Origins, Part Deux.

After my previous post about the origin of the Universe, my friend posited:
"I'm not sure that the "beginning" of our universe is necessarily the beginning of "creation" as many cosmologists believe that there may be many equivalents to our "universe" (despite its "uni-" name) and that some of these exist concurrent to our own and some predated it.
This, then, does not necessarily mandate a creator for this particular time-space existence."
 
I have heard similar lines of argumentation before--supposing that there are many universes and so even if there was a divine creator of this universe, that it doesn't explain the origin of other universes.  While this sounds sophisticated, it merely kicks the philosophical question down the road.  Namely:  even if we were to agree that this universe is one of may that exists in a Uber-verse (if I may coin or borrow a term), then it still begs the question, 'where did the uber-verse come from?'  This is not unlike Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA) speculating on the alien origins of DNA on earth.  The obvious question is "where did the aliens come from?"
 
I grow weary of the intellectual position that dismissis a supernatural (i.e. divine) origin of the universe a priori, and then pretend that we're having an honest conversation.  The intellectual tosses down the gauntlet:  "I challenge you to describe the origin of the universe, but you can't attribute it to a diety."  This is the intellectual equivalent of challening a man to a race, but demanding that he must remain seated during the entire race--it is simply not fair, nor is the 'victory' at the end honest.

Origins

My thought-provoking friend sent me this recent seed for thought:

"My latest tweet is a little "highbrow" but deserves a spot in the consciousness of people who wish to think of themselves as intellectuals:

'Universe from Nothing': Big Bang was a bargain

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-02-04/lawrence-krauss-universe/52951768/1"

Here is my response:

Let's be really honest: Which is a more plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (points for concept, not eloquence of words):

Option A: ""Given a big enough emptiness, enough virtual particles can pop into existence, for free, to trigger a Big Bang and start a universe. "Nothing is doing something, and not only that. It has to do something," Krauss says. " Gordon's version: if you put enough 'nothing' in one place, suddenly, it becomes 'everything'.

Option B: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gordon's version: some being beyond the laws of physics caused somethign out of nothing.

Can't we at least be honest enough to admit that Krauss's explanation really is no more 'rational' that Option B? On the one hand, you must pre-suppose a omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature---on the other hand you pre-suppose an omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature.

It's interesting that not that long ago, some philosophers liked to start with the supposition that the universe had always existed.  If there wasn't a beginning, then they didn't need to explain a beginning.  Now, virtually everyone acknowledges that the universe had a beginning, which put us back in the same intellectual boat we were in before, namely, 'if there is a beginning, how did the beginning happen?'

Interestingly, the best they can come up with is this idea that enough of 'nothing' is eventually 'everything.'  And these same people are the ones who would accuse people believing in an omnipotent Diety to be credulous.  Seriously?  It's as if the intellectual elite are sitting high in their ivory tower sneering at the unwashed masses as they declare, "Those silly prebians, still believing that the moon is made of green cheese.  Every intelligent person knows that the moon is clearly made of marshmallow fluff."  They sneer at people who believe in a diety, yet the best counter argument they can offer is some theoretical mumbo-jumbo about nothing becomming something.  (I still do not know how if all this nothingness suddenly produced everything, it doesn't just as quickly jump back to nothingness.......)

"But what about socialization?" or Reason 1,792

My Wife had to give my daughter an alternative activity (quite brilliantly conceived) to help her deal with peer pressure from the neighbor girl to put on makeup.

Did I mention the girls are eight years of age?

As I usually reply when people ask this empty question, "If that's socialization, then I am actually quite thrilled that they are NOT being socialized". 

By the way, when was the last time that "socialists" were considered the good guys?

