Thought for the day

[ContegoFides]

I sent this to someone as a thought, and decided I’d like to share it here.

God created the univerise, but what does that mean? There are roughly 150 billion galaxies in the universe. There are roughly 100 bilion stars per galaxy. That’s about 1.510^22 stars (about 15 quintillion), each of which is well over 1,000,000 times the mass of our little planet Earth, which itself is about 510^22 times more massive than a heafty human. Multiply all that together, the average hefty human is 7.5*10^50 (a number so vast its name is meaningless) times less massive than all of the visible matter in the universe. The human body (as small as it is) has roughly 10^28 atoms, meaning a whopping (rough) 10^79 atoms in the universe.

Did I mention that the visible universe, all of that stuff, constitutes less than 5% of its total mass and energy?

And God, who is infinitly more powerful than that, created it all…

Who are we to disobey His commands!!!

 

[flyingfish]

I sent this to someone as a thought, and decided I’d like to share it here.

God created the univerise, but what does that mean? There are roughly 150 billion galaxies in the universe. There are roughly 100 bilion stars per galaxy. That’s about 1.510^22 stars (about 15 quintillion), each of which is well over 1,000,000 times the mass of our little planet Earth, which itself is about 510^22 times more massive than a heafty human. Multiply all that together, the average hefty human is 7.5*10^50 (a number so vast its name is meaningless) times less massive than all of the visible matter in the universe. The human body (as small as it is) has roughly 10^28 atoms, meaning a whopping (rough) 10^79 atoms in the universe.

Did I mention that the visible universe, all of that stuff, constitutes less than 5% of its total mass and energy?

And God, who is infinitly more powerful than that, created it all…

Who are we to disobey His commands!!!

Why doesn’t this make you doubt a theistic God?

 

[ContegoFides]

Why doesn’t this make you doubt a theistic God?

LOL!

I laugh because the opposite is true (no animosity directed at you!) The more I know about cosmology, the MORE I both believe in God and stand in awe of His majesty and wisdom. BTW: I have a degree in physics myself and my father is a Ph.D. astrophysicist. I grew up around telescopes; not small ones (well, those too), the really big ones you see on T.V.

To answer your question a little better, modern cosmology confirms infallible Church teaching regarding God and creation, such as for example that the Universe had a beginning and was created ex-nihilio. Among others. Thus, while cosmology cannot prove the existence of God scientifically (this whole concept lies outside of the realm of positivism), I am given no cause to doubt the existence of God; but rather and given additional reasons for faith.

Let me turn your question on its head. Why would you doubt the existence of God in view of modern cosmology?

 

[tonyrey]

Size is not necessarily related to significance but there is one consideration which is relevant. If the universe were tiny and consisted of only one inanimate object there seems less likelihood that it is created by God. The vastness of our universe requires an inconceivable amount of power for it to exist - which suggests a well nigh omnipotent Being.

A more important consideration is complexity. A tiny world with life would be immensely strong evidence for God because the extreme complexity of living organisms would make it less likely they are fortuitous. So a vast universe with life would support the Chance theory - if life were widespread and abundant. But all the evidence suggests life is extremely rare and therefore less likely to be fortuitous.

There is another consideration: economy. One philosopher asked "What is the point of so much “galactic junk”? Is it likely there would be so much waste of time, space and energy just for the sake of a relatively small number of few living beings? What a parochial mentality! Does everything have to be useful and economical? The magnificence and beauty of the night sky alone is a sufficient justification for its existence - if we are not devoid of appreciation. Even if the rest of the universe were entirely useless would it detract from the inestimable value and richness of life on this planet? This fact alone is reason enough to believe there is a Creator who shares His joy and love with us…

 

[ContegoFides]

A more important consideration is complexity. A tiny world with life would be immensely strong evidence for God because the extreme complexity of living organisms would make it less likely they are fortuitous.

Agreed - but it’s not just complexity, it’s industrial complexity. Organelles within a cell each perform a task that the other organelles are unaware of but which contribute to the whole cell. Cells perform tasks that the other cells are unaware of but which contribute to the whole organism.

The only place where we see such industrial complexity - outside of living things - is our own machines.

Occom’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation is that an intelligence designed the industrial complexity in the cell and in the organism. What is the intelligence? Well, that’s a whole other chain of logic that leads to God as the Church has proclaimed Him.

 

[flyingfish]

LOL!

I laugh because the opposite is true (no animosity directed at you!) The more I know about cosmology, the MORE I both believe in God and stand in awe of His majesty and wisdom. BTW: I have a degree in physics myself and my father is a Ph.D. astrophysicist. I grew up around telescopes; not small ones (well, those too), the really big ones you see on T.V.

