I have shown the possibility of a universal objective present in space-time, and have postulated time in God. This time is transferred to physical time, but they are never identical.

Details are in Analecta Husserliana 2011, vol.107, 289-295; and more accessibly at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/time.htm, with other articles. Sorry – but a difficult subject needs a detailed approach! (Alan Padgett knows my work, by the way.)

There’s a form of anti-intellectualism in basic Christian theology. It’s not anti-intellectualism strictly speaking, but it’s anti-intellectualism-as-being-advantageous-spiritually. The African villager with no access to books or classical education is just as likely to discover the spiritual secrets of the universe, etc. as the brilliant physicist. It’s reprehensible to those of us who value education and intellect, but there’s a real fairness to it- if spiritual enlightenment is attained by education, then those who are poor (or even mentally disabled) are at an unfair disadvantage. There must be entirely different criteria than the meritocracy-of-brain-power favored by academia.

This could even explain the inconclusiveness of the cosmos. The theists and atheists are all seizing evidence to support their cause from every new discovery. What if God made the universe deliberately intriguing, but ultimately evasive, for the reason outlined above?

Sorry if I threw things off topic.

I appreciate you point of view, and your intelligence, and especially the fact that you don’t attack the messenger.

You are a worthy foe. I enjoy our conversation.

–Robert

Proclaiming that “how” = “why” is a very poor argument. Patently so; you are attempting to prove your point by assuming your point is true. You have to FIRST disprove God before you can say there was no “choosing” of one sky color over another (or that there is a color at all). You must do your homework first and actually do the work of dis-proving God exists before you can dismiss His choices.

You have not even attempted to do the heavy lifting. In fact, you’ve done no lifting at all. The simple fact that they are two questions makes it perfectly reasonable for me to expect two different answers. Your supposition that one is necessarily the other is unreasonable, unusual, and illogical. “How” and “why” aren’t even synonyms.

–Robert

Leave the world and its workings to science, and love and spirtuality to God.

You must have missed it when the NOMA nonsense was debunked once and for all. Love is as much in the realm of science, as physics, or music, or gods.

@48,

Bertrand Russel’s definition of faith: A belief which cannot be shaken by evidence to the contrary.

He should have added, “or lack of evidence for it”.

As to the Universe, and whether it needs the made-up myths of ancient goatherders in a remote area of a remote planet in a remote area of a remote galaxy? The question is quite farsical, really.

I predicted (sadly, only to myself) that when Bivins asked the question “why is the sky blue” that two things would happen.

1. Someone would answer the question.
and
2. Bivins would attempt to refute it by redefining the meaning of the word “why”.

The how IS the why. Rephrase the question to “why is the sky blue and not some other color” and the answer is still the same. Rephrase the question to “why is the sky blue and not completely transparent” and the answer is still the same. Rephrase the question to “why is there sky at all” and the answer is somewhat different — without an atmosphere, life of our particular type that would look at a sky and perceive it blue would not be possible. In which case you’re merely asking why frogs don’t grow wings so they don’t bump their asses on the ground so much.

You are engaging in a presuppositional bias — assuming that a choice was made with regard to sky color. Wasn’t. The why is the how. There was no choice made because there is no such thing as a “choosing” entity.

If sophistry is all you bring to the table, then your arguments fall flat on their proverbial nose.

Your argument in comment 112 is a very old fallacy called “argument from consequences”. Whether or not you wish something to be true, there is or is not a validity that must be dealt with. There is not a single shred of evidence that the truth claims of any religion, including the Abrahamic ones, are anything other than imaginative musings from people who did not understand enough about the world around them (or who had/have more-venal purposes in mind, such as control of the population via an unseen authority).

And I would think very hard about your “wish” that there be some “purpose” to life. Because what you’re really saying is not that you want there to be purpose to this life, but that you hope to get a larger apartment (with a kitchen upgrade) in the eternal after-death. Why in the world would anyone wish for an eternal after-death? In 5 billion years, the sun will consume the Earth as it goes red giant. In a few trillion years, the odds are that the universe will have devolved down to undifferentiated photons. And that’s merely the knife’s edge of eternity. Are you SURE you want an eternal after-death? What a horrible thought.

Happily, there is no evidence for such a state, so you’ll just have to be content with what you have — a finite existence, and then a redistribution of your constituent atoms back to the environment. Enjoy your life. There’s nothing after but that.

