L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Correct. Linus2nd
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Don’ be a stranger. Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I’m afraid you are wrong Paddy. The human mind proceeds by a process of discursive reasoning. This is change. When you think, you are mentally changing, your mind is moving from one thought to another.
God however does not think, at least as we do. He Knows. He does not engage in discursive thought, therefore he does not change. How can we possibley know?
To be quite honest we cannot know with any amount of certainty what goes on in the Divine Intellect. We do know there is a communion of Persons within the Trinity. We know God loves and wills. Perhaps we should say that there may be some change in the Divine Essence but whatever change there is causes no change in the Divine Essence.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Correction. Changed " Moveable " to " Immoveablee " in the second sentence. Linus2ndFrom a logical perspective that would seem to limit your choices. If the universe did not create itself and it was not created by the First Uncaused and Immoveable ( correction 3-12-13, originally read " Moveable " which is incorrect) Cause as Thomas argued then it would seem that the only choice left for you is an eternally, existing, uncaused universe. If there is one or more choices left I don’t see them.
You do realize that Thomas’ arguments assumed an eternally existing universe don’t you? He based his arguments on an eternally existing universe because he was arguing against the Greeks who believed the universe was eternal.
I will assume you understand Thomas’ arguments.
If you cannot explain how an eternally existing universe could be uncaused, you have no reason for your choice other than you would just prefer that it had no cause. In other words an act of negative faith.
I always am amazed that all of science and even our daily ordinary lives is based on the principle of causality. If I do something, something foreseen will happen. Call this the first principle of life and science, even of knowledge ( on a practical level ). If I mix certain chemicals together under carefully controlled conditions a known and desired result will occur or a new substance will come into being.
Yet you and others would allow no cause for the univerers’ existence. How explain an uncaused universe in which every motion/change in it has a cause ?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
End of my quote.
Yes, it as an assurtion based on Divine Revelation and taught by the Catholic Church. But what do you mean by " universalist ? " And I think we have to understand what we mean by " immutable. " It means that God is not changeable in his Essence or in the Truth or in the Goodness, etc that he is nor in His Will. Judgment is a function of His Essence the same as His Willing. It implies no change in His Essence. Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, I know you have discussed it before. And in all that time all you do is attempt do refute the reasons Christian philosophers give for the existence of God, the explanations they give for the essence of His nature, the explanations they give for his causality in his created universe, his intimate operations in all of creation, his providence, the nature and end of man, morality, etc.
On the other hand, you never give one single proof or reasonable explanation for your own position that the universe has no cause and that it is just a mass of accidential " happenings,. " An unintelligent mass of atomic particles and waves and energies through which wades a highly intelligent being called a human being which also has a will, both of which speak of a living, spiritual, inner, forming, guiding principle which is non material and is capable of judging this world. Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Thomas has already done that. The universe cannot account for the causality in it, it cannot account for the fact that it exists, and it cannot account for the fact that even inanimate and living non-intelligent beings seem to function and act according to some definite plan. Such things can only be accounted for by the First Unmoved and Immoveable First Mover ( Cause ) of Aristotle and Thomas, which we call God.
Nonesense, just omit the word atheism and tell us how the world could exist and always exist by its own power. Tell us how a mass of ultimate particles moving at random could produce an intelligent human being with a spiritual soul. Linus2nd
R
robbodb
Guest
Getting to know more about our wonderful universe.
This is what Wikipedia says about our universe.
"Size, age, contents, structure, and laws
Main articles: Observable Universe, Age of the Universe, and Abundance of the chemical elements
The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite.
The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[26] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[27] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[28] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[29]
There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable Universe.[30]
Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[31] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[32] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy’s center of mass. A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable Universe contains 300 sextillion (3×1023) stars.[33] Note we don’t know the size of the whole universe.
The Universe is believed to be mostly composed of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are poorly understood at present. Less than 5% of the Universe is ordinary matter, a relatively small contribution.
The observable matter is spread homogeneously (uniformly) throughout the Universe, when averaged over distances longer than 300 million light-years.[34]However, on smaller length-scales, matter is observed to form “clumps”, i.e., to cluster hierarchically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, superclusters and, finally, the largest-scale structures such as the Great Wall of galaxies.