Eyjafjallajokull

Most of us can't even prounounce it, but thousands, perhaps millions have been affected by it.  Eyjafjallajokull is the name of the volacano on Iceland that has created havoc with air travel in Europe since Thusday.
While others are making the traditional observations, I felt the need to offer my less-obvious observations.
1) What a great reminder that no matter how much we try to predict (or want to predict) life--we can't.  How many travellers on either side of the Atlantic thought they had everything covered in their plans (and even bought travel insurance) and now are stuck?  (note, most travel insurance considers this--rightly--to be an Act of God and therefore do not cover this).
2) In light of facing the unexpected and unplanned, how would you respond?  Would you be able to keep your calm or would you panic?  Would you enjoy a few extra days in your destination, or would you waste them by worrying about something you can't change?
3) Even power has its limits.  US President Barak Obama was scheduled (along with many other world leaders) to fly to Poland to attend the funeral for the President of Poland this past weekend.  Even the proverbial Most Powerful Man in the World was grounded--the volcanic dust would clog or destroy Air Force One's engines as easily as it would an Air Malta Airbus.  There was no way to fly over, under, around or through this cloud without risking the safety of all aboard.
4) Have you heard that the dust and ash from Eyjafjallajokull may have a cooling effect on global climate?  Just in time to solve that "global warming" problem they have been panicked about.  Of course, I am just waiting for the first scientist (or should I say "scientist") who blames the eruption on man-made causes.

Who's afraid of Christmas? (Part 1)

Like many thinking Christians, I have decried the systematic banishment of the word "Christmas" from public parlance. I have seen stores selling "Holiday trees" as if there was any other holiday in any religion that involved a evergreen tree adorned with lights. By now we are all being wished "happy holidays" by merchants, co-workers, and anyone else whith whom we come in contact. I used to think that "happy holidays" was just a shorthand way of including Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's day into one compact phrase, and maybe it used to be--before the first ad for a "holiday tree".

While I'm on "Holiday Trees" let me ask this: if the goal of using this generic term is an Oh-so-American attempt to neuter the term so as not to offend anyone, who are the people who are buying these trees in the first place? The only people buying them are people who are at least nominal enough Christians to have a gree in the first place! I'm not for a second implying that anyone with a Christmas tree is automatically a Christian, but I do feel that if you are going to celebrate the Holiday of Christmas, with all the warm emotionals and joy that go with it (more on this later) that at a bare minimum, you should be willing to pronounce the word out loud and--gasp--even be willing to write it!

I cannot for the life of me understand the cognitive dissonance of celebrating Christmas, but refusing to say the word. I can understand and respect those who--for any reason--chose not to celebrate Christmas, whether they are an honest atheist or whether they adhere to another religion. The interesting thing is that in my small, unscientific personal survey, these people are actually more likely to wish me a "Merry Christmas" than the christian (use of lower case deliverate to reflect the nominal nature of that label) who go home to a Holiday Tree.

Remberber folks, in this country the only group that is allowed to be offended is Christians, even though a large majority of Americans are at least Christian enough to have a Christmas tree in thier home and gladly take the day off from work.

What will it do to me?

My office is in the suburbs. Our company headquarters is downtown in the Loop. I've always liked big cities and have enjoyed being in the hustle and bustle of New York, London, Chicago, Washington (ok, maybe a different kind of hustle in DC), and San Francisco. Every couple of weeks or so I have a meeting downtown and I've rather enjoyed that trip as well. We bought our house partially because it was close to the train station so we could either visit downtown or, if my job chainged, I could easily commute downtown.
There are now rumors swirling that my office may move downtown, and as I walked from the train station to the office, I started to wonder how I would be affected by having an office downtown. Would I become a 'regular' in 'my' seat on 'my' train inbound and outbound? Will I become a commuting zombie with earphones in and the world tuned out? Will I become city-weary after the thrill wears off? Will I get pulled into the after-work cocktail hour that stretches until after the kids go to bed? Will I get pulled into the "just one more e-mail" mentality that will keep me at the office that long? Will I always be the suburbanite at heart who is always like a fish out of water? Will I change and become an urbanite who is out of place back at home in the 'burbs?