“You are not an atheist. You are not the fence. I believe you are the epitome of an agnostic, which is a point of view I can except because of the many abuses of every major religion on Earth.”

The major abuses of religion are done by government manipulation and willingly excepted by the major religions in a herd mentality, that and the fatalistic end view that relinquishes those from accountability. No religion should promote an unending excuse from sin or wrongdoing to their fellow man & the planet and I see so many religions of today promoting sin for six and be absolved on the seventh. Until that changes religion is a problem to the well being of mankind.
Too many religions promote the destruction of my home on the basis that it was put here to use and abuse.
Religion and god are different subjects and I digress.

“but I think I can count you as a convert”

On the contrary my friend, I am rock solid, my worldview has allowed me to see further than anyone would have thought possible and from this perspective allows me to deeply see the interplay between those who believe and those who don’t, a world of all believers or a world of all non-believers would be a drab world indeed.

“A Universe destined for the Big Crunch is finite, eventually boring, eventually dark, depressing, small, and very, very uninteresting.”

I disagree, I find the big freeze very uninteresting.
Just as we see the space of the Universe expanding, we also see the coalescence of galaxies and clusters of galaxies and further down that road black hole coalescence, the Universe will expand forever, till the majority of matter is in black hole form, they will not radiate away, Hawking radiation is not a primary mover on such scales. You will be interested to know that I profess the Universe will end only to be recreated. When all matter is in the same state and space is meaningless, it is a form of harmony where gravity cannot exist in any meaningful way (you need opposing particles to recognize gravity) and therefore expansion/inflation will ensue yet again. These few common words can not do this explanation justice.

Needless to say all matter in one state (harmony if you will)is not uninteresting.

” How is it that the Universe is bigger in the past than in the present.”

It isn’t, The Universe has been expanding all along, we did not have the capability to see…now we do see this, though what we see, the light we see, has traveled a very long way and by the time it reaches us it is just a record of what once was, that does not mean the past was a bigger(space between galaxies) Universe, it means what we see is big and by all indications the space is getting bigger yet on a local scale we orbit the sun which orbits the galactic center, which orbits the barycenter of the local cluster, which orbits the barycenter of the super-cluster. To eventually coalesce to a black-hole. One amongst many.

We all have a quest and only the individual can define that quest for ones self, some people never recognize this, to me that is a sad non-event, you seem to have found yours, good for you, what a boring world if we all held the same Weltanschauung.

There is a difference between my mindset and that of an agnostic, an agnostic claims that the subject is unknowable.

Peace to you.

I remain the fence,
(I like the view)
Sphere Coupler.

“Further, since no one religious view commands majority support in the world, a majority of the people in the world disfavor every particular kind of belief about God.”

You overstate. In fact, the top three religions of the world, which represent the overwhelming majority of people, believe in the same God. They differ on the role of Jesus. If you substitute Jesus for God in your statement, you would essentially be correct.

–Robert

I know you are not going to like this, but I think I can count you as a convert. Which, heretofore, I would have thought impossible. But, then again, maybe optimism is based on the notion of a higher being and a greater purpose because nothing is pointless, and by extension, no one is pointless.

I’d much rather live in that Universe, than the alternative. I think you want to as well, but are looking for an intellectual excuse (euphemistically called a “nudge”). Maybe you aren’t ready for the immortal soul, and the Big Book of Deeds and the Pearly Gates and all that stuff. But, I think you would like to know that you aren’t a random collection of chemical coincidences.

Plus, lets be honest, we Christians are pretty arrogant as a group, and we like the idea of the entire Universe existing for our purpose. If there is a God, then that last statement is undeniably true. I teach Calculus and Physics at a Christian High School. I am a supporter of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Adam and Eve. I speak only English, so I’m not delusional enough to think that if I can’t read it in the Bible, it must not have happened — if for no other reason than the fact that the Bible wasn’t written in English, and was translated by a King with a pretty severe political agenda.

I find very few people who think as I do, and my boss tolerates my point of view mostly because I am the best teacher the school has ever had in its 25 years of existence. The parents make a strong case for keeping me for that mostly pragmatic reason. But, since I am talking to an intellectual, you are probably already aware of the fact that people are more tolerant of the eccentricities of the rich and the highly intelligent. Since I am not rich, I rely on the latter and get away with it.

