Universal Elegance and Correspondence

[ryan]

Well...Starman didn't state that the universe would go poof, he said the earth only has 5 billion years left before Sol burns out.

It is difficult to tell exactly what Starman meant since he has so many erroneous beliefs about scientific understandings and models. But, since the subject was about the universe (its origins and end), I assumed that he, like many Christians, believed that the fate of the Earth defined the fate of the universe. He mentions "heat death" which is a description of the final fate of the universe untold mega-trillions of years into the future as though "heat death" meant our Sun burning out so the end of Earth. A fairly typical Christian understanding is that the creation of the Earth was the beginning of the universe and its end will be the end of the universe.

No, your "still unanswered question" has long since been answered. It had a beginning. The problem was that when Georges Lemaitre posited the "primordial atom," scientists rejected it because they did not want to face the ineluctable implication. It took years to let go of the Steady State Theory, and accept the Big Bang.
Scientifically, it will end with heat death. Earth has only five billion more years before our sun burns out. Less time in front of us than behind.

:laughing-smiley-014
In Starman's defence, there will be many deaths from heat when the Sun burns out.

 

[Archimedes]

What's the ultimate space (sic) of the intelligent creator?

For people who constantly parrot their own *intellectualism,* there certainly are a lot of simplistic mistakes, not just of logic, and science,
and rationality, but of such trivial matters as copying what someone else has written or said. The above is simply another such example.

That in no way addresses my question. You're assuming that the alternative to an intelligent creator is the universe creating itself or that whatever the reason for the existence for the universe needs some sort of "ultimate source", as if you can then pull a bait and switch and just shove in your own religious answer without it needing an "ultimate source". When push comes to shove, no matter how it's dressed up in pseudo-intellectual apologistics, it's always a matter of special pleading.

That there's something flawed with atheism because it doesn't explain the existence of the universe, which for some reason is something that demands an explanation, but positing an "intelligent creator" as the answer to that question, because for some reason the answer you made up is something that is immune to the objections you have to the universe simply being a brute fact or something with an unknown cause.

Please search YouTube for "A Matter of Gravity," by Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University. He answers many of your questions, as well
as those of Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins.

Ah. That old saw. Telling people to go Google for the answer instead of simply answering the question yourself. Lazy intellectualism at its finest.

 

[skepticalbip]

.....................
Please search YouTube for "A Matter of Gravity," by Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University. He answers many of your questions, as well
as those of Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins.

Ah. That old saw. Telling people to go Google for the answer instead of simply answering the question yourself. Lazy intellectualism at its finest.

Just out of curiosity, I checked that youtube video. I was hoping for something meaningful to consider. It was the typical pseudo-philosophical Christian attack on science. I only watched up to the point where he points out that science can't answer questions like;
1. Why did the universe come into being? This question itself is a logical fallacy. It assumes that there is a "why" and, of course, any Christian knows the "why".
2. What is the meaning of human existence? This assumes as fact that there is some "meaning".
3. What happens after we die? Science actually answers that in quite a bit of detail. Christians just don't like the answer so, to them, it obviously must be wrong.

I didn't see much sense in watching any more as it it was just a series of old Christian philosophical saws and it had already gotten awfully boring.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't think that "God did it" is a research stopping point, but perhaps I don't understand why someone would stop researching a complex phenomenon simply because someone or something is the cause. If I say "the fundamental laws of nature caused X", this is hardly a good enough explanation, even if it is true.
.

For Christians, "god did it", is an ultimate answer, "we can not know the mind of god". For Christians, even questioning the "mind of god" is a sin.

That has nothing to do with whether or not God did it is true, nor whether one should stop researching stuff because God did something, but it is undoubtedly funny from a certain perspective, as is my reply.

For a physicist, the answer "the fundamental laws of nature caused x" brings up the questions of what exactly are these fundamental laws, how do they relate to other fundamental laws, can they be incorporated into other fundamental laws, how did they cause x, how does x relate to other phenomena, etc. etc.

"Goddidit" is a final answer.
"We don't know" inspires investigation. And any new finding that answers the original "we don't know" only brings up more questions so more "we don't knows" to be investigated.

Physicists don't know why, what, when, how, where, who, etc. about the beginning of the universe. No reason to think God creating the universe would stop their inquiries into the nature of the universe. I really don't see how God doing something would limit inquiry into anything.

