?PURGATORY~g(CAT!FISH)d~DIALOGUE?

Friday, August 22, 2014

Map: Where Is ‘Open Carry’ Legal? - The Numbers - WSJ

Map: Where Is ‘Open Carry’ Legal? - The Numbers - WSJ: Carrying a firearm in a concealed manner is legal in all states, but open carry has more restrictions, especially for handguns. Though federal law doesn’t restrict the open carrying of handguns in public, several states—including California, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and Texas—ban the practice, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Thirteen states require a special permit or license to open carry. The remaining 31 states don’t require one. The laws are different for long guns, which are commonly associated with hunting.

Negative Theology (What God Is Not) - Definition

Negative Theology (What God Is Not) - Definition: Also known as Via Negativa (Negative Way) and Apophatic theology, negative theology is a Christian theological system that attempts to describe the nature of God by focusing on what God is not rather than on what God is. The basic premise of negative theology is that God is so far beyond human understanding and experience that the only hope we have of getting close to the nature of God is to list what God definitely is not.

The basic methodology of negative theology is to replace traditional positive statements about what God is with negative statements about what God is not. Instead of saying that God is One, God should be described as not existing as multiple entities. Instead of saying that God is good, one should say that God commits or allows no evil. More common aspects of negative theology that appear in more traditional theological formulations include saying that God is uncreated, infinite, indivisible, invisible, and ineffable.

Although it originated in a Christian context, it can also be found in other religious systems. Muslims, for example, may make a point of saying that God is unbegotten, a specific refutation of the Christian belief that God became incarnate in the person of Jesus. Negative theology also played a crucial role in the writings of many Jewish philosophers, including for example Maimonedes. Perhaps Eastern religions have taken the Via Negativa to its farthest extent, basing entire systems on the premise that nothing positive and definite can be said about the nature of reality.

One of the tensions that exists in negative theology is that a total reliance on negative statements can become sterile and uninteresting.

Negative theology today plays a far greater role in Eastern than in Western Christianity.

In the West, cataphatic theology (positive statement about God) and analogia entis (analogy of being) play a much greater role in religious writings. Cataphatic theology, of course, is all about saying what God is: God is good, perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. Analogical theology attempts to describe what God is by reference to things we are better able to comprehend.

***

Question:
Does atheism have any moral or intellectual significance for society today, or is it simply irrelevant?

Response:
The mere fact that a person doesn’t happen to believe in any gods isn’t very meaningful. Thus, if atheism is going to have intellectual or moral significance, it must be for other reasons. Those reasons can’t be found simply in critiques of religion or arguments against theism; instead they must be found in a general program of reason, skepticism, and critical inquiry. George Smith has labeled such a program a “habit of reasonableness.” Unreflective and unthinking atheism is no more rational than unthinking theism — and it is without question that atheists are capable of being as unreasonable and irrational as the most bizarre theist. Because of this, being a skeptical atheist requires more work and effort than simply being an atheist — it requires consciously and consistently striving to reject intellectual laziness and exercising our reasoning abilities.

***

Cataphatic (sometimes spelled kataphatic) theology is the expressing of God or the divine through positive terminology. This is in contrast to defining God or the divine in what God is not, which is referred to as negative or apophatic theology. The word cataphatic itself is formed from two Greek words, "cata" meaning to descend and "femi" meaning to speak. Thus, to combine them translates the word roughly as "to bring God down in such a way so as to speak of him."

To speak of God or the divine kataphatically is thought by some to be by its nature a form of limiting to God or divine. This was one of the core tenets of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. By defining what God or the divine is we limit the unlimited. A kataphatic way to express God would be that God is love. The apophatic way would be to state that God is not hate (although such description can be accused of the same dualism). Or to say that God is not love, as he transcends even our notion of love. Ultimately, one would come to remove even the notion of the Trinity, or of saying that God is one, because The Divine is above numberhood. That God is beyond all duality because God contains within Godself all things and that God is beyond all things. The apophatic way as taught by Saint Dionysus was to remove any conceptual understanding of God that could become all-encompassing, since in its limitedness that concept would begin to force the fallen understanding of mankind onto the absolute and divine.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church kataphatic theology is critical in the developmental stages of contemplation (see theoria). Once a firm grasp of the positive attributes of God or the divine has been achieved one moves onto the transcendent qualities of the superior apophatic theology.