But, I have found that if you loosen your grip on the language of the Bible (which should be easy enough for the English or Spanish speaker, you would think), many of the ideas of the Bible are actually *almost* supported by Science. Examples: 1) there was an actual global flood at a time in Earth’s history that could align with the story of Noah, 2) Jesus was a real person (and almost scientifically proven), 3) the junction of the Tigress and Euphrates rivers makes a strong case for being the Garden of Eden, etc. Some have accused me of wishful thinking, but I don’t think so. I would expect Science, on occasion, to patently make at least some of the events in the Bible impossible, that weren’t obvious allegory, of course. Science has had a very hard time doing that, even after thousands of years of trying.

Even the resurrection of Jesus is hard to refute because we routinely resurrect people as a matter of course, now.

I find it comforting and interesting that Man had an opportunity to live a life of Bliss, and instead chose Knowledge, and then God went about filling the Universe with enough stuff to keep us occupied forever. We disobeyed our Father, and He — while angry — made sure we could be successful living the lives He did not choose for us. I only wish I could be that benevolent with my own children. Most of us disown children who choose lifestyles diametrically apposed to our own value system.

Creation says the Earth and animals existed prior to man (true). The Universe existed before Earth (true). Man is in fact near the end of the creationary/evolutionary process (true). The Universe started from a very bright single event (true).

My ideas fit so neatly I can’t imagine why hardly anyone else agrees. I just find it difficult to believe that ancient man can somehow be so close to the *truth* as modern science is defining it.

Man was created from the Earth. Every molecule of Earth and Man come from the destruction of large, majestic, beautiful stars in very bright, violent Super Novas that happened long ago. God, in my mind, destroyed a rather gorgeous Universe just to make the stuff that makes us with one monumental act of destruction after another. An inexorable, improbable, monumental, purposeful (?) laundry list of changes had to happen for us to even be possible. And yet, here we are.

I look at the Hubble Deep Field Survey, and I am shocked. I’m thinking that photo should have had cosmologists circling their wagons defending its impossibility, and Theists proclaiming, “see, I TOLD you so!” That didn’t happen. How is it that the Universe is bigger in the past than in the present?

The number of stars represented by that photo…

The infinitesimal angular view…

You do the math…

Here it is: http://www.cosmiclight.com/imagegalleries/deepfield.htm

Gaze and think. I mean really think about what it represents.

I think cosmologist are avoiding what it means. We should point Hubble in the opposite direction and see what happens. What if the far away Universe is as super-dense looking forward *and* backwards?

You are not an atheist. You are not the fence. I believe you are the epitome of an agnostic, which is a point of view I can except because of the many abuses of every major religion on Earth.

Christianity is singularly interesting because it is defined on faith, with is belief in the absence of proof. So, the fact that science can sometimes almost prove a tenet of Christianity sorta fits, because if there was ever any actual proof, their could be no Christians. Some can say self-serving, but I don’t think so, because I don’t believe the early humans who were writing the book had the wherewithal to have that particular ulterior motive.

A constantly expanding Universe *needs* God because it needs someone to constantly fill it. This type of Universe is happy, and big, and comfortable, and interesting, and varied, and unique, and surprising, and dangerous, and scary, and daunting, and cruel, and safe, and loving, and good, and evil, and hot, and cold, and fuzzy, and warm, and sneezey, and venomous, and, and, and……..

A Universe destined for the Big Crunch is finite, eventually boring, eventually dark, depressing, small, and very, very uninteresting.

Well, I won’t be a teacher anymore after next week. The economy is such that I must move back into my primary field as a Computer Scientist and once again earn enough to properly support my family. That means my audience for my point of view will exponentially shrink. I spent 5 years putting kids from a small Black high school (pop. 78) into Harvard, Cornell, Dartmouth, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Julliard among others, but I must walk away.

If you know computer scientists, that is the same as saying all-scientists, because it is a particularly grueling course of study.

I walk away with the comfort of knowing that there is a God, and though He wont prove Himself to me, he will drop a few hints here or there. And, he will make sure there is always something for me to learn, and my sons and daughters, and my grandchildren, and so on and so on.

You can be the wall, if you like (I still feel that you are non-committal), as long as you are facing my side. I’ll take “intellectually pleasing”, and complain no more.

Well, I’m rambling. Nay. I’m in full diatribe mode, once again. So far, you’ve been a willing target. I hope I haven’t worn out my welcome.

