Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Sorry I Took So Long...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on January 17, 2002 19:55:27 UTC

I haven't been around for a few days, I wasn't ignoring you. Really. Honest. :)

........What do undefined terms of the axioms refer to?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, I really should take Mathematical Theory eventually.

I don't think I'm off base by saying that the margin for error is quite small to have a universe with large structures ...... Obviously you can't have life if there aren't large scale structures in the universe.

Yes, this is true. However I don't see the need to apply any purpose to any of this. For example, the margin of error is quite small for an oyster to produce a good pearl. But does that mean that main reason for the oyster's existence is to produce pearls? "Reason" and "purpose" are both entirely human things.

And assuming the divine order is intelligent, and assuming our universe has a purpose, why would it be us? You still haven't totally answered that question. Does God just want company, or what? Someone to pass the time with?

If there is no reason for an ensemble universe, then why advocate an ensemble universe. Just say that there is no reason for the fine-tuned qualities of our universe and leave it at that.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't believe one way or the other on this one (universe/multiverse) I'm just offering up alternatives.

If we take the approach that biologically unsupportable universes exist due to variances in the physical constants among universes, then we are still have the 'just so-ness' problem (just on a larger scale with the initial complexity of the basic set of laws that allow universes to evolve in the first place). Hence, the better solution is to give stronger philosophical weight to a solution that explains the 'just so-ness' seen in our observable universe. That's why I say that a divine order is the best solution available.

As I said, I agree with you up until this point. It is the conclusions you reach describing this order that I disagree with.

If a final state is the reason for the universe (i.e., an Omega point), then evolution of intelligence appears to give the best prospect for further growth.

Why? It would seem to me that God could program the final result (which is what, by the way?) to any specification he wanted, independent of life. You give us too much credit.

My opinion is that when humans exercise a 'lower good' at the sake of a 'higher good', then we would be in direct conflict with God's overall will (which is driven by the higher good).

This is pretty questionable. If God had the whole thing planned out from square one (anthropomorphically speaking, of course) then any action is within his will (which you seemed to admit) but also will have immediate and unchangeable effects on the universe. If something happens that has an effect on the Universe contrary to God's will, it can never be fixed. If the WTC towers were never meant to fall over, if that is in direct conflict with the will of God, doesn't that screw up a lot of plans? A million years from now, a lot of evolution/world changes probably would have been wrought by the offspring of the deceased. A small change compounds itself all the time. If this divine order exists, I would say that NOTHING can happen outside of the plan, nothing can defy the will of the universe, because we're a part of it ourselves, governed by the same natural laws that govern everything else.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins