To: one_less who wrote (14109 ) 6/5/2007 10:47:45 PM From: J_F_Shepard Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14758 Yes, that's exactly what I think......I think you really don't know what you're saying. If you do, you can boil it down into a language even a religious person can understand...do your religious brethren understand you? Those are the folks you're trying to reach, not true? BTW, I sent your description to a couple of scientists interested in the topic and they think you're trying to pull a snow job.... But let's see if we can take your story one statement at a time... re:"To some extent it is reasonable to conclude that moral goodness is self evident enough to say it is simply good in and of itself to be kind, charitable, compassionate, benevolent etc. It feels right and good to behave this way so you can figure out for yourself that it is morally good, as all people can. However, many things seem good in and of themselves that eventually turn out to be seductive traps that are harmful over the long term or when done in excess." The last statement seems gratuitous but I have no problem with your first statement....as I say, simply common sense."We really know nothing about evolution until we can explain how something comes from nothing. Nothing is highly underrated, since it is upon the canvas of nothingness that every thing may be depicted. So for a big bang you have to think of what nothing would be like even before you can imagine the something we call a universe to explode from it." Nothing comes from nothing......evolution describes the process of the development of a species by the action of the survival of the fittest. Evolution doesn't start with the presumption of nothingness......that's religion. Science can easily prove you get nothing from nothing....try your scenario in the stock market. re:"The universe of space and matter is observable to us because the distinct parts are noticeable from sun to particle by their positions in space." What is this gobbledegook saying except that we see in space is what we see.....nothing more and nothing less....? re:"As they collapse into something more uniform and therefore less distinct, we are less able to notice them as relative parts of the universe separated by space...driven apart by differences." The universe is collapsing???? I thought it was expanding.... re:"Their movements away from uniformity or collapses into uniformity are noticeable as space/time events. " For example????? We're moving toward creation somewhere along here, are we??? re:"Through entropy diversity is diminished and distinct parts disappear, as does their distinct position in space. In other words they become so much a part of the whole that they have no identity of their own... a sound blending in becomes no sound, a ripple in the lake eventually disappears, and becomes 'nothing', it no longer exists as a distinct piece of the universe." Diversity is diminished??? Entropy implies disorder and the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. Is your version consistent with science?? re:"Absolute uniformity of the universe becomes a oneness that defies description." With the universe constantly expanding at ever increasing speed, how can it become a oneness???? In about 200 billion years, it is posited in today's NYTimes Science section, the universe will have expanded so much that if that were the situation today, we would seed no universe, only a few stars and galaxies. You better prepare your offspring's offspring that they not be able to see the Big Dipper anymore....LOL!! re:"So a gumball state of the Universe preparing to bang represents a small very uniform view of existence bound in a tiny space. If the gumball achieves perfect uniformity 'singularity' it needs no space at all and its material parts are indistinguishable. Science has not way to describe this state of existence except to refer to it as nothing." Science cannot describe nothingness..... Science says there was a "Big Bang" but cannot say what was "banged". This model is virtually undisputed in the scientific world. How does religion explain it? Your way?? re:"We can also speculate that time must have a similar course that leads to an end. In order for this to occur material in space must become so uniform that it is no longer distinguishable. At such a time we can no longer notice it, or an occupying space. This is the premise behind black holes btw." Black holes are noticed and have been detected at the center of every galaxy..... re:"For time to end material and space must return to this singular uniformity allowing for zero occupation in space. " There is no reason to conclude this....... re:"That would support a banging and collapsing claim. However it does not eliminate the possibility of repeated inflations toward the omega of existence and collapses to the alpha of existence. Neither possibility necessarily, obliterating the other, nor does it obliterate claims of an extra-temporal force." WOW.....!!! I assume you have mathematical models that support this or at least have the Christian Fundamentist's accepting your theory..... So you support the formation of the universe with a big bang but predict it will collapse again, and this is the explanation of creation???? Sorry I didn't include the alpha's and the omega's.... And since your theory doesn't preclude a god, you conclude a god is reasonable?? re:"Physics is a set of laws created by us to help understand certain phenomenon that we are concerned about, no one but a lab cloak cleric would claim physics is the answer to all inquiry." A set of laws created by us????? Are you nuts? Scientific laws are not created.....theories may eventually become laws after constant observation and experimentation that can find no flaw in the theory.... "Created to help understand".....that's laughable!!! If anything has been created to help understand, it is the concept of a god, especially a human god. Wasn't it Voltaire who said that "if God did not exist, he would have to be invented"?? A lab cloak cleric would not claim physics (science)is the answer to all inquiry. Such a person would not be so arrogant. However, a religious cleric does invoke an unprovable god to answer anything that extends beyond the most simplistic questions.