To answer your question a little better, modern cosmology confirms infallible Church teaching regarding God and creation, such as for example that the Universe had a beginning and was created ex-nihilio. Among others. Thus, while cosmology cannot prove the existence of God scientifically (this whole concept lies outside of the realm of positivism), I am given no cause to doubt the existence of God; but rather and given additional reasons for faith.

Let me turn your question on its head. Why would you doubt the existence of God in view of modern cosmology?

You misunderstood me, I asked specifically about a theistic God, i.e. a God concerned primarily with humans, directly involved in our lives, concerned with whether Jews followed dietary rules and so on.

Why make such a vast universe (the actual universe could be much bigger than the observable universe too), if it’s all about us?

That always bothered me when I was a Catholic, the universe is vast and has existed for an incomprehensibly long time. We’re a blink of an eye for it. Most of the universe is not even usable by us. It seems inconsistent with a God who makes us the focus of creation IMO.

 

[ContegoFides]

You misunderstood me, I asked specifically about a theistic God, i.e. a God concerned primarily with humans, directly involved in our lives, concerned with whether Jews followed dietary rules and so on.

Why make such a vast universe (the actual universe could be much bigger than the observable universe too), if it’s all about us?

That always bothered me when I was a Catholic, the universe is vast and has existed for an incomprehensibly long time. We’re a blink of an eye for it. Most of the universe is not even usable by us. It seems inconsistent with a God who makes us the focus of creation IMO.

Ah, I see.

I suppose my first response would be, “why inconsistent?” As immortal souls we each have infinite value over even the entire physical universe. Thus, even one of us is more value than the sum total of the physical universe - no matter how vast.

Why make such a vast universe? That’s a mystery, but here are several possible thoughts.

-1) In order to make a universe with the laws it has, so that we operate under the physical laws God wants us to operate under, the universe has the size it does.

-2) To show us in physical terms the supreme majesty and power of God.

-3) To provide for other intelligent life; other immortal souls that can share in His relationship. Note the Church has no position on “aliens,” but my personal belief is that nothing prevents God from creating other souls in other areas of the Universe and we should not presume they do not exist. Nothing prevents God from coming to us in the form of Jesus; i.e., the existence of aliens doesn’t somehow deny the Trinity.

-4) To show us, even in purely positivistic terms, that the universe was 1) created 2) ex nihilio.

I’m sure there are others. I confess some of these might not be right. The real answer is a mystery.

 

[flyingfish]

-1) In order to make a universe with the laws it has, so that we operate under the physical laws God wants us to operate under, the universe has the size it does.

That’s interesting, wouldn’t you say it limits God’s omnipotence in some way?

Also, a theistic God could have intervened and kicked started evolution on the first batch of planets with heavy elements? You say maybe he has with aliens, but that again seems inconsistent with us being the pinnacle of creation which is the focus of the theistic religions. We seem to be more of an afterthought.

-2) To show us in physical terms the supreme majesty and power of God.

This is a better argument. Still, I don’t find it altogether convincing, for example, unless you assume that we’re going to leave the solar system the universe will continue on for an incomprehensibly long time without us. Which again seems to be an argument against the view that we’re the main focus of creation, and that is one of the key ideas of theism.

1. To show us, even in purely positivistic terms, that the universe was 1) created 2) ex nihilio.

Does it really show that? Cosmologists talk about a multiverse out of which this universe arose, and whatever began began in the framework of physical laws, which are not “nothing”.

 

[Spirithound]

You misunderstood me, I asked specifically about a theistic God, i.e. a God concerned primarily with humans, directly involved in our lives, concerned with whether Jews followed dietary rules and so on.

Why make such a vast universe (the actual universe could be much bigger than the observable universe too), if it’s all about us?

That always bothered me when I was a Catholic, the universe is vast and has existed for an incomprehensibly long time. We’re a blink of an eye for it. Most of the universe is not even usable by us. It seems inconsistent with a God who makes us the focus of creation IMO.

…yet.

 

[ContegoFides]

That’s interesting, wouldn’t you say it limits God’s omnipotence in some way?

Also, a theistic God could have intervened and kicked started evolution on the first batch of planets with heavy elements? You say maybe he has with aliens, but that again seems inconsistent with us being the pinnacle of creation which is the focus of the theistic religions. We seem to be more of an afterthought.

Why would choosing to make the universe the way it is limit God’s omnipotence? It’s His choice to make the universe the way it is; nothing prevented Him from making the universe differently.

Why are we an afterthought? The very idea of “afterthought” is a value judgment which is fundamentally unprovable (and I admit I cannot prove we are not - at least not outside the revelation by the Church). However, even if there were no perspective that gives us a positive view of our place in the universe, why would I choose to believe that way. Even if there were no God, why would anyone choose to live in such a state of darkness and depressiveness? If there were no God, I would rather believe and thereby feel happy and fulfilled and important (in my own small way) rather than dark and depressed and hopeless.

Thus, I prefer to look at this way (even outside Church revelation): Even if we are one diamond among many, we are still an intended diamond. Just as each one of us was known and intended from the beginning of time. That makes us, as a species and as individuals, something very amazing and special.

This is a better argument. Still, I don’t find it altogether convincing, for example, unless you assume that we’re going to leave the solar system the universe will continue on for an incomprehensibly long time without us. Which again seems to be an argument against the view that we’re the main focus of creation, and that is one of the key ideas of theism.

The argument is not intended to convince; it’s not even an argument - everything I’ve presented is mere speculation to figure out the intersection of observation and faith.

I think a better way of putting it is that God has created us in His image (which does make us extremely important) to know and love and serve him. It’s less our idea of what God is supposed to be, rather than a relationship between what is Real (God) and His created (us).

Besides, even if we are at the pinnacle of creation, why should you assume that some other alien species could not share that same pinnacle level (just as multiple blocks could share the highest level of a building)?

Note: I would never assert that observation (positivism) can prove God. Science doesn’t deal with that which cannot be measured. Proof of God comes from ontological arguments. *Faith * in God is a gift of God that we are able to accept or reject.

Does it really show that? Cosmologists talk about a multiverse out of which this universe arose, and whatever began began in the framework of physical laws, which are not “nothing”.

Yes. However, let us assume that there is a multiverse (which, by the way is an interesting but unproven theory). What created the multiverse? No matter what you do, whether or not our universe is but one in a multiverse, you will always run into the problem of first cause and the problem that an infinite chain of causation cannot exist because it is self-contradictory. Thus, there is still a God that created everything ex-nihilio. I’m sure you are familiar with the ontological arguments that the first cause must be God as the Church proclaims Him.

Another thought for you.

I put this one in quotes in order to separate this idea from the rest - not your quote!

What I would like to know is, why would you risk believing there is no God (whose nature is preached by the Catholic Church) given the risk benefit analysis? See Pascal’s Wager.

 

[flyingfish]

Why would choosing to make the universe the way it is limit God’s omnipotence? It’s His choice to make the universe the way it is; nothing prevented Him from making the universe differently.

You seemed to suggest that in order to get a universe with these physical laws it would have to be this way (vast in space and time). That would bind God within the framework of these particular physical laws, and to me would seem to limit omnipotence. Why couldn’t God get these physical laws with a younger universe? Why not start it already made with these physical laws etc.?

Why are we an afterthought?

Well, because the universe has existed for a ridiculously long time before we came into being (before the earth even came into being), and will continue to exist for an even longer, perhaps indefinite (?) period of time after we’re gone. Even if you assume we’ll be able to colonize the universe, the prevailing view is that the universe will continue to exist long after all the stars burn out.

It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me that this universe is made primarily for us.

Even if there were no God, why would anyone choose to live in such a state of darkness and depressiveness?

I don’t know why you think this is depressing? I’m not saying our lives are meaningless, I’m saying the facts of the world make me doubt that there is a deity that made this universe primarily for us as many revealed faiths would have us believe.

Why do you think the Church was so reluctant to accept idea that the sun rather than the earth was at the center of the solar system?

That makes us, as a species and as individuals, something very amazing and special.

I also think any intelligent life would be incredibly special, even more so if there is no God. It would mean that the universe gains awareness of itself through us. The early stages of a God if you will.

Besides, even if we are at the pinnacle of creation, why should you assume that some other alien species could not share that same pinnacle level (just as multiple blocks could share the highest level of a building)?

I would think this would not be a conventional view within Catholicism? We have semi-intelligent species on this very planet. Great apes and dolphins display self awareness. They are not even granted immortal souls.

Yes. However, let us assume that there is a multiverse (which, by the way is an interesting but unproven theory). What created the multiverse? No matter what you do, whether or not our universe is but one in a multiverse, you will always run into the problem of first cause and the problem that an infinite chain of causation cannot exist because it is self-contradictory. Thus, there is still a God that created everything ex-nihilio. I’m sure you are familiar with the ontological arguments that the first cause must be God as the Church proclaims Him.

