"Peter, there is an obvious directness in my response to your genuine but tragic examination of this playpen fairy-tale. There is no radical cynicism, nor nobility nor some self created individualism nor an ignorance of previous generations of experience"

how can you say that Christian ideas are 'playpen fairy tales' and then follow this statement with 'there is no radical cynicism' etc.

I note that there is a similar sense of beuty in the study of nature, could I ask your view on why humans are drawn to complexity as beauty?

Why do you see the big bang as erroneous? why is everything moving away from a centre?

What scientific evidence do you have for the infinite universe, as opposed to the continually expanding universe that we could never reach the end of (it is expanding faster than light)?

And why would these points make it unlikely for there to be a God?

And why is it that so many physisits are turning to religion after seeing the nothingness of the secular/atheist position?

Doesn't the secular position lead logically to total selfishness and nihilism? If not then why are such large numbers of western secularists ENJOYING the sex industry (workers and clients), and why so many divorcees leaving there kids with one parent (realistically), why do people kill their own children? Why do secularists associate being australian with not caring about anything at all (dave hughes, glass house)? what is reletivism, a secular concept, but nihilism?

fide mae, for myself, spirit is inseparable from the body, therefore the expression "radical cynicism" is for the virtuous which I am not. I am just a bluddy nobody. If nobody is perfect ...... then I am perfect .... but certainly not virtuous.

Your questions are well received. Nothing more beautiful than a question and that is my answer for beauty. (My attempts to answer your many questions may run over a few posts.... please bare with me.)

My thoughts on an infinite universe go back fifty years to when one day I picked up a rock from one of the gullies in my bush playground. Dad collected interesting rocks and this one had what appeared to be a fossil of a plant. He said I was holding a rock that was probably 400 million years old and that I was but ten years old. He said "Think about it." Well this seemed to have registered and as I grew up I asked many questions about time, beginnings and endings, and infinity. Don't believe that this is meant to be anything extraordinary because for a curious kid it is quite the norm.

Some years later in a library I read some things that Aristotle said which has stuck in my mind since. e.g. He said words to the effect that empty space is an impossibility, time is motion, if motion in the universe didn't exist then there would be no time and he argued that space and time are potentially divisible ad infinitum.

The point of this being is that if empty space is an impossibility then the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. When scientists try to create an absolute vacuum for some inexplicable reason particles appear from nowhere and it proves impossible. Likewise to produce an absolute solid is impossible because it could always be more solid. Just seems that an absolute solid and an absolute vacuum are human idealisations with reality existing somewhere between. This then draws attention to anthropocentric issues...... i.e. our human built in bias and mode of conceptualisation.

fide mae, TBC

Fide mae, the "big bang" origin, an expanding universe, multiple and parallel universes, black holes and "the nothingness of the secular/atheist position" are all strange fruit indeed. There is no evidence but also are illogical.

The "big bang" origin can have no scientific basis because there is no way everything can be created from nothing .... and as if "nothing" could exist too.

An expanding universe is illogical ......... is it expanding into itself? What a nonsense.

Multiple and parallel universes are illogical by definition ... you can only have the one or these ........ sorry about that.

Black holes cannot exist unless the universe is symmetrical which is impossible. i.e. a giant collapsing body under pressure will spin and can only redistribute matter elsewhere...... sorry about that one too.

Your "the nothingness of the secular/atheist position" has no merit. Whilst it must be terrifying for some to leave the cosy artifical confines of a religious playpen, the secular world is NOT based on an ignorance of the natural world, superstition, myths, folklore, fables, and any number of confused historical and geological events. Most secular people support democracy, intellectual freedoms, take responsibility for personal development, free speech, and promote science and art as a means of human development towards an altruistic society. If people need something more in their lives than just the material world then just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing.

Fide mae, an infinite universe makes far more sense than an imaginary created one with a beginning and an end. e.g. Till kingdom come just consider that there are maniacal Christians even in our Australian Parliament, who are praying for the end of time and want for the end of the world.