The observable matter of the Universe is also spread isotropically, meaning that no direction of observation seems different from any other; each region of the sky has roughly the same content.[35]
The Universe is also bathed in a highly isotropic microwave radiation that corresponds to a thermal equilibrium blackbody spectrum of roughly 2.725 kelvin.[36] The hypothesis that the large-scale Universe is homogeneous and isotropic is known as the cosmological principle,[37] which is supported by astronomical observations.
The present overall density of the Universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10−30 grams per cubic centimetre.
This mass-energy appears toThis mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[38] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the Universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion.
The current estimate of the Universe’s age is 13.772 ±0.059 billion years old.[15] Independent estimates (based on measurements such as radioactive dating) agree at 13–15 billion years.[39]
The Universe has not been the same at all times in its history; for example, the relative populations of quasars and galaxies have changed and space itself appears to have expanded. This expansion accounts for how Earth-bound scientists can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away, even if that light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space between them has expanded. This expansion is consistent with the observation that the light from distant galaxies has been redshifted; the photons emitted have been stretched to longer wavelengths and lower frequency during their journey. The rate of this spatial expansion is accelerating, based on studies of Type Ia supernovae and corroborated by other data.
The relative fractions of different chemical elements — particularly the lightest atoms such as hydrogen, deuterium and helium — seem to be identical throughout the Universe and throughout its observable history.[40]
The Universe seems to have much more matter than antimatter, an asymmetry possibly related to the observations of CP violation.[41]
The Universe appears to have no net electric charge, and therefore gravity appears to be the dominant interaction on cosmological length scales.
The Universe also appears to have neither net momentum nor angular momentum. The absence of net charge and momentum would follow from accepted physical laws (Gauss’s law and the non-divergence of thestress-energy-momentum pseudotensor, respectively), if the Universe were finite.[42]
The elementary particles from which the Universe is constructed. Six leptons and six quarks comprise most of the matter; for example, the protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei are composed of quarks, and the ubiquitous electronis a lepton. These particles interact via the gauge bosonsshown in the middle row, each corresponding to a particular type of gauge symmetry. The Higgs boson is believed to confer mass on the particles with which it is connected. Thegraviton, a supposed gauge boson for gravity, is not shown.
The Universe appears to have a smooth space-time continuum consisting of three spatial dimensions and one temporal (time) dimension. On the average, space is observed to be very nearly flat (close to zero curvature), meaning that Euclidean geometry is experimentally true with high accuracy throughout most of the Universe.[43]
to be continued
This is what Wikipedia says about our universe.
"Size, age, contents, structure, and laws
Main articles: Observable Universe, Age of the Universe, and Abundance of the chemical elements
The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite.
The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[26] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[27] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[28] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[29]
There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable Universe.[30]
Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[31] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[32] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy’s center of mass. A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable Universe contains 300 sextillion (3×1023) stars.[33] Note we don’t know the size of the whole universe.
The Universe is believed to be mostly composed of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are poorly understood at present. Less than 5% of the Universe is ordinary matter, a relatively small contribution.
The observable matter is spread homogeneously (uniformly) throughout the Universe, when averaged over distances longer than 300 million light-years.[34]However, on smaller length-scales, matter is observed to form “clumps”, i.e., to cluster hierarchically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, superclusters and, finally, the largest-scale structures such as the Great Wall of galaxies.
The observable matter of the Universe is also spread isotropically, meaning that no direction of observation seems different from any other; each region of the sky has roughly the same content.[35]
The Universe is also bathed in a highly isotropic microwave radiation that corresponds to a thermal equilibrium blackbody spectrum of roughly 2.725 kelvin.[36] The hypothesis that the large-scale Universe is homogeneous and isotropic is known as the cosmological principle,[37] which is supported by astronomical observations.
The present overall density of the Universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10−30 grams per cubic centimetre.
This mass-energy appears toThis mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[38] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the Universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion.
The current estimate of the Universe’s age is 13.772 ±0.059 billion years old.[15] Independent estimates (based on measurements such as radioactive dating) agree at 13–15 billion years.[39]
The Universe has not been the same at all times in its history; for example, the relative populations of quasars and galaxies have changed and space itself appears to have expanded. This expansion accounts for how Earth-bound scientists can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away, even if that light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space between them has expanded. This expansion is consistent with the observation that the light from distant galaxies has been redshifted; the photons emitted have been stretched to longer wavelengths and lower frequency during their journey. The rate of this spatial expansion is accelerating, based on studies of Type Ia supernovae and corroborated by other data.