I don’t think proposing a God escapes the contradiction. If God can stop the infinite regress, why not the multiverse itself? You can ask why must there be a God rather than not. Why must God be this way rather than another. These questions don’t go away.

Maybe the best way to make these questions go away, in my opinion, is to assume that the very idea of sequence of events and causation is only our perception of time. Time stands still for photons, for instance. They would not be having issues with infinite regress, for them things would just “be”. It is the only way I see of resolving it. I think the paradox is in our brains, and that our fundamental intuition about time is wrong (which I’m sure you know, since you must have studied relativity). In fact, if you don’t get rid of time, and assume God as the “first” cause, you’re essentially saying that time began which is self contradictory.

I don’t think we ever got something out of nothing. Take time itself, time can’t have “begun” because it would require time to already exists. At the very least, time itself just “is”. It was never created, never began.

What I would like to know is, why would you risk believing there is no God (whose nature is preached by the Catholic Church) given the risk benefit analysis? See Pascal’s Wager.

I stopped believing because of a risk benefit analysis. The Catholic faith demands great sacrifice to the point where I believe following its teachings would ruin my life. I think the chance that it’s true is so small that I’m not willing to give up the one life I know I have for something that I think has a very small chance of being true.

I was an agnostic for a while, but I could have been an agnostic Catholic, and I think I would have been had the demands on my personal life not been so great.

 

[ContegoFides]

You seemed to suggest that in order to get a universe with these physical laws it would have to be this way (vast in space and time). That would bind God within the framework of these particular physical laws, and to me would seem to limit omnipotence. Why couldn’t God get these physical laws with a younger universe? Why not start it already made with these physical laws etc.?

No such suggestion was explicit or implied. God could have made a younger universe or a universe with different laws. Obviously, the choice He made was the one we observe.

Well, because the universe has existed for a ridiculously long time before we came into being (before the earth even came into being), and will continue to exist for an even longer, perhaps indefinite (?) period of time after we’re gone. Even if you assume we’ll be able to colonize the universe, the prevailing view is that the universe will continue to exist long after all the stars burn out.

It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me that this universe is made primarily for us.

Why not? Your belief assumes that duration or size is the defining factor of importance. The real value lies in our souls, each of which is more than the sum of the rest of the universe.

Indeed, prevailing cosmological thinking is that the universe will end in the Big Rip; essentially, the inflation of space-time will eventually rip apart even atoms at the sub-atomic level.

If duration is the measure of value, then everything has no value because it will all come to an end.

I don’t know why you think this is depressing? I’m not saying our lives are meaningless,

Why isn’t it? Under your world view, life is short and then it ends. It has no meaning. If you assert there is meaning without God, or without a God who engages us in a personal relationship, then what meaning can you derive from your short existence?

I also think any intelligent life would be incredibly special, even more so if there is no God. It would mean that the universe gains awareness of itself through us. The early stages of a God if you will.

Not really. How can you believe that the universe gains awareness vicariously? That seems bizarre and illogical. Each individual would have awareness, and that’s it.

I don’t think proposing a God escapes the contradiction. If God can stop the infinite regress, why not the multiverse itself? You can ask why must there be a God rather than not. Why must God be this way rather than another. These questions don’t go away.

Sure they do. God is outside of the universe and has no cause. This gives a first cause. The multiverse itself cannot cause itself because it would have a cause. Anything in the observable universe or multiverse has a cause; only something outside of the universe that has no beginning could be the first cause.

Maybe the best way to make these questions go away, in my opinion, is to assume that the very idea of sequence of events and causation is only our perception of time. Time stands still for photons, for instance. They would not be having issues with infinite regress, for them things would just “be”. It is the only way I see of resolving it. I think the paradox is in our brains, and that our fundamental intuition about time is wrong (which I’m sure you know, since you must have studied relativity). In fact, if you don’t get rid of time, and assume God as the “first” cause, you’re essentially saying that time began which is self contradictory.

No. Photons are bosons. Time slow down from relatively only applies to fermions; i.e., particles that have mass. There is no paradox.

Also, time did have a beginning - at the big bang. This is scientific fact, not a theological argument. In fact, space and time are part of the same “stuff;” hence, “space-time.” Every point of space has its own “clock” associated with it.

I stopped believing because of a risk benefit analysis. The Catholic faith demands great sacrifice to the point where I believe following its teachings would ruin my life. I think the chance that it’s true is so small that I’m not willing to give up the one life I know I have for something that I think has a very small chance of being true.

