Letter to a Christian Nation

[cranster]

Hi Cranster,

The First Cause argument relies on the unjustified assertion (among others) that the uiverse has a beginning. I’m saying that the universe may or may not have a beginning. We just don’t know.

Let’s put a nail in this coffin. An always existing universe is called the steady state theory proposed by Fred Hoyle. There were alot of supporters when he proposed it as an alternative to the big bang, but most supporters deserted it in the late 60’s with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. To continue to hold this belief one should also belong to the flat earth society since both are equally illogical. That leaves us with the original singularity of infinite mass and energy. Where did it come from? Why did it exist at all? Why that as opposed to eternal oblivion and the non existance of all things?

My rational brain tells me that nothing comes from nothing, and something comes from something. Nothing can pull itself from the non existence of oblivion and make itself a something. No one knows for sure how to account for existence itself for me it’s a much smaller leap of faith to believe it all was caused by an uncaused cause than to believe that the universe pulled itself from the oblivian of non existence and caused itself. The other reason I accept God as the cause of all things, is because of how I experience God when I pray and recieve the Eucharist. There has been nothing else in life that can come close to the love, peace, and Joy found there… Nothing! and I’ve been around the block a few times.

 

[Leela]

Read Aristotle.

Can’t you just explain the distinction between an actual and a potential infinity? Even if I did spend the next few years reading Aristotle, I could easily miss whatever point you are trying to make.

Explain how you count to infinity.

You start with 1,2,3 and keep going from there…

There are also, of course, uncountable inifinities such as the number of points in space.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Let’s put a nail in this coffin. An always existing universe is called the steady state theory proposed by Fred Hoyle. There were alot of supporters when he proposed it as an alternative to the big bang, but most supporters deserted it in the late 60’s with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. To continue to hold this belief one should also belong to the flat earth society since both are equally illogical. That leaves us with the original singularity of infinite mass and energy. Where did it come from? Why did it exist at all? Why that as opposed to eternal oblivion and the non existance of all things?

My rational brain tells me that nothing comes from nothing, and something comes from something. Nothing can pull itself from the non existence of oblivion and make itself a something. No one knows for sure how to account for existence itself for me it’s a much smaller leap of faith to believe it all was caused by an uncaused cause than to believe that the universe pulled itself from the oblivian of non existence and caused itself. The other reason I accept God as the cause of all things, is because of how I experience God when I pray and recieve the Eucharist. There has been nothing else in life that can come close to the love, peace, and Joy found there… Nothing! and I’ve been around the block a few times.

indeed! as to leaps of faiths, at least religion is a hop, atheism, would be the hundred meter hurdle.

 

[1holycatholic]

Can’t you just explain the distinction between an actual and a potential infinity? Even if I did spend the next few years reading Aristotle, I could easily miss whatever point you are trying to make.

Executive summary: Potential infinities exist. Actual infinities don’t.

You could read Aristotle for Everybody in a couple of evenings.

You start with 1,2,3 and keep going from there…

That is an actual infinity. When do you finish counting and reach it?

There are also, of course, uncountable inifinities such as the number of points in space.

That is a potential infinity.

 

[Leela]

Hi Cranster,

Let’s put a nail in this coffin. An always existing universe is called the steady state theory proposed by Fred Hoyle. There were alot of supporters when he proposed it as an alternative to the big bang, but most supporters deserted it in the late 60’s with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. To continue to hold this belief one should also belong to the flat earth society since both are equally illogical.

Steady-state is not the only possibility. The evidence for an expanding universe is substantial, but that does not necessarily mean that it originated with a Big Bang, though that is the most popular theory of our time. Other theories include an oscilating universe and an infinite cyles of big bang expansions and contractions.

That leaves us with the original singularity of infinite mass and energy. Where did it come from? Why did it exist at all? Why that as opposed to eternal oblivion and the non existance of all things?

I think that the most intellectually honest answer (and the one that the cosmologists whose research you cite above would give) is “I don’t know.”

My rational brain tells me that nothing comes from nothing, …

Where does God come from?

…and something comes from something. Nothing can pull itself from the non existence of oblivion and make itself a something. No one knows for sure how to account for existence itself for me it’s a much smaller leap of faith to believe it all was caused by an uncaused cause than to believe that the universe pulled itself from the oblivian of non existence and caused itself.

One need not make any leap of faith at all. One can just say I don’t know how the universe came to be.