 

[dystopian]

Physicists don't know why, what, when, how, where, who, etc. about the beginning of the universe. No reason to think God creating the universe would stop their inquiries into the nature of the universe. I really don't see how God doing something would limit inquiry into anything.

What.

Physicists DO know where and when; where is trivial to answer since the answer due to inflation is "everywhere", and we've been able to calculate conditions of the universe to well beyond the first microsecond of existence.

Who is a nonsensical question, since that assumes a who is necessary.

How and Why are essentially the same question if there's no intelligence involved; and we certainly have very good educated guesses that are far more plausible than positing a god.

Saying "god did it" *does not prohibit further inquiries... it DOES discourage them, however. If you believe that god willed the universe in existence, then you have no reason to investigate alternative methods of the universe coming into existence: you already have the answer, after all. You may be interested in exactly how he did it... but your belief in god will prejudice you against the evidence that demonstrates he isn't necessary. We see this over and over with Christians as they first try to deny evidence that conflicts with their cosmology and then try to fit god into the gaps of knowledge left.

 

[Starman]

The Sun burning out is very, very far from the end of the Universe.

Nobody said it was "the end of the universe." Where did you study science?

The total life spans of main sequence stars like our sun are a "blink of an eye" when compared to the assumed life span of the universe.

The AGE of the universe, not its "life span," is a "blink of an eye" compared to "infinity" which is invoked by pretenders of nothing times infinite time equals everything. You confused "life span" with age. Where did you study science?

Does either require a god to explain? Is god just a comforting crutch for those who can’t emotionally accept the simple answer, “we just don’t know…. yet”?

The comforting crutch of not worrying about morality, together with the comforting crutch of condescension and sophistry support those who can't emotionally face an Intelligent Creator, whose handiwork is pervasive and profound.

Humanist ideas of morality are based on fairness and caring - this serves the betterment of humanity.

Where does your "humanist fairness and caring" begin? With the death of scores of millions, under Stalin? Scores more millions under Chairman Mao?
Scores more millions of dead babies, in the name of "choice"?
My children, wife, and I were all born in Catholic hospitals. Where is the "fairness and caring" of atheist hospitals?
Did you acquire your science education at an atheist university? If so, name it. Ivy League schools have Christian charters, expressly stating
their Christian goals. Harvard, for example, was founded by a Christian pastor, not an atheist.

WTF? People are strange. People base decisions on all sorts or irrational ideas, even Christians. And I would question the source of your information about those people's motives for their decisions.

First atheists claim the high ground of rationality. When specific examples of irrationality are provided to you, your answer is "people are strange".
You use wordplay as an art form. The left never concedes a point, ever.

"Evil has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

God is not an explanation.

But "nothing" is?

Where did you study science, that you were taught something specific here on earth, was produced by absolutely nothing? Just give one example.

As to "sillier ideas," you cannot come up with anything remotely as silly as the Multiverse Theory, created out of the desperate desire to explain
the fine-tuning of numerous physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, or the electron/proton mass constant, or......

 

[Starman]

Saying "god did it" *does not prohibit further inquiries... it DOES discourage them, however.

Not remotely true. "further inquiries" have been extant by men of faith for thousands of years. I repeat, most Ivy League colleges were founded
by men of God, not atheists.

If you believe that god willed the universe in existence, then you have no reason to investigate alternative methods of the universe coming into existence: you already have the answer, after all. You may be interested in exactly how he did it... but your belief in god will prejudice you against the evidence that demonstrates he isn't necessary. We see this over and over with Christians as they first try to deny evidence that conflicts with their cosmology and then try to fit god into the gaps of knowledge left.

Over and over again, I see the Science of the Gaps. "Yeah, we'll figure it all out, you betcha." How's that working when we do not know everything about anything? "Except in pure mathematics, nothing is known for certain." - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 28, as I recall

If you disagree, argue with one of Sagan's former students. He died some years ago. His memorial service was held at St. John the Divine church in New York City, not at any Agnostic House.

 

[Brian63]

The comforting crutch of not worrying about morality,

Wow. Starman, our morality is not a hyper-authoritarian system, and we actually have to make moral choices based on the values and feelings of ourselves and others impacted by those choices. So yes we very much do "worry" about morality and try to make moral choices and wise choices. We do not rely on an omni-being to tell us what to do, and then we obey. You actually probably make a lot of your own choices throughout your own life in a similar way, but apparently are just not aware that you do so.

together with the comforting crutch of condescension and sophistry support those who can't emotionally face an Intelligent Creator, whose handiwork is pervasive and profound.

