe. Our solar system is just around a single star, and there are about 300 billion galaxies each containing about 300 billion stars.

 

[norain]

It is the characteristic of intelligence to act intelligently, i.e. with reason and purpose. Hence there is a reason why He created millions of galaxies situated at vast distances from each other in the inhospitable vacuum of space. Just exploring why He did so.

Stephen Weinberg was careful about how he said it, but he clearly doesn’t believe in a God:

“God” historically has not meant the laws of nature. It has meant an interested personality. And that’s not something we’re finding scientifically. It’s not something for which I see any evidence.

I’d argue that God does not have a reason to create the universe. At least not in the same way that I have a reason to eat, to live, to strive to be happy. I’m bound by that reason. God is unbound, nothing motivates him. Even love, except he is love itself, among other things.

I also don’t know why atheists like Weinberg have to insist on a God that has to fit their definition before they can say God does not exist. God can indeed be anything. I do believe the laws were decreed by him, or an extension of his nature.

He made the laws, or is the laws. He did not want to make a big universe, or a small one, just one that out of necessity would be governed by those laws, unwavering.

 

[ricmat]

Of course not.

You need to think in the dimensions of the sheer vastness of the universe. Our solar system is just around a single star, and there are about 300 billion galaxies each containing about 300 billion stars.

I was there when Carl Sagan coined the billions and billions of stars quote. But thank you for your suggestion

 

[cornbread_r2]

When asked why God, a perfect being, would want or need to create the universe, some respond by averring that God didn’t need to create it and that creation is just part of God’s nature. If that’s true, then it would seem plausible that God wouldn’t stop at just one universe and is maybe in the process of creating an infinite number of them. If that’s the case, it would seems to follow then that God would create a universe just like ours eventually – which seems to take not only the specialness, but also the intentionality, out of it.

---

This video on the scale of the universe might be of interest.

 

[ricmat]

When asked why God, a perfect being, would want or need to create the universe, some respond by averring that God didn’t need to create it and that creation is just part of God’s nature. If that’s true, then it would seem plausible that God wouldn’t stop at just one universe and is maybe in the process of creating an infinite number of them. If that’s the case, it would seems to follow then that God would create a universe just like ours eventually – which seems to take not only the specialness, but also the intentionality, out of it.

---

This video on the scale of the universe might be of interest.

God is Love.
Love, by it’s nature wishes to share itself with more and more persons.
Hence, us.
And, it’s not inconsistent that if God so wished, there could be even more persons in even more universes. All of it intentional.

 

[cornbread_r2]

God is Love.
Love, by it’s nature wishes to share itself with more and more persons.
Hence, us.
And, it’s not inconsistent that if God so wished, there could be even more persons in even more universes. All of it intentional.

I see. Personify an emotion, equate inevitability with intentionality and Bob’s your uncle!

Have good ones

 

[roveau]

God created the universe like that because He wanted to. God created the universe large because He is generous in everything He does.

We can’t know what else He has in mind for the universe.

Why should He create the universe to be friendly throughout to the form of life we have on this earth? It’s good enough for us that this world is friendly to life.

 

[ricmat]

I see. Personify an emotion, equate inevitability with intentionality and Bob’s your uncle!

Have good ones

The others here know what I’m saying. Someday perhaps you will too. Truly I hope that you do.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

Precisely. From my article:

1. If humans cannot get so much larger, how about a smaller universe to “raise our significance”? It turns out that this does not work according to physics. As physicist Stephen Barr writes in his essay on Anthropic Coincidences about age and size of the universe:

"It turns out that the very age and vastness of the universe may have an ‘anthropic’ significance. Life emerged in our universe in a way that required great stretches of time. As we have seen, most of the elements needed for life were made deep in stars. Those stars had to explode to disperse those elements and make them available before life could even begin to evolve. That whole process alone required billions of years. The evolution of human life from those elements required billions of years more. Thus, the briefness of human life spans and even of human history compared with the age of the universe may simply be a matter of physical necessity, given the developmental way that God seems to prefer to work. It takes longer for a tree to grow to maturity than the fruit of the tree lasts. It took much longer for the universe to grow to maturity than we last.

“Physics can also suggest why the universe has to be so large. The laws of gravity discovered by Einstein relate the size of the universe directly to its age. The fact that the universe is many billions of light-years across is related to the fact that it has lasted several billions of years. Perhaps we would be less daunted by a cozy little universe the size, say, of a continent. But such a universe would have lasted only a few milliseconds. Even a universe the size of the solar system would have lasted only a few hours. A universe constructed in such a way as to evolve life may well have had to extend widely in space as well as in time. It may well be that the frightening expanses that are so often said to be a sign of human insignificance may actually, like so many other features of our strange universe, point to man, as they also proclaim the glory of God.”

Link:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htm

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, the bigggest chunk of those 14 billion years in which our universe evolved towards making us possible is just physical evolution. So even if you find biological evolution controversial (there is no reason to, if you are truly informed), mere physical evolution still explains the most part of why our universe must be so large, see above.

(Most people do not find physical evolution controversial at all, except Young-Earth creationists.)