But as I offered before, let’s agree for the sake of argument that the universe has a beginning. How does the first cause argument proceed from there?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

The other reason I accept God as the cause of all things, is because of how I experience God when I pray and recieve the Eucharist. There has been nothing else in life that can come close to the love, peace, and Joy found there… Nothing! and I’ve been around the block a few times.

Hi Cranster,

I completely believe you when you say that you experience a very profound love, peace, and joy when you pray and when you receive the Eucharist just as people in other faiths and without any religion do through meditation or religious ritual or taken by surprise like Paul in the road to Damascus. I would encourage you to continue whatever practices foster such experiences for you if they make you a more loving person.

My question is how do these mystical experiences that you have confirm for you that God is the cause of all things? The resurrection and the virgin birth? The divinity of the historical Jesus?

Consider the following account of such a mystical experience:
"I recently spent an afternoon on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, atop the mount where Jesus is believed to have preached his most famous sermon. It was an infernally hot day, and the sanctuary was crowded with Christian pilgrims from many continents. Some gathered silently in the shade, while others staggered in the noonday sun, taking photographs.

As I sat and gazed upon the surrounding hills gently sloping to an inland sea, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. Everything was as it had been—the cloudless sky, the pilgrims clutching their bottles of water—but I no longer felt like I was separate from the scene, peering out at the world from behind my eyes. Only the world remained.

The experience lasted just a few moments, but returned many times as I gazed out over the land where Jesus is believed to have walked, gathered his apostles, and worked many of his miracles. If I were a Christian, I would undoubtedly interpret this experience in Christian terms. I might believe that I had glimpsed the oneness of God, or felt the descent of the Holy Spirit.But I am not a Christian.

If I were a Hindu, I might talk about “Brahman,” the eternal Self, of which all individual minds are thought to be a mere modification. But I am not a Hindu. If I were a Buddhist, I might talk about the “dharmakaya of emptiness” in which all apparent things manifest. But I am not a Buddhist.

As someone who is simply making his best effort to be a rational human being, I am very slow to draw metaphysical conclusions from experiences of this sort. The truth is, I experience what I would call the “selflessness of consciousness” rather often, wherever I happen to meditate—be it in a Buddhist monastery, a Hindu temple, or while having my teeth cleaned. Consequently, the fact that I also had this experience at a Christian holy site does not lend an ounce of credibility to the doctrine of Christianity.

There is no question that people have “spiritual” experiences (I use words like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, because they come to us trailing a long tail of metaphysical debris). Every culture has produced people who have gone off into caves for months or years and discovered that certain deliberate uses of attention—introspection, meditation, prayer—can radically transform a person’s moment to moment perception of the world."

–Sam Harris, author of the End of Faith and evil atheist

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Cranster,

Steady-state is not the only possibility. The evidence for an expanding universe is substantial, but that does not necessarily mean that it originated with a Big Bang, though that is the most popular theory of our time. Other theories include an oscilating universe and an infinite cyles of big bang expansions and contractions.

an oscillating universe, sounds an awful lot like perpetual motion to me, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and it would require some substrate or continuum in which to contract and expand. thats no different than the claim that G-d exists outside stem.

perpetual motion is a concept that has been completely annihilated by the scientific community.

since you offer these theories as a possibility in opposition to the discredited ‘solid state’ do you have an argument or evidence to support them?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As someone who is simply making his best effort to be a rational human being, I am very slow to draw metaphysical conclusions from experiences of this sort.
–Sam Harris, author of the End of Faith and evil atheist

Best,
Leela

well thats good the Church doesn’t draw objective metaphysical conclusions from subjective feelings.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think that the most intellectually honest answer (and the one that the cosmologists whose research you cite above would give) is “I don’t know.”

Best,
Leela

actually m-theory has some ideas on that. you might google it, to find a better explanation than i can give

 

[Leela]

an oscillating universe, sounds an awful lot like perpetual motion to me, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and it would require some substrate or continuum in which to contract and expand. thats no different than the claim that G-d exists outside stem.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe
If you can explain definitively to cosmologists why an oscillatory universe is impossible you will surely win great renoun, probably a bunch of honorary doctorates, and lots of money on a book or two. Gor for it!

perpetual motion is a concept that has been completely annihilated by the scientific community.

If you can explain definitively to somologists that the universe cannot continue to expand indefinitely…

since you offer these theories as a possibility in opposition to the discredited ‘solid state’ do you have an argument or evidence to support them?