Are hurricanes, earthquakes, cancer, diabetes, etc. also this Creator's handiwork? If so, the mere existence of a creator (lowercase or capital C) does not in itself warrant any kind of worship and eternal obedience to such a being.

Where does your "humanist fairness and caring" begin? With the death of scores of millions, under Stalin? Scores more millions under Chairman Mao?
Scores more millions of dead babies, in the name of "choice"?
My children, wife, and I were all born in Catholic hospitals. Where is the "fairness and caring" of atheist hospitals?

The important difference is that when atheists are doing good and charitable deeds, they are not doing it because they were commanded to or obligated to by atheism. Atheism is a position held on the existence of a god, nothing more and nothing less. An atheist can be very generous or very selfish (or anywhere on that spectrum) and still be an atheist based on their one position on that one issue. Generally speaking, if an atheist is engaging in charity it is because they want to help other people (or animals, or whatever the charity is oriented towards). Whenever some Christians or other theists are engaged in building hospitals with explicitly religious names, it is apparent that one of their motivations was specifically for the publicity it would get. They will do good deeds when the cameras are on and they (or their religion) will get credited for it, but not so much just for the sake of helping itself. That is a shame. People can and often do have secular justifications for engaging in charitable acts, and we do not need motives of religious publicity for them. Do you ever help people just for the sake of helping them and you expect to not get publicity or rewarded for it, or do you also need to make sure that you will get credited for it in some such way?

As the atheist movement has gotten larger and more organized in recent years, atheists are getting more oriented towards publicizing their charity, and that is probably a good idea in the long run to do so, but unfortunate that it needs to be so in the first place.

First atheists claim the high ground of rationality. When specific examples of irrationality are provided to you, your answer is "people are strange".

Do you have a similar response whenever Christians or theists of any stripe "claim the high ground of rationality" also?

You use wordplay as an art form. The left never concedes a point, ever.

When you say an explicit statement like that, do you know you are over-generalizing, or are you unaware that you are?

As to "sillier ideas," you cannot come up with anything remotely as silly as the Multiverse Theory,

How about a "talking snake theory?" That seems a tad sillier.

created out of the desperate desire to explain
the fine-tuning of numerous physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, or the electron/proton mass constant, or......

Well, I guess the physicists around the world need to discard the multiverse theory then, after all their work on it. It did not pass Starman's smell test. The invisible extra-dimensional being that we all have to obey for all eternity (otherwise suffer for all eternity) does seem much more reasonable, however. Good job with that.

Brian

 

[funinspace]

Wow. Starman, our morality is not a hyper-authoritarian system, and we actually have to make moral choices based on the values and feelings of ourselves and others impacted by those choices. So yes we very much do "worry" about morality and try to make moral choices and wise choices. We do not rely on an omni-being to tell us what to do, and then we obey. You actually probably make a lot of your own choices throughout your own life in a similar way, but apparently are just not aware that you do so.

The funny part of haughty mantra of promoters of Christian morality, is that Christians are deeply divided on all sorts of moral topics. It seems that their moral law book isn't that clear, or humans are just too dense to interpret it correctly. Is it Mennonite pacifism or evangelical war mongering? Is it RC and UMC opposition to the death penalty or evangelical hang em high? Is is the Prosperity Gospel or the old oh bother, its a hard life Bible church? Is early term abortion murder, or just a hard and unfortunate choice? Choices choices...just listen to that holy spirit and one shall hear the answer in your head...

As to "sillier ideas," you cannot come up with anything remotely as silly as the Multiverse Theory,

How about a "talking snake theory?" That seems a tad sillier.

Oh, I dunno they might be similarly silly. I find sillier the notion that some omni-everything entity created a universe with roughly 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars within it, and in one speck, around 1 star, in just one galaxy, created humans for them to worship him. Though it waited around 100,000 years before revealing itself to a small band of peoples with more concrete directions for that small band; then it waited roughly another thousand years before providing a major revision to the instruction book and inviting the rest of humanity while hiding the shadows of a backwater area.

 

[dystopian]

Not remotely true. "further inquiries" have been extant by men of faith for thousands of years.