The relative fractions of different chemical elements — particularly the lightest atoms such as hydrogen, deuterium and helium — seem to be identical throughout the Universe and throughout its observable history.[40]
The Universe seems to have much more matter than antimatter, an asymmetry possibly related to the observations of CP violation.[41]
The Universe appears to have no net electric charge, and therefore gravity appears to be the dominant interaction on cosmological length scales.
The Universe also appears to have neither net momentum nor angular momentum. The absence of net charge and momentum would follow from accepted physical laws (Gauss’s law and the non-divergence of thestress-energy-momentum pseudotensor, respectively), if the Universe were finite.[42]
The elementary particles from which the Universe is constructed. Six leptons and six quarks comprise most of the matter; for example, the protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei are composed of quarks, and the ubiquitous electronis a lepton. These particles interact via the gauge bosonsshown in the middle row, each corresponding to a particular type of gauge symmetry. The Higgs boson is believed to confer mass on the particles with which it is connected. Thegraviton, a supposed gauge boson for gravity, is not shown.
The Universe appears to have a smooth space-time continuum consisting of three spatial dimensions and one temporal (time) dimension. On the average, space is observed to be very nearly flat (close to zero curvature), meaning that Euclidean geometry is experimentally true with high accuracy throughout most of the Universe.[43]
to be continued
R
robbodb
Guest
continued from previous post
"Spacetime also appears to have asimply connected topology, at least on the length-scale of the observable Universe. However, present observations cannot exclude the possibilities that the Universe has more dimensions and that its spacetime may have a multiply connected global topology, in analogy with the cylindrical or toroidal topologies of two-dimensional spaces.[44]
The Universe appears to behave in a manner that regularly follows a set of physical laws and physical constants.[45]
According to the prevailing Standard Model of physics, all matter is composed of three generations of leptons and quarks, both of which are fermions. These elementary particles interact via at most three fundamental interactions: the electroweakinteraction which includes electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force; the strong nuclear force described by quantum chromodynamics; and gravity, which is best described at present by general relativity. The first two interactions can be described by renormalized quantum field theory, and are mediated by gauge bosons that correspond to a particular type of gauge symmetry"
. A renormalized quantum field theory of general relativity has not yet been achieved, although various forms of string theory seem promising.
The theory of special relativity is believed to hold throughout the Universe, provided that the spatial and temporal length scales are sufficiently short; otherwise, the more general theory of general relativity must be applied.
There is no explanation for the particular values that physical constants appear to have throughout our Universe, such as Planck’s constant h or the gravitational constant G. Several conservation laws have been identified, such as the conservation of charge, momentum, angular momentum and energy; in many cases, these conservation laws can be related to symmetries or mathematical identities."
Truth, Love and Peace
"Spacetime also appears to have asimply connected topology, at least on the length-scale of the observable Universe. However, present observations cannot exclude the possibilities that the Universe has more dimensions and that its spacetime may have a multiply connected global topology, in analogy with the cylindrical or toroidal topologies of two-dimensional spaces.[44]
The Universe appears to behave in a manner that regularly follows a set of physical laws and physical constants.[45]
According to the prevailing Standard Model of physics, all matter is composed of three generations of leptons and quarks, both of which are fermions. These elementary particles interact via at most three fundamental interactions: the electroweakinteraction which includes electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force; the strong nuclear force described by quantum chromodynamics; and gravity, which is best described at present by general relativity. The first two interactions can be described by renormalized quantum field theory, and are mediated by gauge bosons that correspond to a particular type of gauge symmetry"
. A renormalized quantum field theory of general relativity has not yet been achieved, although various forms of string theory seem promising.
The theory of special relativity is believed to hold throughout the Universe, provided that the spatial and temporal length scales are sufficiently short; otherwise, the more general theory of general relativity must be applied.
There is no explanation for the particular values that physical constants appear to have throughout our Universe, such as Planck’s constant h or the gravitational constant G. Several conservation laws have been identified, such as the conservation of charge, momentum, angular momentum and energy; in many cases, these conservation laws can be related to symmetries or mathematical identities."