***

***

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Distant Cousin Jim Ed and Mike Avery Ross

From: James Avery (jeaverydvm87@att.net)
To: mike@mikeross.com;
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:03 PM

Hey Mike,

This is Jim Ed. Charles and Betty Avery's youngest son.

Was hoping you could identify most of these people in the attached photo. The bored kid on the porch is my dad. I recognize Momma Vanna, Papa Drury, Aunt Ruth, Uncle Andrew. I'm assuming your grandparents are in this group picture as well.

Also, you claim to be fifth generation Arkansan. I'm assuming you are referring to Alexander William Avery. Is this correct.

Sincerely,

James E. Avery, DVM

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Passion City Church: Louie Giglio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Louie Giglio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Dr. Louie Giglio (born June 30, 1958) is the pastor of Passion City Church, Atlanta, a speaker, and the founder of the Passion Movement.

Giglio was born on June 30, 1958.^[1] He graduated from Georgia State University and earned a Master of Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.^[2] Later he went to Grace Theological Seminary to pursue a Doctor of Ministry degree.^[3] After finishing seminary, Giglio and his wife Shelley began a weekly Bible study called Choice at Baylor University where he was doing graduate studies. After several years, over 10% of the Baylor student body was attending the weekly gathering and Giglio's heart for the significance of the "university moment" was set.

In 1995, the Giglios moved from their home in Waco, Texas, to Atlanta, Georgia, because of his father's failing health.

On January 8, 2013, the organizers of President Barack Obama's second inauguration announced the selection of Giglio to deliver the benediction at the ceremony, largely in recognition for his work against human trafficking.^[6]^[7] The announcement was met with opposition when a sermon Giglio delivered in the mid-1990s was publicized by ThinkProgress.^[8] In the sermon, Giglio called homosexuality a sin, declared that legalizing gay marriage would risk "absolutely undermining the whole order of our society", and asked his listeners to "lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda" of gay activists.^[8]^[9] On January 10, Giglio withdrew from participation in the inaugural, stating, "it is likely that my participation and the prayer I would offer will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration."^[7]^[10]

***

Never heard of passion city, until I happened to notice their sign in front of a deep red billboard.

It was the logo catching my attention the most. Looked a lot like the R/W painting on sidewalk corner of Clairmont Road and North Druid Hill Road intersection.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Chaplain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care and Counseling Center of Georgia

a nonprofit, ecumenical organization.

"We meet you where you are on life's journey, supporting and challenging you with compassion and gentleness."

Ecumenism is an interdenominational initiative aimed at greater Christian unity or cooperation. The term is used predominantly by and with reference to Christian denominations and Christian Churches separated by doctrine, history, and practice. Within this particular context, ecumenism is the idea of a Christian unity in the literal meaning: that there should be a single Church. Ecumenism is separate and distinct from Nondenominational Christianity.

The word contrasts with interfaith dialogue or interfaith pluralism aimed at unity or cooperation among diverse religions and referring to a worldwide "religious unity" by the advocacy of a greater sense of shared spirituality.

The word is derived from Greek οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to the Roman Empire. The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24:14) as the concern of all Christians.

In Christianity the qualification ecumenical is originally (and still) used in terms such as "Ecumenical council" and "Ecumenical patriarch" in the meaning of pertaining to the totality of the larger Church (such as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) rather than being restricted to one of its constituent churches or dioceses. Used in this original sense, the term carries no connotation of re-uniting the historically separated Christian denominations.

Chaplain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Traditionally, a chaplain is a minister, such as a priest, pastor,
rabbi, imam or lay representative of a religious tradition, attached to a secular institution such as a hospital, prison, military unit, school, police department, university, or private chapel. Though originally the word "chaplain" referred to representatives of the Christian faith,[1] it is now also applied to people of other religions or philosophical traditions–such as in the case of the humanist chaplains serving with military forces and an increasing number of chaplaincies at American universities.[2] In recent times, many lay people have received professional training in chaplaincy and are now appointed as chaplains in schools, hospitals, universities, prisons and elsewhere to work alongside, or instead of, official members of the clergy.[3] The concept of "generic" and/or "multifaith" chaplaincy is also gaining increasing support, particularly within healthcare and educational settings.[4]

In the United States, health care chaplains who are board certified have completed a minimum of four units of Clinical Pastoral Education training through The American Association of Pastoral Counselors,^[31] Association for Clinical Pastoral Education,^[32] Healthcare Chaplains Ministry Association,^[33] or The College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy^[34] and may be certified by one of the following organizations: The American Association of Pastoral Counselors,^[31] The Association of Professional Chaplains,^[35] The National Association of Catholic Chaplains,^[36] Neshama: Association of Jewish Chaplains (formerly The National Association of Jewish Chaplains),^[37] or The College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy.^[38] Certification typically requires a Masters of Divinity degree (or its equivalent), faith group ordination or commissioning, faith group endorsement, and four units (1600 hours) of Clinical Pastoral Education.