Those men of 'faith' did not, however, employ faith while making those inquiries, and in fact often stood in direct opposition of said faith. These men (and women) are remarkable not because faith drove them to advance science, but because they advanced science in spite of faith.

I repeat, most Ivy League colleges were founded by men of God, not atheists.

Which is no great accomplished for the 'faith camp' when one realizes that all of those colleagues were founded during an era when openly expressing atheism had serious social consequences, up to and including public lynching. If people tell you that they believe the same thing the overwhelming majority does, they're not actually telling you anything trustworthy about their beliefs if said majority regularly nails anyone with a different belief to the cross of public opinion.

If you could claim claim the same thing about the majority of educational/scientific institutions founded during the modern age in societies where atheism is publically acceptable, then you might have a point. But you can't claim that.

Over and over again, I see the Science of the Gaps. "Yeah, we'll figure it all out, you betcha." How's that working when we do not know everything about anything? "Except in pure mathematics, nothing is known for certain." - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 28, as I recall

Who cares? Carl Sagan, amazing as he was, does not dictate reality. However, it is obvious you don't quite understand what he was talking about. In science, we understand and know a great deal; this does not conflict with the idea that we can not have *absolute* certainty outside the realm of mathematics.

Take for instance, nuclear physics. You would have to be a complete idiot to argue that since in science we 'can't know things for certain', our knowledge of nuclear physics is therefore equivalent to not knowing anything. We know enough about nuclear physics to produce vast quantities of power, and to destroy entire cities in a matter of seconds. We wouldn't be able to do these things if our knowledge wasn't accurate. Our bombs wouldn't explode and our subs wouldn't move if we didn't know how nuclear physics works. What Sagan was referring to is an element of uncertainty that prohibits absolute accurate knowledge of a chaotic system. We can not calculate the exact path a single molecule of water will follow through the ocean as it is subject to currents, the formation of waves, and so on. But the molecule itself is just a tiny element, and while we can not calculate *its* path, we *can* calculate the way the system as a whole behaves; what forces it is subject to and how it will respond to them.

This is NOT the same as saying "lol guess we don't really know guys!"

If you disagree, argue with one of Sagan's former students. He died some years ago. His memorial service was held at St. John the Divine church in New York City, not at any Agnostic House.

GASP! People gave him a memorial service in a church as society has done for centuries instead of a non-existant 'agnostic house'!? THAT TOTALLY PROVES HE WAS RELIGIOUS AND FURTHERMORE THAT ATHEISTS EVERYWHERE ARE TOTALLY WRONG!

Seriously, why the fuck did you even bother typing this response up? And why did you completely ignore my other post where I robbed you of your delusions about our solar system/universe? What, too many facts to deal with?

 

[dystopian]

Where does your "humanist fairness and caring" begin? With the death of scores of millions, under Stalin? Scores more millions under Chairman Mao?

Obviously not, as neither of those men were humanists.

Why do Christians always try to blame the worst excesses of communist regimes on atheism, even though since atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in god it doesn't have anything to do with a political system/ideology; but absolutely refuse to take responsibility for the millions of deaths caused by Christians, even though unlike as is the case with communism (or atheism) those actions can be directly justified through the central beliefs and dogma of the christian religion?

Scores more millions of dead babies, in the name of "choice"?

Ah this old chestnut.

A baby and a fetus are two different things. So, no, we don't have millions of dead babies as a result of abortion. Kthnkxbye.

My children, wife, and I were all born in Catholic hospitals. Where is the "fairness and caring" of atheist hospitals?

In the science-based medicine that actually works instead of the prayer and condemnation of birth-control.

Did you acquire your science education at an atheist university? If so, name it. Ivy League schools have Christian charters, expressly stating
their Christian goals. Harvard, for example, was founded by a Christian pastor, not an atheist.

Which again, as I explained in the other post, is meaningless given the era they were founded in. Besides, there's no such thing as an 'atheist' universe. Not because all universities around the world are founded on religious principles... but because any university that is not based on religion is called a *secular* university. And despite many of the oldest universities being founded by christians. *most* universities are, today, secular in nature. It should tell you something that none of your precious Ivy League universities have any religious affiliation today.



.

As to "sillier ideas," you cannot come up with anything remotely as silly as the Multiverse Theory, created out of the desperate desire to explain
the fine-tuning of numerous physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, or the electron/proton mass constant, or......

