Houses

I never thought it would be this way
walking towards the sunset

visiting old houses
along the way.

Houses built
from yesterdays’ sunshine.

Rusting but still standing
defying the tempest

that is wrecking havoc
in your mind.

Let it stop.

Don’t bring down
what years took to build.

GTG

Advertisements

A Heart for Skateboarding

Skateboarding means different things to many different people. For a skateboarder, it simply means freedom, total and complete freedom. It is hard to explain. You need a poet to do it justice. Words can hardly describe that sense of absolute creative freedom that skateboarding engenders nor its ability to fill the heart of the youth with the passion and determination to conquer the world around them.

The way skateboarders see the world is very different. A handrail or concrete drainage ditch are not just a handrail or a drainage ditch, but a canvas upon which you can draw lines with your skateboards, a canvas that screams at you and demands the best that your creativity can offer. The only limitation is your imagination and that’s what makes skateboarders so different. They can see beauty in the ordinary and approach with the heart of a poet.

Skateboarding ability to ignite the imagination and instigate the endurance and determination required to meet her demands is uniquely powerful. It is a simple and unadulterated love that challenges you to push your limits and forces to keep trying even after exhaustion has set in but that also rewards with the ultimate rush of accomplishment when you land it.

It is this love and shared passion for skateboarding that begets such strong fellowship amongst skateboarders. It is a common language that transcends cultures and social differences. It does not care who you are or where are you from. It does not even care what is it that you are trying only that, shared love and passion, the blood and sweat that put into it that unites you with those around you in the pursue of the ultimate freedom.

Thank you skateboarding!

Note: I wrote this in honor of Go Skateboarding Day, June 21. If you want to explore a bit more about the transforming power of skateboarding I invited you to watch the above documentary about skateboarding and to visit these websites:

Johnny Romano Story and Johnny Kicks Cancer Foundation.

Skateistan a website about girls skateboarding in Afghanistan.

The Beautiful: The Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar

I really didn’t know much about who Hans Urs von Balthasar was until I came across this video from Fr. Barron. I can’t help it but to learn more about this great 20th theologian of the Catholic Church in the near future.

Apart from the power of beauty in evangelization (which is a theme that I love) what I found most interesting about this video is Fr. Barron observation about Fr. Balthasar’s Christology and anthropology, which is centered on the very biblical idea that we don’t know our identity unless we know our mission.

What is our vocation? What is it that we are called to be? I think that our vocation is simply a tool that God uses to allow us to pour back the love that he has filled our hearts with, for the benefit and the building up of His Body. That is why it is so important to really listen to the movement in our hearts and follow that passion because we can truly change the world.

As St. Catherine of Sienna said:

Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.

Moreover, just as we can find our identity in our mission (as Abraham, Israel, Peter and Paul did), it also shows us the road towards sainthood. After all, as Leon Bloy once said:

The only real sadness, the only real failure, the only great tragedy in life, is not to become a saint.”

I still have such a long way to go. Keep me in your prayers.

Be a Saint!

A fine-tuned Universe: The extreme improbability of an anthropic universe.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands”.

Psalm 19:1

The discovery of the Big Bang to be the beginning of our universe not only provides evidence to a point of creation, but also to the extreme improbability of an anthropic universe. That is a universe capable of sustaining life arising out of mere chance. The argument is based on at least two empirical findings: the probability of having a low entropy universe and the values of universal constants. Fairly recently physicists have empirically determined the value of a set of universal constants which govern all interactions in our universe. The range of the value of these universal constants that disallow for an anthropic universe is basically infinite, whereas the values that allow for an anthropic universe is very limited. This points to a fine-tuned universe that emerged out of the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. These findings lead to the question how our universe was fine-tuned?

Low Entropy Universe

penrose

Entropy is the measurement of disorder of a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system increases or remains constant. It is highly improbable for a system to spontaneously organize itself, just like a teenagers room it naturally tends towards disorganization. Our universe is fairly ordered with low entropy. Sir Roger Penrose, English physicist, estimated that the probability of a low entropy universe arising out of the Big Bang by chance is:

 1 in 10^10123

 That is 10 billion to the power of 123! This is an incredibly infinitesimally small probability that our universe emerged by chance with low entropy. Many apologists make the famous junkyard analogy that it is more reasonable to believe that a tornado assembled a 757 from a plane junkyard than to believe that a low entropy universe emerged out of chance.