Truth, Love and Peace
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Reparte between Linus2nd and Belorg
When God brought these Ideas into creation, they were created as composit substances composed of the principles of potency and act. These principles are effected differently in the two modes of created substances.
Angels are composed of essence and existence where essence is the potency principle with resepect to existence ( the act principle ).
Material beings are composed of matter and form. Here " form " is the potency principle to existence ( act) and matter is the potency principle to form through which existence comes to the composite substance.
And since all created beings are composed of the principles of potency and act, all are subject to change.
But this is only after the Ideas in God’s Intellect become created substances.
So you explanation or premise is in error.
Secondly, You seem to think that because created substances change that this somehow indicates change in God. There is no connection between the two realms of existence except the realationship of the created to the creator.
Shall we assume then that you don’t know what Thomas taught? Linus2nd
Guess that is enough for one day.
No. He is saying, to use an example, that water contains the gasses H2 and O potentially. And under the right conditions the potentialities H2 and O are moved to actuality. Not only this but that water may have other potentialities as well. And most certainly its " prime mater " posses the potentiality of every form.
Well, you are being disingenuous here. I think you know very well that the " things " of this universe exist in the Intellect of God only as Ideas, not as extistents, according to Thomas.
When God brought these Ideas into creation, they were created as composit substances composed of the principles of potency and act. These principles are effected differently in the two modes of created substances.
Angels are composed of essence and existence where essence is the potency principle with resepect to existence ( the act principle ).
Material beings are composed of matter and form. Here " form " is the potency principle to existence ( act) and matter is the potency principle to form through which existence comes to the composite substance.
And since all created beings are composed of the principles of potency and act, all are subject to change.
But this is only after the Ideas in God’s Intellect become created substances.
So you explanation or premise is in error.
Your conclusion is erroneous on two counts. First your assumption is wrong. You missinterpreted what Thomas taught on the two counts I explained above.
Secondly, You seem to think that because created substances change that this somehow indicates change in God. There is no connection between the two realms of existence except the realationship of the created to the creator.
Shall we assume then that you don’t know what Thomas taught? Linus2nd
Guess that is enough for one day.
Y
yppop
Guest
Love4All,
Great post!
I can’t wait to read which of Belorg’s strategies he pulls out of his bag of obfuscations. Will he equivocate? Will he be evasive? Or will he pull out the nonsensical?
He is a master of all.
Yppop
.
R
robbodb
Guest
This is a fascinating insight into the world of particle physics.
particleadventure.org/index.html
Some examples follow:
This is the modern atom model.
particleadventure.org/modern_atom.html
"Electrons are in constant motion around the nucleus, protons and neutrons jiggle within the nucleus, and quarks jiggle within the protons and neutrons.
This picture is quite distorted. If we drew the atom to scale and made protons and neutrons a centimeter in diameter, then the electrons and quarks would be less than the diameter of a hairand the entire atom’s diameter would be greater than the length of thirty football fields! 99.999999999999% of an atom’s volume is just empty space!
Scale of the atom.
While an atom is tiny, the nucleus is ten thousand times smaller than the atom and the quarks and electrons are at least ten thousand times smaller than that. We don’t know exactly how small quarks and electrons are; they are definitely smaller than 10-18 meters, and they might literally be points, but we do not know.
It is also possible that quarks and electrons are not fundamental after all, and will turn out to be made up of other, more fundamental particles. (Oh, will this madness ever end?
Physicists have developed a theory called The Standard Model that explains what the world is and what holds it together. It is a simple and comprehensive theory that explains all the hundreds of particles and complex interactions with only:
6 quarks.
6 leptons. The best-known lepton is the electron. We will talk about leptons in just a few pages.
Force carrier particles, like the photon. We will talk about these particles later.
All the known matter particles are composites of quarks and leptons, and they interact by exchanging force carrier particles.
The Standard Model is a good theory. Experiments have verified its predictions to incredible precision, and all the particles predicted by this theory have been found. But it does not explain everything. For example, gravity is not included in the Standard Model.
This site will explore the Standard Model in greater detail and will describe the experimental techniques that gave us the data to support this theory. We will also explore the intriguing questions that lie outside our current understanding of how the universe works."
Unfortunately the pictures did not copy.The links provide a much better presentation.
