disarray

Good pdf resources are great, but a couple of links (see above) did not work.

As a one time retort: I agree with Tampitump that you are unnecessarily aggressive, not to mention insulting. Rather than dropping out also, I am choosing not to respond to any remarks other than those with content relevant to the thread. However, please refrain from your continued insults, both here and in other threads. Thank you.

So now you are into cyberbullying? Again, please refrain from the personal attacks on my writing and reading habits, as well as other personal attacks both here and elsewhere. Thank you.

Point taken. However, I wouldn't make such assumptions about my friend or child in such a manner, even though I am not paid to be civil. But yes we are all ordinary. I tend to assume people are here to learn...but it seems that there are indeed bloggers who go out of their way to irritate and badger others.....I am not one of those people.

No, I was on my article by mistake. Then I went to your article which seems to center on the non-expanding and hence infinitely old universe, so I don't know why you are explaining expansion to me (which I understand) , as an expanding universe does imply one with a definite age as I understand it. So yes, there may be some rationale for believing in a static universe....but again, I think that the phrase "infinite" is being used to suggest that in such a theory we would have no way of determining the age of the universe. However, even in a static universe, I see no reason to assume that it is infinitely old just because we can't determine its age. I follow a bit about your reference to infinities, but I think that manipulating numbers does not necessarily reflect what might be happening in the universe; that is, I don't see that one is actually manipulating any empirical data. Not at all. I understand he may have been tired or stressed or whatever. But no, I can't imagine an instructor audibly sighing with impatience when a student is genuinely trying to understand something....that is insulting. It's nice to defend people, but you were making assumptions that weren't true.

Hmmm. Since when do you read minds. Your trying to blame me as having an attitude or not listening is rather insulting. I am not pleading curiosity...what do think I am doing?. So what if I disagree with his answers. I know that I am trying hard to understand things. As far as I am concerned you are slandering me and my motives. Please refrain.

By infinite in extent, it was my understanding that the universe curves back on itself, and therefore has no finite edges or boundaries, not that it is is literally infinite in size. According to current thinking it is about 93 billion light years in diameter, but again, where are you getting evidence that the unknown is infinite, or that it is the current or standard model that it is? I think we are getting hungup on the scientific use of the term infinite: "The Vardanyan model says that the curvature of the Universe is tightly constrained around 0. In other words, the most likely model is that the Universe is flat. A flat Universe would also be infinite and their calculations are consistent with this too. These show that the Universe is at least 250 times bigger than the Hubble volume." So here we have a team coming up with the latest model...on the one hand they use the word infinite, yet, when it comes down to it, they give a finite estimate, e.g., circa 250+ http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-real-universe-is-250-times-bigger-than-the-visible-hubble-volume-todays-most-popular-1.html Also, it seems rather logically absurd to speak of an universe that is infinite in size expanding even more. If you are espousing the Big Bang model, how is it that one goes from a very small point in size to an infinite size in, say 13.9 billion years, while expanding at the speed of light?

Ummm.. How is one defining fairness? Can one say that an ape's sense of fairness is in the same ball park as that of humans? In any case, what does an apes sense of fairness have to do with the OP or with sub-issues within this thread. In short, what is your point other than to say that apes can be described as having a rudimentary sense of fairness? So yes, as far as I am concerned, you do need to give some explanation, particularly as I don't recall myself claiming that apes had no sense of fairness, or no intelligence, or no means of restraining aggression, etc. Most commonly, the ape most frequently used in this discussion (almost exclusively) has been the chimp. Now if you look at chimps and their behavior, they are among the most unrulish, unrepressed, uncivilized, unpeaceful animals on the face of the earth when it comes to aggression and sex (pretty much 24/7) in the wild. So again, what is your point?

Dont see anything about an infinitely old universe. I do see that there is a theory that it might be possible that "the universe starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself and becomes an infinitely dense point again," and perhaps, one might assume, the cycle continues. However, there is no particular evidence to show that this might be the case. Indeed, the consensus seems to be that the universe is continuing to expand and will continue to do so (perhaps at increasing rates), and, given entropy, everything will disintegrate in due time, i.e., trillions of years. Of course, if the universe is expanding, one can surmise that it can reverse itself. Hawkings entertained this notion for a while before abandoning it, and even thought time might run backwards, with people, for example, unlighting their cigarettes. So, again, as far as I am concerned, there is no real evidence that it cycles, and such speculation is no less metaphysical than Nietzsche's concept of the Eternal Recurrence.

But don't follow. You are just agreeing that GR says nothing in support of an infinitely old universe...so the notion is, again, just metaphysical speculation.

Yes, I recall that there was a lot of media scrambling to clarify that the Higgs Boson field was not a discovery that somehow proved that the universe originated on its own without the help of an anthropomorphic God. But just between you and me, I think that science is trying to do just that.

The OP seems to be little more than a list of the horrors and superstitions that accompanied, or rather, was an integral part of a certain religion in the not too distant past. More recently, the thread veered off into a discussion as to whether the world would or would not be much more peaceful if religion vanished. Then the claim was made that it would not because religion is not a cause or a significant cause of aggression (particularly with reference to between-group aggression, since people have quite similar aggressive instincts as other apes, and perhaps similar means to repress and control said instincts, so that the disappearance of religion would not reduce world conflict significantly. Somehow the discussion further veered off into a discussion as to how much smarter humans were than apes. I have argued that there is a great difference between humans and apes in this regard, and that religion has played both a significant role as a catalyst to acts of control and/or violence as well as a significant role in repressing/modifying/controlling human aggression (though I would clarify that its main focus is on controlling and repression sexual expression...which it hasn't been very successful at in the long run anyway). While agreeing that religion is a main problem in that it tends to give a great deal of validation to acts of between-group violence, I have, on the other hand, agreed that human instincts (jealousy and greed in particular) are so strong that aggression and conflict would diminish somewhat, but not greatly. Nevertheless, i disagree with those trying to suggest that the ability of others apes to understand the issue of aggression and repression is anything near the level found in humans, and I think that continuing to contest this point is rather irrelevant. I've already responded to your post #231, and I fail to see how it relates your remarks to the OP or any sub issue, so don't see the point in mentioning it again. I am not in the habit of responding to bare links, that is, ones not accompanied by at least some explanation from the poster. In this case you have given me a link that takes me to 13,700 links, so I have no idea what your point is, nor how it relates to the OP or recent discussion, and have no intention of reading all these links and taking a guess at what your point is.

Spinoza, whom Einstein references and largely agrees with, lived in a time where it was virtually unthinkable to entertain notions about the ultimate nature of the universe without mentioning religion, even if it was to dismiss it, or perhaps, more to the point, redefine its terms. Similarly, Einstein was speaking metaphorpically, perhaps to try to relate his ideas to the public, as he was wont to do (e.g., his disagreements with Bohr about causality). However, he was quite aware that his use of the term sparked a lot of controversy, and indeed may assumed that he was affirming the existence of a personal or Christian or Jewish God. Therefore, he had to do a lot of backtracking and bravely stated that he believed no such thing, but was merely expressing his awe about the universe. Similarly, Jefferson used religious terminology in the Dec of Ind., and again, there are those who use words that were meant in a deistic/metaphorical sense to claim that Jefferson believed to the usual Christian deity, which he did not. Again, Jefferson learned that he needed to be careful as to how he used the term "God." Similar remarks apply to George Washington. Bottom line is that scientists have made the mistake of tossing the word "God" around lightly when discussing various issues, but I think that it is gradually dawning on people that it is not the best term to use, given its wide range of connotations.