–Robert

I can’t speak for Sean, but there are plenty of matters upon which large percentages of the population are factually incorrect. For example, about half of Americans think that antibiotics kill viruses.

Also, nobody denies that religious faiths exist, and it is entirely possible that religious faith imparts benefits even if God does not exist. Indeed, the secular view of religion is that this almost has to be true for religion to be so common.

Further, since no one religious view commands majority support in the world, a majority of the people in the world disfavor every particular kind of belief about God.

(If anyone recalls the name of the story, I would love to read it again, I read it long ago)

Let me say that a bit clearer.
Whomsoever mind she read, she would become the person who they were thinking about, whether that person was dead, lost or in the next room.

Apparently it is much the same, from my point of view, those from both sides see my view as close to theirs (or grossly set apart), though much of what you say is true…from your viewpoint, an atheist would read it differently from their perspective, and that’s OK really, because they both are true for both camps.

“For me (god) will remain a placeholder for that which humanity does not yet understand…period”.(comment 42)

You read this differently than an atheist would, and that’s OK, I actually like your interpretation.It’s intellectually pleasing, if you will.(comment 103)

Indeed the moniker does fit, you are correct, though it was not chosen for any one specific duty…it was chosen because it fits many facets of physics(particle, geo, and others)…and we are…all of us…on this one…tiny, blue…planet.

but if you have any more gems like “normal standard deviation is the Omnisient Mastermind” we will make an exception. There is a very thin line between “The Mega-Wisdom Thought” and utter gibberish. I wish you luck with your continuing quest for deep meaning concentrated Anthony, you are going to need it.

I don’t know if you realize this, but you have just defined God as you know Him with this statement, “For me (god) will remain a placeholder for that which humanity does not yet understand…period”.

Especially since it brings into question a topic much like the Dark Matter conundrum; can man ultimately know everything? Or, is there enough stuff to learn for the Universe t0 always retreat behind man’s sphere of knowledge (by which your definition means there will always be God), or is there not enough stuff and the Universe will eventually shrink inside man’s sphere of knowledge (meaning God has been squeezed out).

The latter scenario is just as depressing as if there turns out to not be enough Dark Energy to obviate the Big Crunch. Imagine how bored those billions (trillions) of future humans would be once we knew everything. Once God has been disproved using your method, the Universe becomes a very dark place.

The former scenerio means that there will always be an abundance of unknowns regardless the number of human souls who are in persuit of the edge of the Universe. In this Universe, there will always be unknowns, and therefore always God.

You may be the fence. But, your front side is pointing at God. Your backside is pointed at a very drab Universe. That tells me that you are ever so slightly an optimist, a dreamer, and a thinker. My friend, you are already leaning.

To me, proof comes from this, our rate at which we come to know things pales in comparison to the rate at which we don’t know things. That is patently counter-intuitive, because the number of things we don’t know should be decreasing. It isn’t. To me, that tells me that maybe someone is hard at work keeping the Universe full of new stuff to know.

You know, the Hubble, I think, has given us a glimpse as to just how busy God must be. I am sure you have seen the Hubble Deep Field Survey. Are you fully aware of how this shot was taken? Scientist pointed the Hubble at an empty spot in the sky and left the shutter open for a very long time.

If you have seen this photo, the density of “stars” is just about greater than any other Hubble photo. The density is even more mind boggling when you realize that nearly every point of light in that photo is a *galaxy*, not a star.

I haven’t seen that anyone has fully understood the implications. If the density of stars is that much greater in the dark patches of our sky than the density of the stars we can see, then the Universe just got exponentially larger. It is already going to take many years to analyze that one photo. What if we start routinely taking these photos? What if we take 100 such photos? Centuries just to analyze them? What if we take 1000? Could we really have just opened up a Pandoras box (of cool stuff) that large? Millennia? Really? Random chance? Really?

But, that is my belief — that God is filling the Universe up for us to find stuff and satisfying our curiosity and inquisitiveness. That makes the Universe a thoroughly cool place to live.

You are smart, very smart. Eventually, your intellect will cause you to choose one viewpoint or the other.

–Robert

BTW, I noticed how your handle fits your viewpoint, as it is now. Cool.

Thank “God” somebody else can see that!

#100 el_dhulqarnain wrote, “If the universe didn’t ‘just go boom’ and exist, how come god went ‘boom’ and exists?”

Maybe god didn’t go ‘boom’, and maybe god can never fully exist.