Truth, Love and Peace
particleadventure.org/index.html
Some examples follow:
This is the modern atom model.
particleadventure.org/modern_atom.html
"Electrons are in constant motion around the nucleus, protons and neutrons jiggle within the nucleus, and quarks jiggle within the protons and neutrons.
This picture is quite distorted. If we drew the atom to scale and made protons and neutrons a centimeter in diameter, then the electrons and quarks would be less than the diameter of a hairand the entire atom’s diameter would be greater than the length of thirty football fields! 99.999999999999% of an atom’s volume is just empty space!
Scale of the atom.
While an atom is tiny, the nucleus is ten thousand times smaller than the atom and the quarks and electrons are at least ten thousand times smaller than that. We don’t know exactly how small quarks and electrons are; they are definitely smaller than 10-18 meters, and they might literally be points, but we do not know.
It is also possible that quarks and electrons are not fundamental after all, and will turn out to be made up of other, more fundamental particles. (Oh, will this madness ever end?
Physicists have developed a theory called The Standard Model that explains what the world is and what holds it together. It is a simple and comprehensive theory that explains all the hundreds of particles and complex interactions with only:
6 quarks.
6 leptons. The best-known lepton is the electron. We will talk about leptons in just a few pages.
Force carrier particles, like the photon. We will talk about these particles later.
All the known matter particles are composites of quarks and leptons, and they interact by exchanging force carrier particles.
The Standard Model is a good theory. Experiments have verified its predictions to incredible precision, and all the particles predicted by this theory have been found. But it does not explain everything. For example, gravity is not included in the Standard Model.
This site will explore the Standard Model in greater detail and will describe the experimental techniques that gave us the data to support this theory. We will also explore the intriguing questions that lie outside our current understanding of how the universe works."
Unfortunately the pictures did not copy.The links provide a much better presentation.
Truth, Love and Peace
R
robbodb
Guest
The universe has numerous constants which if they did not exist then the universe would have been vastly different. the point i wish no make is that such constants existed at the origin of motion when the universe was just " a point" according to NASA.
I would suggest we need not only look at the origin of motion (universe) but what came with it at the instant of creation such that it became the universe as we experience it today. For example the laws of physics were there at the instant of creation of the universe. Refer following quote from the McGrath article in the link ( below) in this post
.
“Barrow’s second approach is based on “nice laws.” Where do the laws of nature come from? If the universe sprang into existence in an astonishingly short time already possessing the laws that would govern its development, the question of the origin and character of those laws becomes of major apologetic importance. As Barrow rightly points out, this latter version of the design argument is much harder to explain without reference to God. After all, the laws of nature clearly did not come into being by a gradual process of cumulative selection. The universe that emerged out of the Big Bang, on an anthropic reading of things, was already governed by laws that were fine- tuned to encourage the rise of carbon-based life forms.”
.
NASA state " How long the universe lasts and how it evolves depends on the total energy and matter content.( we do not know how big the universe is - our view is limited by the observable horizon). A universe with enormously more matter than ours would rapidly
not have enough mass for stars to ever form.In addition WAMP (Wilkinson Anthropic Microwave Probe) has confirmed the existence of dark energy that acts like an anti-gravity,driving the universe to accelerate its expansion. Had the dark energy dominated earlier the universe would have expanded too rapidly to support the development of life.Our universe seems to have Goldilocks properties: not too much and not too little - just enough mass and energy to support the development of life."
The following lists a number constants which illustrate that the universe was originated in a very delicate and precise way to allow the universe to be what it is. I would hope no one would reasonably suggest this all happened by chance.
The 2009 Gifford Lectures University of Aberdeen
Professor Alister E. McGrath King’s College, London
Lecture 3: The mystery of the constants of nature Tuesday 17 February 2009
Extracts follow:
"Although counterfactual thinking has increasingly found a role in historical studies, the same is not yet true of the philosophy of science. Indeed, at first sight, it might seem that counterfactual thinking has little role to play in the natural sciences, in that these disciplines focus on the actual, observed world. The key issue concerns the explanation of what is observed, rather than speculation about what might have been observed. However, on reflection, the situation is not quite as straightforward as this naïve empiricism might suggest.
For example, consider the following question: What would have happened if the K-T meteorite had missed the earth? Would life have been very different from what we now know? For those of you who would like me to expand on this question, let me do so: what would have happened if the meteorite which is widely believed to have been responsible for the Cretaceous– Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago had missed the earth? Would the dinosaurs still be here? More interestingly, would we?