Universal constants

Universal constants are fixed values that govern the law of physics in our universe. They are empirically determined. If any of their value were slightly different our universe would be a very different universe. The following are just three examples of universal constants that illustrate this point: 

1. The gravitational force constant (G= 6.67 x 10^-11)

If G the gravitational constant would differ from its actual value, (by even one part in 1050), the precise balance against A bare would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered.

Davies 1982, as quoted from New Proof for the existence of God.

That is

1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

If G were greater than just 1/1050 of its value, then the universe would collapse into a single black hole.

If G were less than just 1/1050 of its value, then the universe would have expanded without the possibility of forming galaxies, solar systems or planets.

2. Strong Force Constant   gs = 15 (SI units)

The strong force is one of the four fundamental forces, it basically holds an atom together.

A 2% reduction from its current value will make the formation of elements heavier than Hydrogen impossible, i.e. no carbon.

That is if gs < 14.7 there would be no element heavier than hydrogen.

A 2% increase from its current value Hydrogen will be never be able to exist, making it impossible for water to exist and stars will have no long term fuel.

That is if the gs > 15.3 only elements heavier than Hydrogen could form.

Both of these deviations would have precluded life in our universe. Moreover, it’s far more likely to have values outside the range between 14.7 and 15.3 than fall between these values.

3. Weak Force Coupling Constant gw = 1.43 x 10-62 (SI units)

The weak force is responsible for both the radioactive decay and nuclear fusion of subatomic particle. If it deviates from its current value Carbon would not have been able to form bonds with each other making it impossible for the basic building block for life to occur.

Alternative explanations

The range of values that disallow an anthropic universe is far greater than the very narrow range of values that allows it. This strongly argues for a creator that fine-tuned our universe in order to allow life to develop. In order to avoid such conclusion, it is necessary to present alternative explanations/theories that invoke a practically infinite number of universes popping into existence. If the number of trials has now been infinite, then it is just a matter of time before one universe emerges with the right set of conditions that allows for life, independently how infinitesimally small those chances are.

As Fr. Spitzer points in his book “New Proof for the Existence of God”, the problem with these theories is threefold. First, they remain in the theoretical sphere of physics. At best they do not have any empirical data to support them or the ability to obtain empirical data in the near future is highly unlikely and at worst some are incongruent with the observable cosmology of our universe (Linde Chaotic Inflationary multiverse and the string theory landscape). Second, they violate the principle of parsimony that is they invoke borderline ridiculous number of universes in order to explain ours. Third, they failed to avoid the issue of fine-tuning (multiverse resembling those proposed by Linde and Susskind).

hoyle

Fred Hoyle, which moved out of atheism observed:

“… A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Hoyle 1981, as quoted from New Proof for the existence of God.

Concluding thoughts

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Remains an inescapable question that any serious thinker should not avoid. For Christian and Jews the answer resides in the great I AM from the Exodus 3:14…however, it is understandable for many other people to inquire and explore such an exhilarating mystery that is to be alive. The point of these series of posts was to provide evidence that it is more reasonable to believe that there is a Creator rather than to think that the universe and life are the result of a great cosmic dance of chance. That reason can point towards a creator and thereby that Christian faith is reasonable. I hope that my amateurish efforts sparked your curiosity to explore this subject in far greater depth that my poor abilities allowed me to do on this page.

I cannot help but to quote St. Augustine, the great Catholic theologian of the fourth century and father of the Church, when looking at creation asked the question: who made you?

“And what is this? I asked the earth, and it answered me, “I am not He;” and whatsoever are in it confessed the same. I asked the sea and the deeps, and the living creeping things, and they answered, “We are not Thy God, seek above us.” I asked the moving air; and the whole air with his inhabitants answered, “Anaximenes was deceived, I am not God.” I asked the heavens, sun, moon, stars, “Nor (say they) are we the God whom thou seek.” And I replied unto all the things, which encompass the door of my flesh: “Ye have told me of my God, that ye are not He; tell me something of Him.” And they cried out with a loud voice, “He made us.”

St. Augustine of Hippo
Confessions Book X

He made us.

God Bless!