First of all, there's no such thing as "Multiverse Theory". There IS a Multiverse Hypothesis; but a hypothesis in science is quite distinct from theory. Secondly, it was not created to explain any apparent "fine-tuning"; in fact it does almost the exact opposite. It is a mainstream interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse and reconciles the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random radioactive decay (which is in direct contrast with your claim of fine-tuning), with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics.

It is by no means 'silly'; though it might appear so to someone who obviously doesn't understand its function in scientific discourse.

 

[dystopian]

Well...Starman didn't state that the universe would go poof, he said the earth only has 5 billion years left before Sol burns out.

Well... that's also wrong. First of all, he's way off on when Sol burns out. The Sun will reach the end of its current lifecycle 5,5 billion years from now. Half a billion years is a pretty huge error. That's when it will evolve into a red giant, growing to beyond Earth's current orbit. This stage will end about 7,5 billion years from now when it will experience rapid loss of size; it will still remain 11 times as big as it is today for the next 100 million years, however. At this point it is a horizontal branch star. After a 100 million years, it will once again expand as an asymptotic giant branch star. This stage lasts a mere 30 million years, after which; over a period of around a 100k years, it ejects its outer layers to form a planetary nebula. This however, is still not the end of the sun; as at this point it becomes a white dwarf. It will continue burning for a very long time; only burning out when it becomes a black dwarf. No black dwarfs currently exist because the amount of time a white dwarf will burn is far longer than the universe has existed for.

So he's only wrong on the order of at least 21,4 billion years to possibly several trillion years on when the sun burns out.

Now, as for how much time the Earth has left... well, he's also wrong there.

If he meant the earth as a 'life bearing planet', then the Earth has considerably less than 5 billion years left. A billion years from now the average surface temperature will be 47 degrees celsius as a result of increasing solar luminosity. This will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, resulting in vastly increased levels of water in the stratosphere, which will be broken down through Photodissociation from solar radiation, resulting in the complete loss of Earth's oceans just 1,1 billion years from now. That is the pessimistic model. In the optimistic model we lose the oceans 2 billion years from now.

If he meant Earth as a lifeless piece of rock, well he's still wrong. It will survive in such a form until at least the end of the red giant stage, when it experiences its final and most significant expansion. The sun will extend to a size placing it at around 1,2 AU. So beyond Earth's orbit. However, Earth's orbit at this will also have moved outward, by as much as a 150% from its current orbit. Most likely, its orbit will start to decay in these final stages and it'll be swallowed by the sun around 7-7,5 billion years from now. Though it is possible it avoids this fate. In which case the Earth can look forward to trillions of years of continued existence as a lifeless rock.

This concludes today's classroom.

Edit; of course, there ARE ways for us humans to move the Earth's orbit artificially to extend the period during which it can sustain human life. In fact, we could start this process with today's technology even...

...but isn't that kind of fucking with God's obvious plan to wipe us the fuck out?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where does your "humanist fairness and caring" begin? With the death of scores of millions, under Stalin? Scores more millions under Chairman Mao?
Scores more millions of dead babies, in the name of "choice"?

And how would any of that have turned out differently if there were no gods?

My children, wife, and I were all born in Catholic hospitals. Where is the "fairness and caring" of atheist hospitals?

Would you say that it was possible you could be born in a Catholic hospital even if there were no gods?
My kids were born in a Baptist hospital. I don't think the experience would change one whit if the Baptists turn out to be wrong, say if the Catholics are right. Or the Mormons. Or Shinto. Buddhist.

Did you acquire your science education at an atheist university? If so, name it. Ivy League schools have Christian charters, expressly stating
their Christian goals. Harvard, for example, was founded by a Christian pastor, not an atheist.

Could he still have founded Harvard if he was completely wrong in his theology?

As to "sillier ideas," you cannot come up with anything remotely as silly as the Multiverse Theory, created out of the desperate desire to explain
the fine-tuning of numerous physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, or the electron/proton mass constant, or......

No, you're probably right, there.
There isn't a whole lot that's sillier than an argument from incredulity.

 

[Kharakov]

Physicists don't know why, what, when, how, where, who, etc. about the beginning of the universe. No reason to think God creating the universe would stop their inquiries into the nature of the universe. I really don't see how God doing something would limit inquiry into anything.