I offer them only to say that we don’t know that our universe had a beginning or even whether there are other universes. Alll such theories are pretty much speculation or at best some mathematics based on a lot of speculation.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe
If you can explain definitively to cosmologists why an oscillatory universe is impossible you will surely win great renoun, probably a bunch of honorary doctorates, and lots of money on a book or two. Gor for it!

If you can explain definitively to somologists that the universe cannot continue to expand indefinitely…

I offer them only to say that we don’t know that our universe had a beginning or even whether there are other universes. Alll such theories are pretty much speculation or at best some mathematics based on a lot of speculation.

Best,
Leela

1. i did explain why the oscillating universe is a discredited idea among the scientific community, it violates some basic laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics in particular. and perpetual motion is laughable ask anyone, people who put forth the idea are considered crackpots and ignored, you need to know more about cosmology, than a wiki will give you, your promoting long discredited ideas.
2. i don’t claim the universe cannot continue to expand from a big bang, i say perpetual motion is an impossibility, you should delete reference to it before someone notices, or you may never be taken seriously

3 you should look up perpetual motion. find out what it means.
some education in basic science is needed to give your arguments credence.

1. the theories you cite have no parity with accepted science, they simply dont matter any more than the idea of an alchemists philosophers stone does any more.

 

[Michael_David]

Cranster, thanks for your info on the various ages within our universe “The earths age is about 4.5 billions years and the sun is about 5 billion years, the universe is somewhere between 13 and a half to 14 billions years.”

However, if one goes with the Big Bang theory every element (suns and planets) were contained within the large mass that went ‘boom’. So everything would have the same age in this universe of ours, or the 14 billion years.

And looking even further, how old was that big mass before it went boom? And how long did it a-mass enough mass to get big enough to do that? And where did that other mass come from to form such a big mass… and how old was that accumulated mass before combining with the big mass?

What ‘theory’ do you think formed the universe?

 

[Leela]

1. i did explain why the oscillating universe is a discredited idea among the scientific community, it violates some basic laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics in particular. and perpetual motion is laughable ask anyone, people who put forth the idea are considered crackpots and ignored, you need to know more about cosmology, than a wiki will give you, your promoting long discredited ideas.

These aren’t long discredited ideas. A simple google search will convince you that people are studying these isead now.

Have you actually looked into this or do you just assumen that oscillatory universe theories or a Big Bounce are not taken as serioulsy as others?

"In research reported in the current issue of Physical Review Letters, the team shows that, prior to the Big Bang, there was a contracting universe with space-time geometry that otherwise is similar to that of our current expanding universe. As gravitational forces pulled this previous universe inward, it reached a point at which the quantum properties of space-time cause gravity to become repulsive, rather than attractive. “Using quantum modifications of Einstein’s cosmological equations, we have shown that in place of a classical Big Bang there is in fact a quantum Bounce,” says Ashtekar. “We were so surprised by the finding that there is another classical, pre-Big Bang universe that we repeated the simulations with different parameter values over several months, but we found that the Big Bounce scenario is robust.”

While the general idea of another universe existing prior to the Big Bang has been proposed before, this is the first mathematical description that systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of space-time geometry in that universe."

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515232747.htm

1. i don’t claim the universe cannot continue to expand from a big bang, i say perpetual motion is an impossibility, you should delete reference to it before someone notices, or you may never be taken seriously

Isn’t a perpetually expanding universe an example of perpetual motion? I think you are talking about building a perpetual motion machine as a crackpot idea, but we are talking about the universe here, not some machine.

3 you should look up perpetual motion. find out what it means.
some education in basic science is needed to give your arguments credence.

1. the theories you cite have no parity with accepted science, they simply dont matter any more than the idea of an alchemists philosophers stone does any more.

I’m not at all convinced that you have any idea what is accepted science when it comes to cosmology. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that scientists generally do not view oscillatory universe theories as worth thinking about? I’m no expecrt on cosmology, but as far as I know cosmologists have not agreed on any definitive answers concerning the origin of the universe.

One theory that I’m pretty sure that they do not take very seriously is “God did it” since such a theory would leave open just as many questions about how it was done while answering no questions that cosmology is concerned with.

Best,
Leela

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

These aren’t long discredited ideas. A simple google search will convince you that people are studying these isead now.

Have you actually looked into this or do you just assumen that oscillatory universe theories or a Big Bounce are not taken as serioulsy as others?

"In research reported in the current issue of Physical Review Letters, the team shows that, prior to the Big Bang, there was a contracting universe with space-time geometry that otherwise is similar to that of our current expanding universe. As gravitational forces pulled this previous universe inward, it reached a point at which the quantum properties of space-time cause gravity to become repulsive, rather than attractive. “Using quantum modifications of Einstein’s cosmological equations, we have shown that in place of a classical Big Bang there is in fact a quantum Bounce,” says Ashtekar. “We were so surprised by the finding that there is another classical, pre-Big Bang universe that we repeated the simulations with different parameter values over several months, but we found that the Big Bounce scenario is robust.”

While the general idea of another universe existing prior to the Big Bang has been proposed before, this is the first mathematical description that systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of space-time geometry in that universe."

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515232747.htm

Isn’t a perpetually expanding universe an example of perpetual motion? I think you are talking about building a perpetual motion machine as a crackpot idea, but we are talking about the universe here, not some machine.

I’m not at all convinced that you have any idea what is accepted science when it comes to cosmology. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that scientists generally do not view oscillatory universe theories as worth thinking about? I’m no expecrt on cosmology, but as far as I know cosmologists have not agreed on any definitive answers concerning the origin of the universe.

One theory that I’m pretty sure that they do not take very seriously is “God did it” since such a theory would leave open just as many questions about how it was done while answering no questions that cosmology is concerned with.

Best,
Leela

Best,
Leela

leela,

1. i can cut and paste other peoples research too, even better, i know what the science means. but if you are asserting some understanding of your own of cosmological research allow me this quote from the same article in refutation.

“Our initial work assumes a homogeneous model of our universe,” says Ashtekar. “However, it has given us confidence in the underlying ideas of loop quantum gravity. We will continue to refine the model to better portray the universe as we know it and to better understand the features of quantum gravity.”

surely you can see how this refutes the assertion you make as to the validity of the oscillating universe.

do you have any of your own ideas, or arguments to offer? it is becoming embarrassing to debate other peoples work through you.

1. motion is relative to space,
2. accepted science is the ‘big bang’, but if you want to learn physics, i charge, and there are others here much better informed than me.
3. the ‘G-d did it’ paragraph is nice but just assertion, in post#19 on the STEM, et al. thread you you admitted to a G-d, your arguments in reference no longer have any weight

however, please post your own work, we can all find things to cut and paste on the internet.

do you have any original work to post? at all?

 

[cranster]

Cranster, thanks for your info on the various ages within our universe “The earths age is about 4.5 billions years and the sun is about 5 billion years, the universe is somewhere between 13 and a half to 14 billions years.”

However, if one goes with the Big Bang theory every element (suns and planets) were contained within the large mass that went ‘boom’. So everything would have the same age in this universe of ours, or the 14 billion years.

And looking even further, how old was that big mass before it went boom? And how long did it a-mass enough mass to get big enough to do that? And where did that other mass come from to form such a big mass… and how old was that accumulated mass before combining with the big mass?

What ‘theory’ do you think formed the universe?

I didn’t say it was a big mass, I said it was an infinite mass. Some theorize the physical size of the original singularity to have been no larger than a single string. A string is so small, it is to an atom what an atom is to the solar system. I think boom isn’t the best word to describe that event. I think it was a very directed release of infinite mass and energy that contained with in it all the laws and constants that govern the universe which unfolded in an extremely precise way to allow the first condition necessary for atoms to form and become stable. then followed in whatever order, gravity, stars, galaxies, planets, and finally life. That initial release of energy had to cool enough for the first atoms to become stable. Before that there were no atoms. “Before that mass” is an interesting concept. Because in the first trillionth of a second was inflation where things got really really big. That was the first moment of space, and with it the first moment of time. Prior to that there was neither space nor time. Time and space are inextricably linked.

You can say the earth in it’s present form is 4.5 billion years old, but all the heavy elements needed for the formation of the earth were probably the product of a super nova that formed a star nursery from which we got the sun and earth. The elements for the earth had to be forged in a star.

I’m only giving my understanding which was taken from reading alot of articles, the science channel, and my own kindergarden reasoning and understanding of cosmology

 

[Leela]

1. i can cut and paste other peoples research too,

I wish you would. That is what I am asking for–some justification for your claim that the only scientific theory that is currently considered viable is a universe that begins with a Big Bang while all other theories (Big Bounce, oscillatory universe, multiple universes) are considered to be impossible as you claim.

even better, i know what the science means. but if you are asserting some understanding of your own of cosmological research allow me this quote from the same article in refutation.