 Note: I owed the inspiration for this post to Fr. Benedict Groechel talk, God the Father, which until recently could be found at EWTN for free download. The scientific and philosophical arguments were mostly taken from Fr. Robert Spitzer book: New Proof for the Existence of God.

And there was light: evidence for the origin of our Universe

“Then God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light”.

Genesis 1:3

The concept of creation out of nothing was a completely radical idea in antiquity. It was the Jewish religion that first introduced such a radical concept. Most, if not all, creation myths in antiquity parted from the premise that there was something before the formation of the universe. It is very tempting to point that such radical idea most closely resembles what today’s scientist call the Big Bang.

WMAP_skymap

The Big Bang theory states that the observable universe is the result of a massive explosion that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. It was as if the universe obeyed God’s command “Let there be light,” and there was the Big Bang. Although the Big Bang theory is agnostic whether or not anything existed before the Big Bang, it clearly argues that our observable universe had a beginning.

Unknown

The idea of the Big Bang was not immediately accepted. The Aristotelian view of an eternal and static universe was accepted scientific theory up to the 1930’s. It was a Jesuit priest named Fr. George Lemaitre that first proposed the idea of a “primeval atom”, which today we called the Big Bang theory. Fr. Lemaitre based his theory on Einstein’s theory of relativity that, states the expansion of space and the discovery that galaxies are accelerating away from each other by astronomers Hubble and Humason in 1929. He argued that if galaxies are moving away from each other, then it follows that the further you go back in time the closer those galaxies are going to be and if you go far enough there is going to be a point where the size of the universe is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a sub-atomic particle: a “primeval atom”. Fr. Lemaitre succinctly explains his theory in the abstract for his 1931 publication in the science journal, Nature:

“SIR ARTHUR EDDINGTON states that, philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to him. I would rather be inclined to think that the present state of quantum theory suggests a beginning of the world very different from the present order of Nature. Thermodynamical principles from the point of view of quantum theory may be stated as follows : (1) Energy of constant total amount is distributed in discrete quanta. (2) The number of distinct quanta is ever increasing. If we go back in the course of time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum”.

Nature 127, 706 (9 May 1931)

penzias_wilson-2

Ironically, his theory was considered to be too religious by some since it pointed towards a beginning and in doing so it pointed to a creation. The Big Bang was confirmed by the finding of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation by Nobel laureate recipients Penzias and Wilson in 1964 (Picture). Cosmologists Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted this radiation in 1948 to be the remnant radiation of the Big Bang. Its temperature is exactly the temperature that physicists estimated it should be if it was from the Big Bang. Moreover the total amount of helium estimated to be present in the universe could only be accounted by the Big Bang because not enough time has passed for it to be produced by nuclear reactions inside of stars.

There is much speculation as to what happen before the Big Bang. At least two theories propose possible scenarios in which the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe: eternal inflation and ekpyrotic models. It is not the scope of this post to explain in detail these purely mathematical theories other than to make readers aware that they are current working hypothesis. However, independently whether or not these theories are accurate an elegant mathematical theorem, developed by Borde, Vilenkin and Guth (BVG Theorem), demonstrates that any universe that has a Hubble expansion constant greater than zero has to have a beginning:

“We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe…The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible”.

Vilenki 2006, p 175 (Taken from “New Proof for the Existence of God”)

In other words, any universe or multi-verse has to have a beginning and since according to the principle of sufficient reason any beginning must have a cause, the question remains what caused the universe to begin?

In my next post, I will discuss, how science demonstrates the infinitesimally small probability that the observable universe was caused by random chance. Taken together the evidence from modern physics and philosophical/metaphysical arguments, it is reasonable to believe that God created the universe, out of nothing.

God Bless!

Please note:

I owed the inspiration of this post to Fr. Benedict Groechel talk, God the Father, which until recently could be found at EWTN for free download. The scientific and philosophical arguments were mostly taken from Fr. Robert Spitzer book: New Proof for the Existence of God.

I hope that I did not do any disservice to their work by my poor abilities to articulate it.

Also note, that there is a third hypothesis that states that the Big Bang is the result of an ongoing cycle of expansion and contractions, each one producing a new big bang and thereby a new universe. I did not include this hypothesis for the sake of brevity and the fact that it has been discredited by the observation that galaxy are moving irreversibly away from each other at an increasingly faster pace. Making it impossible for the predicted Big Crunch to happen. Moreover, evidence from the law of thermodynamics clearly indicates that even in this bouncing universe scenario, it must also have to have a beginning.