Kierin - "The point of this being is that if empty space is an impossibility then the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. When scientists try to create an absolute vacuum for some inexplicable reason particles appear from nowhere and it proves impossible. "

I am quite disapointed with this answer, it is clear you have no scientific training in this area, empty space is not nothingness. Space and time are things in themselves (an absolute vacuum is not analagous to non-existence or nothingness). space and time were both created (or both evolved) AFTER the bib bang.

"Nothing more beautiful than a question and that is my answer for beauty." - obviously thought out over a long period of time. doesn't really answer the question - "why humans are drawn to complexity as beauty?" maybe my question was too complex for you, thus you found it beautiful?

"is it expanding into itself?" you really are ignorant of this topic. space and time are expanding into nothingness (or are just expanding - creating more space and time) matter is expanding into space and time.

"giant collapsing body under pressure will spin and can only redistribute matter elsewhere" - not so. If it is giant enough then its gravity (you do agree there is such a thing as gravity?) will pull everything spun off back into itself, including light (thus a black hole - no light escapes)

"Your "the nothingness of the secular/atheist position" has no merit. Whilst it must be terrifying for some to leave the cosy artifical confines of a religious playpen, the secular world is NOT based on an ignorance of the natural world, superstition, myths, folklore, fables, and any number of confused historical and geological events."

strange, I found it preposterous, just a few years ago studying philosophy, to continue a secular life, it simply does not make sense. I chose Christianity, precisely because it (the form I have found in Academia) is totally averse to (this is from your statement above) ignorance of the natural world (ecological theology), superstition (pagans are superstitious, Christianity is based on reason, Christ is the Logos (reason)), myths (scientific theories can be classed as myths, the myth of ether etc, progress is through changing myths, see philosophy of science), folklore (this is the beginning of all law including secular, surely you are not suggesting throwing out all laws because they are based on folk-lore), fables (by fables I assume you mean no analogical truth can be gained from fairytales, but this is strange, because people started writing fairy tales as moral lessons), and any number of confused historical (I think you would be surprised at how history is taught in theology, distinctions are clearly made between the theological, resurection, and the historical, crucifiction etc) and geological (the flood is a moral fairy tale) events.

I notice you do not address the perverse nature of secular society, preferring to say "Most secular people support democracy, intellectual freedoms, take responsibility for personal development, free speech, and promote science and art as a means of human development towards an altruistic society" - which I completely disagree with. Most secular people are too ignorant and uncaring to support any of the above. Take a look at the numbers of volunteers broken down by demographics, predominantly christians are doing this work. Science and art have historically been the interests of Christianity, not filthy secularists, just look at the crap buildings the money hungry secularist puts up compared to the times when christianity was honoured by whole societies. Secularists take responsibility for absolutely nothing, particularly personal development. democracy, intellectual freedoms and freespeech are all traditions developed in the reformation by CHRISTIANS, not secularists.

I had wondered over your statements, now I can see why they are baseless

Fide mae, are you saying that you discontinued a secular life for a form of Christianity you found in academia precisely because it is totally averse to ignorance of the natural world? Well in this case I have no doubt that my thoughts may have offended but one minute you are a "filthy secularist" and the next a radical cynic. Seems like academia has separated your spirit from your physical body and you have caught a potent teddy (god) mind virus. Gosh, I'm still trying to isolate Peter's strain of the virus.

One of my responsibilities as a secularist is to spray liberal doses of disinfectant over your "natural world" understandings by starting with your belief in these nasty black holes. (..... although we could start anywhere with the beautiful questions you have raised)

In the physical material world these awful black holes cannot exist as some supposed scientists, like for example Hawking, have claimed, because the universe is not entirely and absolutely symmetrical. If that were the case then such a universe would be completely empty. Think about that one. But collapsing bodies under intense pressure will spin or explode. There is no sucking in because gravity is a push although few supposed scientists can think this way. The universe is just full of material constituents pushing each other. Unless the intense pressure pushing in on the collapsing body is applied evenly in all directions it will spin only to spiral or jet out its contents redistributing matter elsewhere. Even now NASA is coming round to the fact that these so called "black holes" are neither holes nor black. Hawking now says much the same although he hasn't grasped the full picture because he still mentions a radiating redistribution. He'll get there in the end I suppose although there will always be people dramatising what they imagine is the universe.