“Our initial work assumes a homogeneous model of our universe,” says Ashtekar. “However, it has given us confidence in the underlying ideas of loop quantum gravity. We will continue to refine the model to better portray the universe as we know it and to better understand the features of quantum gravity.”

surely you can see how this refutes the assertion you make as to the validity of the oscillating universe.

Is that a joke?

do you have any of your own ideas, or arguments to offer? it is becoming embarrassing to debate other peoples work through you.

Petey, I really wish you could carry on a civil discussion. Can you try? Show me some of that Catholic virtue.

1. motion is relative to space,

I don’t know what your point is here.

1. accepted science is the ‘big bang’, but if you want to learn physics, i charge, and there are others here much better informed than me.

Again, can you support your claim that oscillatory universe theories or a Big Bounce or multiple universe theories are not taken seriously? Or am I supposed to take it on your say so?

1. the ‘G-d did it’ paragraph is nice but just assertion, in post#19 on the STEM, et al. thread you you admitted to a G-d, your arguments in reference no longer have any weight

however, please post your own work, we can all find things to cut and paste on the internet.

do you have any original work to post? at all?

My own work? Are you kidding? You must have me confused with Stephen Hawking. I am not a Cosmologist, and I don’t need to be one to justify the assertion I’m making. My claim is simply that cosmologists have not agreed on definitive answers concerning the origin of the universe. How can I possibly justify that claim without citing the work of scientists?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Executive summary: Potential infinities exist. Actual infinities don’t.

You could read Aristotle for Everybody in a couple of evenings.

That is an actual infinity. When do you finish counting and reach it?

The idea is to just keep counting.

That is a potential infinity.

Why is the number of points in space a potential rather than actual infinity? Since potential infinities do not exist, does that mean that points in space do not exist?

Maybe you’d rather work in two dimensions. How about the number of paths you could take to get from one point on earth to another nearby?

Or as I’ve suggested before, how about the number of instants between now and any point of time in the past you are interested in?

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I wish you would. That is what I am asking for–some justification for your claim that the only scientific theory that is currently considered viable is a universe that begins with a Big Bang while all other theories (Big Bounce, oscillatory universe, multiple universes) are considered to be impossible as you claim.

Is that a joke?

Petey, I really wish you could carry on a civil discussion. Can you try? Show me some of that Catholic virtue.

I don’t know what your point is here.

Again, can you support your claim that oscillatory universe theories or a Big Bounce or multiple universe theories are not taken seriously? Or am I supposed to take it on your say so?

My own work? Are you kidding? You must have me confused with Stephen Hawking. I am not a Cosmologist, and I don’t need to be one to justify the assertion I’m making. My claim is simply that cosmologists have not agreed on definitive answers concerning the origin of the universe. How can I possibly justify that claim without citing the work of scientists?

Best,
Leela

no, leela, do your own work. if you don’t understand an argument or a theory that you are posting, then don’t post it.

nor have i claimed that every other theory is impossible, only some are a violation of the laws of physics.

as to the joke, no its not a joke, you quoted from that source, so obviously you understood it. why would that be a joke?

nor am i claiming that all scientists agree, there are different opinions, but there is generally accepted scientific theory, like evolution, or relativity, or the big bang.

simply put, don’t post what you don’t understand well enough to defend.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The idea is to just keep counting.

Why is the number of points in space a potential rather than actual infinity? Since potential infinities do not exist, does that mean that points in space do not exist?

Maybe you’d rather work in two dimensions. How about the number of paths you could take to get from one point on earth to another nearby?

Or as I’ve suggested before, how about the number of instants between now and any point of time in the past you are interested in?

Best,
Leela

if you can hand me any of these i will be impressed

1. points in space
2. infinite number of paths
3. any number of instants

none of these things are existent, do some research before you post

 

[1holycatholic]

The idea is to just keep counting.

Why is the number of points in space a potential rather than actual infinity? Since potential infinities do not exist, does that mean that points in space do not exist?

Maybe you’d rather work in two dimensions. How about the number of paths you could take to get from one point on earth to another nearby?

Or as I’ve suggested before, how about the number of instants between now and any point of time in the past you are interested in?

It is unpleasant reading and responding to your posts. You don’t seem to have even the most basic grasp of the fundamentals of philosophy, and what’s worse you don’t seem to be willing to learn, only to blindly copy and paste without understanding. The purpose of this forum isn’t to sort through your plagiarized cut and pastes and debate someone else’s arguments as if they were your own.