First principles: The Principle of Sufficient Reason

I opened in my previous post with a question: why is there something rather than nothing? It is a fair question that emerges from the commonsensical notion that everything has a cause: nothing can come out of nothing. Philosophers refer to this as the principle of sufficient reason. We understand this intuitively because everything around us has a cause. Rain does not magically fall from the sky, but is the result of an atmospheric process that is dependent on many different factors from atmospheric pressure to temperature. These factors, in turn, depend upon other factors for their causation. However, we cannot follow the chain of causation ad infinitum. Something has to be the first cause; otherwise nothing would have come into existence because nothing can come from nothing.

Three of the great religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, identified this first cause as God. As I discussed in my previous post, St. Thomas Aquinas, defines this first cause, as an uncaused cause. A cause that is completely independent of anything for his existence, an unconditioned reality. Any alternate explanation cannot violate the principle of sufficient reason.

In the upcoming post, I will discuss scientific evidence that indicates that our observable universe or any universe had a beginning; a point in time where everything began to exist. Some people may disagree about its cause or may hold judgment until new evidence arises, but the fact that our universe had a beginning begs the question what cause it into existence, one worth pondering about.

God Bless!

If you are interested in reading a far better explanation for first cause arguments, please read the following essay by Prof. Peter Kreeft: The First Cause Argument. 

Why is there something rather than nothing?

hs-2005-12-b-1024_wallpaper

I remember, when I was a kid, I used to lie on my back and look at the night sky full of stars in awe and wonder. The vastness of it all has always captivated my imagination. Just thinking about it for a second. There are between 200 to 400 billion stars just in our galaxy and there are up to 200 billion galaxies in our universe. Some of these distant galaxies are so far away that it can take billions of years for their light to reach our eyes. And it the midst of it all there is our little blue planet dancing its way through space.

The vastness of the Universe begs the questions: why is there something rather than nothing? What caused the universe into existence? Why light instead of darkness? Why life instead of non-existence? I think these are profound questions that everyone should ask, especially those, who in all honesty, question the existence of God. These are important questions because their answers reveal much about who we are. Are we just a random cosmic accident manipulated by chemical reactions in our brains and doomed to non-existence when all is over? Or are we something more?

I believe that it is far more reasonable to believe that there is a Creator rather than to think that the Universe and life are the results of a “cosmic dance” of chance; that we were made for something more. We know from Aristotelian logic to Newtonian mechanics that for every effect there is a cause. Thus we also know that nothing cannot come out of nothing. It follows that every physical reality, most have a cause. The Universe could not have created itself out of nothing. So what caused the universe into existence? St. Thomas Aquinas, the great theologian of the Catholic Church, argued that it must be:

  1. Something that exists independent of space and time.
  2. Something that was not created, but is existence itself.

An uncaused cause, meaning something that is completely independent from any cause for its existence. Unlike our atoms that depend on the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons or space and time, which depends on the existence of matter and the rate upon which it changes, the uncaused cause simply exists. Alternative explanations must account for the creation of something out of nothing without invoking the principle of infinitive regression or violating the principle of parsimony.

hs-2003-28-a-1024_wallpaper

Fr. Robert Spitzer makes precisely this point in his book: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contribution of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. I highly recommend this well research and articulated book. He argues that evidence from contemporary physics points toward a universe that had a beginning and that was designed by a supreme being and discusses philosophical proofs for the existence of God. I hope to unpack some of those arguments that appear in his book in future posts.

New_Proof_For_The_Existence_Of_God_001

As Christians, we need to engage the culture through the vocation that God has given us. With the rise of new atheist and the aggressiveness that they pursue to change the culture, in their own image, we must be ready to do the best we can stand our ground. As St. Peter encourages in 1 Peter 3:15: “always be ready to give an answer to every man who ask you a reason for the hope that is in you”. This can seem daunting but it does not need to be. We really do not need a Ph.D. in physics or philosophy to make a defense of our belief, using science or philosophy against the arguments set forth by modern atheists but we cannot stand idle either and not do much to enrich our intellects. After all, the more we learn about the universe the more we learn about God.

God Bless!