I was an agnostic for a while, but I could have been an agnostic Catholic, and I think I would have been had the demands on my personal life not been so great.

An honest response, I suppose. However, anything you might lose in this life is by definition finite; whereas the risk and the reward for belief/non-belief are infinite. In comparison, any personal sacrifice is therefore “worth it.”

Also, the chances of God’s existence are not small, they are large. Industrial complexity in life, first cause, scientifically verifiable miracles, and many others.

I’m curious, why would you think that Christian morality would “ruin” your life? What demands were placed on you?

 

[Spirithound]

You seemed to suggest that in order to get a universe with these physical laws it would have to be this way (vast in space and time). That would bind God within the framework of these particular physical laws, and to me would seem to limit omnipotence. Why couldn’t God get these physical laws with a younger universe? Why not start it already made with these physical laws etc.?

Socrates asked whether something is holy because it is loved by the gods, or whether the gods love it because it is holy. If it is holy because it is loved by the gods, then goodness is potentially subject to a tyrannical will. If the gods love it because it is holy, then there is a law higher than the gods.

(I think you can find this somewhere in St. Thomas Aquinas, but I don’t know the reference) Rather, both answers are correct, simultaneously. God has an immutable nature, which means that He cannot change it, otherwise He would not be God anymore, and so the definition of holy is not subject to a tyrannical will, but at the same time, it is contained within God, not above Him. This is part of what St. Thomas identifies as the Eternal Law; that which God wills from all eternity.

If we extend this principle to cover physical laws, as I think Leibniz did when he wrote about the “best possible world”, then I think that it is appropriate that we say “this is how it had to be, to get X”.

 

[flyingfish]

If duration is the measure of value, then everything has no value because it will all come to an end.

When did I say duration was a measure of value? I was just saying the properties of the observed universe are not what you’d expect if we were the main point of creation.

How can you believe that the universe gains awareness vicariously? That seems bizarre and illogical. Each individual would have awareness, and that’s it.

Each individual is a part of the universe, every self aware individual is a piece of the universe that is self aware.

Sure they do. God is outside of the universe and has no cause. This gives a first cause. The multiverse itself cannot cause itself because it would have a cause. Anything in the observable universe or multiverse has a cause; only something outside of the universe that has no beginning could be the first cause.

Really, so something called “God” can exist without cause, but something called “universe” or “multiverse” must have a cause? It seems completely arbitrary to make this distinction.

You say an infinite regress must be stopped or else you’d have a paradox, so you arbitrarily choose to call the stopping point “God”. But where you stop is entirely arbitrary. You can stop at the Big Bang singularity and call that “God”. You’ll ask questions about why it should exist? You can ask those same questions about God.

No. Photons are bosons. Time slow down from relatively only applies to fermions; i.e., particles that have mass. There is no paradox.

Really? Are you saying that if you were a photon you’d experience the passage of time?

Also, time did have a beginning - at the big bang. This is scientific fact, not a theological argument.

Don’t you see how this is a self contradictory statement? What does it mean to have a beginning? It means at one point in time you didn’t exist, and at the next point in time you did exist. If there is no flow of time, say just one instant, how can you have a beginning?

Time cannot begin, because it would require for time to already exist.

I’m curious, why would you think that Christian morality would “ruin” your life? What demands were placed on you?

If you really want to know, send me a PM. I don’t want to talk about personal issues on a public forum.

 

[Black_Rose]

No. Photons are bosons. Time slow down from relatively only applies to fermions; i.e., particles that have mass. There is no paradox.

Nope. Fermions are distinguished from bosons because the former has a half-integer spin, while the latter has an integer spin; their definitions have nothing to do with mass. The mass of the Higgs boson, to provide a counterexample of a boson with mass, is predicted to be 115-150 GeV/c[sup]2[/sup] (a proton has a mass of .94 GeV) and it has a spin of zero; photons and gluons have a spin of 1 and are both bosons too with no mass. W and Z bosons also have a mass in the between 80-90 GeV and a spin of 1.

Amazing what fact-checking on wikipedia could do…

Occom’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation is that an intelligence designed the industrial complexity in the cell and in the organism. What is the intelligence? Well, that’s a whole other chain of logic that leads to God as the Church has proclaimed Him.

I don’t understand tensors, eigenvectors, matrices, or manifolds that well; but that does not mean Newton’s theory of gravitation is correct compared to general relativity which requires a mastery of the aforementioned complex concepts, instead of Newton’s theory which could be understood with a basic knowledge of calculus. Occam’s razor does not state the simplest explanation is usually correct; but the explanation that does not postulate extraneous entities.