Counterfactual thinking offers a highly productive framework for beginning to assess the theological significance of anthropic phenomena. The approaches to anthropic phenomena that have emerged in recent years have emphasised the significance of certain fundamental constants which, if varied slightly, would have significant implications for the emergence of human existence. Examples of canonical statements of the astrophysical “fine tuning” of fundamental cosmological constants include the following:
I would suggest we need not only look at the origin of motion (universe) but what came with it at the instant of creation such that it became the universe as we experience it today. For example the laws of physics were there at the instant of creation of the universe. Refer following quote from the McGrath article in the link ( below) in this post
.
“Barrow’s second approach is based on “nice laws.” Where do the laws of nature come from? If the universe sprang into existence in an astonishingly short time already possessing the laws that would govern its development, the question of the origin and character of those laws becomes of major apologetic importance. As Barrow rightly points out, this latter version of the design argument is much harder to explain without reference to God. After all, the laws of nature clearly did not come into being by a gradual process of cumulative selection. The universe that emerged out of the Big Bang, on an anthropic reading of things, was already governed by laws that were fine- tuned to encourage the rise of carbon-based life forms.”
.
NASA state " How long the universe lasts and how it evolves depends on the total energy and matter content.( we do not know how big the universe is - our view is limited by the observable horizon). A universe with enormously more matter than ours would rapidly
not have enough mass for stars to ever form.In addition WAMP (Wilkinson Anthropic Microwave Probe) has confirmed the existence of dark energy that acts like an anti-gravity,driving the universe to accelerate its expansion. Had the dark energy dominated earlier the universe would have expanded too rapidly to support the development of life.Our universe seems to have Goldilocks properties: not too much and not too little - just enough mass and energy to support the development of life."
The following lists a number constants which illustrate that the universe was originated in a very delicate and precise way to allow the universe to be what it is. I would hope no one would reasonably suggest this all happened by chance.
The 2009 Gifford Lectures University of Aberdeen
Professor Alister E. McGrath King’s College, London
Lecture 3: The mystery of the constants of nature Tuesday 17 February 2009
Extracts follow:
"Although counterfactual thinking has increasingly found a role in historical studies, the same is not yet true of the philosophy of science. Indeed, at first sight, it might seem that counterfactual thinking has little role to play in the natural sciences, in that these disciplines focus on the actual, observed world. The key issue concerns the explanation of what is observed, rather than speculation about what might have been observed. However, on reflection, the situation is not quite as straightforward as this naïve empiricism might suggest.
For example, consider the following question: What would have happened if the K-T meteorite had missed the earth? Would life have been very different from what we now know? For those of you who would like me to expand on this question, let me do so: what would have happened if the meteorite which is widely believed to have been responsible for the Cretaceous– Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago had missed the earth? Would the dinosaurs still be here? More interestingly, would we?
Counterfactual thinking offers a highly productive framework for beginning to assess the theological significance of anthropic phenomena. The approaches to anthropic phenomena that have emerged in recent years have emphasised the significance of certain fundamental constants which, if varied slightly, would have significant implications for the emergence of human existence. Examples of canonical statements of the astrophysical “fine tuning” of fundamental cosmological constants include the following:
- If the strong coupling constant were slightly smaller, hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. Since the evolution of life as we know it is
2fundamentally dependent on the chemical properties of carbon, that life could not have come into being without some hydrogen being converted to carbon by fusion. On the other hand, if the strong coupling constant were slightly larger (even by as much as 2%), the hydrogen would have been converted to helium, with the result that no long-lived stars would have been formed. In that such stars are regarded as essential to the emergence of life, such a conversion would have led to life as we know it failing to emerge. - If the weak fine constant were slightly smaller, no hydrogen would have formed during the early history of the universe. Consequently, no stars would have been formed. On the other hand, if it was slightly larger, supernovae would have been unable to eject the heavier elements necessary for life. In either case, life as we know it could not have emerged.
R
robbodb
Guest
continued from previous post
"3. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, the stars would not be hot enough to warm planets to a temperature sufficient to maintain life in the form in which we know it. If smaller, the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow life to evolve on these planets.