What.

Physicists DO know where and when; where is trivial to answer since the answer due to inflation is "everywhere", and we've been able to calculate conditions of the universe to well beyond the first microsecond of existence.

Yeah. Those pre BB conditions are so well known. Ohh, and that time from the BB til the Planck was walked? Yeah, totally understood- even if it took 10^92 subjective years before the Planck length was reached, we don't know. We just know after the Planck, you pirate.

Who is a nonsensical question, since that assumes a who is necessary.

Nice statement. If nobody just turned on the light, because it's on a timer, the answer to "Who just turned on the light?" is nobody- it's on a timer.

How and Why are essentially the same question if there's no intelligence involved; and we certainly have very good educated guesses that are far more plausible than positing a god.

I doubt they include the fact that without consciousness, nothing reacts. In fact, they probably presuppose the opposite of the truth....

Saying "god did it" *does not prohibit further inquiries... it DOES discourage them, however. If you believe that god willed the universe in existence, then you have no reason to investigate alternative methods of the universe coming into existence: you already have the answer, after all.

So, God created a universe that you are within, and you aren't going to investigate methods of creating universes with God. You're with a being that can create whole universes, but you don't explore methods of creating universes with said being. I had to say it twice. I still am not getting why you wouldn't explore ideas about creating universes with God.

Explain it to me in a way that I'll understand. I'm not getting the whole "not exploring the creation of universes with a being that can create universes thing."

To tell you the truth, your posited idea that people who know God don't want to explore creating universes seems a bit silly, but hey, if you like the idea of not thinking about the creation of universes, or coming up with alternate frameworks of existence, maybe you should just focus on the universe you exist within.

We see this over and over with Christians as they first try to deny evidence that conflicts with their cosmology and then try to fit god into the gaps of knowledge left.

Ehh, really? I generally try to fit knowledge, or lots of squished together hot orgasmic sliding female bodies full of love and joy into gaps. That's just me though. Maybe I'm weird?

 

[Brian63]

So, God created a universe that you are within,...

Instead of just asserting that to be true, or saying that it might be true, can you justify that the statement actually is true?

...and you aren't going to investigate methods of creating universes with God.

Until there is good reason to think a God was involved in it, why bother? Simply not knowing for sure either way if a God was involved or not, is not in itself a good reason to think one was involved. We can invent gods and stories about those gods pretty easily, but it is a bit harder to find out facts about ones that supposedly are real.

You're with a being that can create whole universes, but you don't explore methods of creating universes with said being. I had to say it twice. I still am not getting why you wouldn't explore ideas about creating universes with God.

You again state that such a being exists (or that we are "with a being" as such), but it is important to do more than just state it is true. Is there any reason to think it is true, beyond just say-so?

Explain it to me in a way that I'll understand. I'm not getting the whole "not exploring the creation of universes with a being that can create universes thing."

I think it would be an amazingly interesting discovery if we discovered there was a god that created the universe in some way. Same as if we humans discovered aliens on another planet, but to a much greater extent even.

Merely discovering the existence of a god, or of aliens, would not in itself obligate us to swear obedience to such a being of course, but that major jump seems to be often overlooked among religions. It tends to discredit much of the rest that they say too.

Brian

 

[Kharakov]

Instead of just asserting that to be true, or saying that it might be true, can you justify that the statement actually is true?

You're reading it out of context. The statements are in response to the idea that someone who believes they are in a universe that God created would not be interested in the creation of universes.

 

[angelo]

May I recommend a book titled "A universe from nothing" . The title is self explanatory.

 

[Brian63]

Instead of just asserting that to be true, or saying that it might be true, can you justify that the statement actually is true?

You're reading it out of context. The statements are in response to the idea that someone who believes they are in a universe that God created would not be interested in the creation of universes.

Good to know. Thanks for the correction, and sorry about the mixup there.

Brian

 

[bleubird]

As EO Wilson said :god is an unnecessary complication.
Faithful people don't like science because it negates some of their holy books.As if genesis was wrong than everything helpful in their holy book is at risk.

 

[Kharakov]

May I recommend a book titled "A universe from nothing" . The title is self explanatory.

If it's Kraus, he mangles the term nothing way too much. If he named it "A universe from an existing framework that can create asymmetric distributions of positive and negative energy from 0 total energy" I wouldn't think he was being an annoying troll.