From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
Date: Thursday, 11 March 1999 11:17
Subject: Re: Some hard questions for Able


In aus.religion.christian Able <> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 1999 23:15:02 GMT, Chris Ho-Stuart <>
> wrote:
>
> >In aus.religion.christian Able <> wrote:
> >> >Where did your god get the energy required to create the universe?
> >>
> >> Please realise Julian that we do not know much about anything here on
> >> Earth. Can you confess that?  Our knowledge is infinitessimally small.
> >> Take the reference point as our planet earth.
> >> Now I want you to take your hand out of your pocket, yes I know it
> >> feels good, now point to the sky.
> >> Done that?
> >> OK that line that you draw goes on to infinity...yes infinity.
> >> What does that mean? infinity...100 billion stars..no, there are an
> >> infinite number of stars. We are one planet going around one star.
> >> Infinity does not end anywhere. You can also draw an infinite number
> >> of lines in any direction. These lines do not end.
> >>   Can you explain that to me..it would be a starting point.
> >> Able
> >
> >Hi Able,
>  Hi Chris,
> >The statement "these lines do not end" is based on a presumption
> >of cartesian space, which we know is inaccurate on large scales.
> >The overall "shape" of space in the universe is not known,
>
> Define the universe as you are using the term please.
> I have assumed you mean all existing things.

That is so.

> The extent of the universe as I use the term is of course known , it
> is infinite.

That is not so. This is based on a presumption of cartesian
space, known to be false. It is a genuine and serious question
whether or not the universe is infinite. I think the smart money
is on the universe being finite. By that I mean that there is
a strictly finite number of distinct particles in the universe,
or which have ever existed in the universe, and that the spatial
and temporal extent of the universe are strictly bounded.

The bounds are most likely way beyond the 25 billion light years
which represent the limits of the so-called "observable universe".
That too, however, is an open question which is under investigation.
It would be resolved in the negative if it could be established
that we can look in totally different directions and observe the
same region of distant spacetime. This is something which is
being genuinely considered and investigated.

> I have drawn an illustration for Julian, it is an attempt to shake
> atheists out of the complacency they have , and the confidence that
> they have in their "knowledge".

I approve of this attempt, but I do not think the problem
you allude to is specific to atheists.

Anyone can be wrong about the very difficult subjects of
space and time and the universe. What really stands out,
however, are the folks who seem incable of recognizing that.

When it comes specifically to cosmology, I will say that one
of the most notable examples of this in my experience was an
atheist in alt.atheism.

> The concept of the universe is a relatively easy one to grasp..it
> encompasses all existing things.It is something to hang your hat on.
> In infinity, it is not possible to define existing things.
>
> For instance as a mathematician you would know that if we divide the
> number one by zero, we have an infinite number of divisions. This
> number can not be physically counted.Such is infinity itself.

As a mathematician, I know that division can be approached in
various ways. I am primarily algebraic in my approach, so I
tend not to think of division as described above.

There are some difficulties with thinking of "the number of times
you divide one by zero", and any attempt to make that precise will
probably end up with a more useful notion of infinite -- the number
of distinct integers.

This also is an abstraction.

> > but
> >it is distinctly likely that lines in "any direction" cannot
> >actually go an arbitrary distance "away" from a starting point,
> >because space itself is bounded. Not with any edge, but by its
> >own intrinsic "shape" (for want of a better word).
>
> I think my concept is more easily understood by Julian than yours.
> Please describe the shape of infinity.

Infinity is ill-defined in the above. You earlier referred to
infinity as 1 divided by 0: I would prefer a more set theoretic
approach. In either case, infinity no more has shape than it has
colour.

I was speaking of the shape of space -- of the universe, or of
the extent of the universe. Perhaps you are using "infinity" to
mean "the universe", which assumes your conclusion that the
universe is infinite. Most likely it is not infinite.

The shape of spacetime, or of the universe, is not known, nor
can it be easily described; since it does not have cartesian geometry.

We can draw analogies -- the universe is shaped a bit like a balloon;
except that the skin of the balloon has three dimensions rather than
two, and there is no inside to the balloon; just the curved shape. In
this case the universe would be finite.  Or maybe it is shaped
more like a saddle point in the mountains; but unbounded, but
in three dimensions rather than two and don't think of the curves as
enclosing anything.

This is hard to understand, granted.

To get really precise, we'd need tensors and Rienmannian geometry. I
find these hard enough to handle myself and any explanation I
offered would certainly be misleading.

> >All of this, of course, only underlines your original point that
> >we are in no position to address with confidence the kinds of
> >questions Julian is asking. You can leave "God" out of it, and
> >get the question "Where did the energy come from to make the
> >universe." It is a good question, and we don't know the answer,
> >except we are pretty damn sure that "the universe was always
> >there" is factually incorrect.
>
>  Why are you only addressing  "the universe",
> I am addressing infinity. Your mind frame must expand.

Because I presumed your question was grounded in reality.
You speak of "eternity past". There is no such thing in
reality: time is apparently bounded. That is the answer.

If you are speaking only of abstractions in your mind, why
would we be interested, or why would it be relevant?

Cheers -- Chris