It was only a matter of time before the full significance of this irritating background hiss was appreciated. It could be understood as the “afterglow” of a primal cosmic explosion – a hot “big bang” – which had been proposed in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman. This thermal radiation corresponded to photons moving about randomly in space, without any discernible source, at a temperature of 2.7 K. Taken alongside other pieces of evidence, this background radiation served as significant evidence that the universe had a beginning, and caused severe difficulties for the rival “steady state” theory.
Since then, the basic elements of the standard cosmological model have become clarified, and have secured widespread support within the scientific community. Although there remain significant areas of debate, this model is widely agreed to offer the best resonance with observational evidence.
The values of certain fundamental cosmological constants and the character of certain initial conditions of the universe appear to have played a decisive role in bringing about the emergence of a particular kind of universe, within which life is capable of developing. Although the term is clearly supportive of God as “fine-tuner”, I will use it here essentially in a neutral sense,referring simply to the surprisingly restricted range of values that certain fundamental constants must take to bring about the universe with which we are familiar.
A canonical statement of the importance of the fine balancing of the fundamental constants of the universe was provided recently by Martin Rees, currently President of the Royal Society. We may summarise his analysis as follows.
1.The ratio of the electromagnetic force to the force of gravity, which can also be expressed in terms of the electrical (Coulomb) force between two protons divided by the gravitational force between them. This measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If this were slightly smaller than its observed value, “only a short-lived miniature universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution.”
"3. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, the stars would not be hot enough to warm planets to a temperature sufficient to maintain life in the form in which we know it. If smaller, the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow life to evolve on these planets.
- If the gravitational fine structure constant were slightly smaller, stars and planets would not have been able to form, on account of the gravitational constraints necessary for coalescence of their constituent material. If stronger, the stars thus formed would have burned out too quickly to allow the evolution of life.
It was only a matter of time before the full significance of this irritating background hiss was appreciated. It could be understood as the “afterglow” of a primal cosmic explosion – a hot “big bang” – which had been proposed in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman. This thermal radiation corresponded to photons moving about randomly in space, without any discernible source, at a temperature of 2.7 K. Taken alongside other pieces of evidence, this background radiation served as significant evidence that the universe had a beginning, and caused severe difficulties for the rival “steady state” theory.
Since then, the basic elements of the standard cosmological model have become clarified, and have secured widespread support within the scientific community. Although there remain significant areas of debate, this model is widely agreed to offer the best resonance with observational evidence.
The values of certain fundamental cosmological constants and the character of certain initial conditions of the universe appear to have played a decisive role in bringing about the emergence of a particular kind of universe, within which life is capable of developing. Although the term is clearly supportive of God as “fine-tuner”, I will use it here essentially in a neutral sense,referring simply to the surprisingly restricted range of values that certain fundamental constants must take to bring about the universe with which we are familiar.
A canonical statement of the importance of the fine balancing of the fundamental constants of the universe was provided recently by Martin Rees, currently President of the Royal Society. We may summarise his analysis as follows.
1.The ratio of the electromagnetic force to the force of gravity, which can also be expressed in terms of the electrical (Coulomb) force between two protons divided by the gravitational force between them. This measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If this were slightly smaller than its observed value, “only a short-lived miniature universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution.”
- The strong nuclear force, which defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together. This force, which has a value of 0.007, “controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table.” Once more, the value of this constant turns out to be of critical importance. If it “were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.”
R
robbodb
Guest
continued from previous post
"3. The amount of matter in the universe. The cosmic number Ω (omega) is a measure of the amount of material in our universe – such as galaxies, diffuse gas, and so-called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Ω tells us the
10relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. “If this ratio were too high relative to a particular ‘critical’ value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies or stars would have formed. The initial expansion speed seems to have been finely tuned.”
The origins of life are thus unquestionably anthropic.
They depend upon the fundamental values of constants of nature being such that the universe is able to progress beyond the formation of atomic hydrogen, and bring about the nucleosynthesis of biologically critical elements. Had they been otherwise, this process might never have begun. No life forms are known that are based solely upon hydrogen, helium, or lithium – the three lightest elements, all of which were created in the primordial big bang. The big bang, in itself and of itself, was not capable of producing carbon, nitrogen or oxygen. Stellar nucleosynthesis is required, which in turn depends upon the clumping of matter after the “big bang” to form stars. The formation of stars depends upon the value of the gravitational constant, which is regularly cited as an example of fine-tuning. Similarly, the strong nuclear force, whose value is 0.007, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and hence the extent to which stars can transmute hydrogen into atoms of the heavier elements. Its value is of critical importance if nucleosynthesis is to take place in stellar interiors. As Martin Rees points out, “if the strong nuclear force were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.” It is thus beyond reasonable doubt that the origins of life depend upon the fundamental constants of the universe."
We should perhaps note the relevance of contingency; not only of the fact but the nature and properties of the contingency. How did all this come about? Note also that many contingencies carry information from the previous contingency. Something like value added information.
What a wonderful universe we have . Just awesome!!!
Truth, Love and Peace
"3. The amount of matter in the universe. The cosmic number Ω (omega) is a measure of the amount of material in our universe – such as galaxies, diffuse gas, and so-called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Ω tells us the
10relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. “If this ratio were too high relative to a particular ‘critical’ value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies or stars would have formed. The initial expansion speed seems to have been finely tuned.”
- Cosmic repulsion. In 1998, cosmologists became aware of the importance of cosmic antigravity in controlling the expansion of the universe, and in particular its increasing importance as our universe becomes ever darker and emptier. “Fortunately for us (and very surprisingly to theorists), ? is very small. Otherwise its effect would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before it could even begin.”
- The ratio of the gravitational binding force to rest-mass energy, Q is of fundamental importance in determining the “texture” of the universe. “If Q were smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were much larger, it would be a violent place, in which no stars or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes.”
- The number of spatial dimensions, D, which is three. String theory argues that, of the 10 or 11 original dimensions at the origins of the universe, all but three were compactified. Time, of course, is to be treated as a fourth dimension. “Life”, Rees comments, “couldn’t exist if D were two or four.”
The origins of life are thus unquestionably anthropic.
They depend upon the fundamental values of constants of nature being such that the universe is able to progress beyond the formation of atomic hydrogen, and bring about the nucleosynthesis of biologically critical elements. Had they been otherwise, this process might never have begun. No life forms are known that are based solely upon hydrogen, helium, or lithium – the three lightest elements, all of which were created in the primordial big bang. The big bang, in itself and of itself, was not capable of producing carbon, nitrogen or oxygen. Stellar nucleosynthesis is required, which in turn depends upon the clumping of matter after the “big bang” to form stars. The formation of stars depends upon the value of the gravitational constant, which is regularly cited as an example of fine-tuning. Similarly, the strong nuclear force, whose value is 0.007, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and hence the extent to which stars can transmute hydrogen into atoms of the heavier elements. Its value is of critical importance if nucleosynthesis is to take place in stellar interiors. As Martin Rees points out, “if the strong nuclear force were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.” It is thus beyond reasonable doubt that the origins of life depend upon the fundamental constants of the universe."
We should perhaps note the relevance of contingency; not only of the fact but the nature and properties of the contingency. How did all this come about? Note also that many contingencies carry information from the previous contingency. Something like value added information.
What a wonderful universe we have . Just awesome!!!
Truth, Love and Peace
B
belorg
Guest
As long as you don’t confuse sets with reality, that’s OK with me.
Maybe. But don’t get too excited.
No. Not if {G} is different from God.
If you think there is something, you will have to show what it is.
Nonsense; Catholic doctrine has it that God is the creator of everything. If He does not create, there is only G and if {G} is different from G, then there is no {G}. Because you cannot account for the difference. G describeS the whole of reality.
The specific reason is that to exist and to not exist are contrary. So to ‘call’ something into existence is like shouting in a void.
L
Linux
Guest
And i thumbs you up as a “Theist”, so this definitely is not a biased position you are representing, its simply a matter of metaphysical logic.
L
Linux
Guest
Correct. The conceptual skills of your opponents is lacking.
E
Eleve
Guest
Sure, but the standard theist picture is not that God starts out not creating the world and then later creates the world. Rather, God at all times wills that the world be created and at all times causes the world to be created. And the same can go for Schmod, really; if we suppose that Schmod has all the power of God, then presumably he has the power to make things happen in the future.
*Actually, the Thomist idea would probably be that God is timeless, so rather than willing these things at all times, he just wills them outside of time.
So do you always assume that people who disagree with you are arguing in bad faith?
- Status