ST. MARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: Genesis 45:1-15 - Joseph Makes Himself Known - Then - Bible Gateway

Genesis 45:1-15 - Joseph Makes Himself Known - Then - Bible Gateway:

Genesis 45

New International Version (NIV)

Joseph Makes Himself Known

45 Then Joseph could no longer control himself before all his attendants, and he cried out, “Have everyone leave my presence!” So there was no one with Joseph when he made himself known to his brothers. 2 And he wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard him, and Pharaoh’s household heard about it.

³Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph! Is my father still living?” But his brothers were not able to answer him, because they were terrified at his presence.

⁴Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! ⁵And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. ⁶For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. ⁷But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.^[a]

⁸“So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt. ⁹Now hurry back to my father and say to him, ‘This is what your son Joseph says: God has made me lord of all Egypt. Come down to me; don’t delay. ¹⁰You shall live in the region of Goshen and be near me—you, your children and grandchildren, your flocks and herds, and all you have. ¹¹I will provide for you there, because five years of famine are still to come. Otherwise you and your household and all who belong to you will become destitute.’

¹²“You can see for yourselves, and so can my brother Benjamin, that it is really I who am speaking to you. ¹³Tell my father about all the honor accorded me in Egypt and about everything you have seen. And bring my father down here quickly.”

¹⁴Then he threw his arms around his brother Benjamin and wept, and Benjamin embraced him, weeping. ¹⁵And he kissed all his brothers and wept over them. Afterward his brothers talked with him.

Footnotes:

Genesis 45:7 Or save you as a great band of survivors

¹⁶When the news reached Pharaoh’s palace that Joseph’s brothers had come, Pharaoh and all his officials were pleased. ¹⁷Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Tell your brothers, ‘Do this: Load your animals and return to the land of Canaan, ¹⁸and bring your father and your families back to me. I will give you the best of the land of Egypt and you can enjoy the fat of the land.’

¹⁹“You are also directed to tell them, ‘Do this: Take some carts from Egypt for your children and your wives, and get your father and come. ²⁰Never mind about your belongings, because the best of all Egypt will be yours.’”

²¹So the sons of Israel did this. Joseph gave them carts, as Pharaoh had commanded, and he also gave them provisions for their journey. ²²To each of them he gave new clothing, but to Benjamin he gave three hundred shekels^[b] of silver and five sets of clothes. ²³And this is what he sent to his father: ten donkeys loaded with the best things of Egypt, and ten female donkeys loaded with grain and bread and other provisions for his journey. ²⁴Then he sent his brothers away, and as they were leaving he said to them, “Don’t quarrel on the way!”

²⁵So they went up out of Egypt and came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan. ²⁶They told him, “Joseph is still alive! In fact, he is ruler of all Egypt.” Jacob was stunned; he did not believe them. ²⁷But when they told him everything Joseph had said to them, and when he saw the carts Joseph had sent to carry him back, the spirit of their father Jacob revived. ²⁸And Israel said, “I’m convinced! My son Joseph is still alive. I will go and see him before I die.”

Matthew 15:10-28

New International Version (NIV)

¹⁰Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. ¹¹What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

¹²Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

¹³He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. ¹⁴Leave them; they are blind guides.^[a] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

¹⁵Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

¹⁶“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. ¹⁷“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? ¹⁸But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. ¹⁹For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. ²⁰These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

²¹Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²²A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

²³Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

²⁴He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

²⁵The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

²⁶He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

²⁷“Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

²⁸Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Footnotes:

Matthew 15:14 Some manuscripts blind guides of the blind

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1] The proposition is discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism.

Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning[edit] Physicist Victor Stenger objects to the fine-tuning, and especially to theist use of fine-tuning arguments. His numerous criticisms include what he calls "the wholly unwarranted assumption that only carbon-based life is possible."[13]

In turn, the astrophysicist Luke Barnes has criticised much of Stenger's work.[14]

Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.[15]

The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned Universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[16]

The fine-tuned Universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.[17] Regarding this, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."[18]

In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the Universe through the process of evolution, rather than the Universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking, below). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the Universe.[19]

As with theistic evolution, some individual scientists, theologians, and philosophers as well as certain religious groups argue that providence or creation are responsible for fine-tuning.

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that random chance, applied to a single and sole universe, only raises the question as to why this universe could be so "lucky" as to have precise conditions that support life at least at some place (the Earth) and time (within millions of years of the present).

One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the Universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument. It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our Universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen, if there is such a person as God.

—Alvin Plantinga, The Dawkins Confusion; Naturalism ad absurdum^[36]

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".^[13] Stenger argues that science may provide an explanation if a Theory of Everything is formulated, which he says may reveal connections between the physical constants. A change in one physical constant may be compensated by a change in another, suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a fallacy because, in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.^[38]

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.^[39] In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.

Puddle thinking is a satirical illustration of the "life is fine-tuned to the Universe" argument above coined by Douglas Adams to satirize the Fine-tuned Universe argument for supernatural creationism.^[41]^[42] As quoted in Richard Dawkins' eulogy for Douglas Adams:^[43]

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: The ultimate fate of the universe is a topic in physical cosmology. Many possible fates are predicted by rival scientific theories, including futures of both finite and infinite duration.

Once the notion that the universe started with a rapid inflation nicknamed the Big Bang became accepted by the majority of scientists,[1] the ultimate fate of the universe became a valid cosmological question, one depending upon the physical properties of the mass/energy in the universe, its average density, and the rate of expansion.

There is a growing consensus among cosmologists that the universe is flat and will continue to expand forever.[2][3] The ultimate fate of the universe is dependent on the shape of the universe and what role dark energy will play as the universe ages.

The theoretical scientific exploration of the ultimate fate of the universe became possible with Albert Einstein's 1916 theory of general relativity. General relativity can be employed to describe the universe on the largest possible scale. There are many possible solutions to the equations of general relativity, and each solution implies a possible ultimate fate of the universe. Alexander Friedmann proposed a number of such solutions in 1922 as did Georges Lemaître in 1927.^[4] In some of these, the universe has been expanding from an initial singularity; this is, essentially, the Big Bang.

In 1931, Edwin Hubble published his conclusion, based on his observations of Cepheid variable stars in distant galaxies, that the universe was expanding. From then on, the beginning of the universe and its possible end have been the subjects of serious scientific investigation.

An important parameter in fate of the universe theory is the Density parameter, Omega (Ω), defined as the average matter density of the universe divided by a critical value of that density. This selects one of three possible geometries depending on whether Ω is equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called, respectively, the flat, open and closed universes. These three adjectives refer to the overall geometry of the universe, and not to the local curving of spacetime caused by smaller clumps of mass (for example, galaxies and stars). If the primary content of the universe is inert matter, as in the dust models popular for much of the 20th century, there is a particular fate corresponding to each geometry. Hence cosmologists aimed to determine the fate of the universe by measuring Ω, or equivalently the rate at which the expansion was decelerating.

The current scientific consensus of most cosmologists is that the ultimate fate of the universe depends on its overall shape, how much dark energy it contains, and on the equation of state which determines how the dark energy density responds to the expansion of the universe.^[6] Recent observations have shown that, from 7.5 billion years after the Big Bang onwards, the expansion rate of the universe has actually been increasing, commensurate with the Open Universe theory.^[7] Recent measurements by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have confirmed that the universe is flat.^[8]

Closed universe

If Ω > 1, then the geometry of space is closed like the surface of a sphere. The sum of the angles of a triangle exceeds 180 degrees and there are no parallel lines; all lines eventually meet. The geometry of the universe is, at least on a very large scale, elliptic.

In a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the "Big Crunch", the opposite of the Big Bang. However, if the universe has a significant amount of dark energy then the expansion of the universe can continue forever—even if Ω > 1.^[9]

Open universe

If Ω < 1, the geometry of space is open, i.e., negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. The angles of a triangle sum to less than 180 degrees, and lines that do not meet are never equidistant; they have a point of least distance and otherwise grow apart. The geometry of such a universe is hyperbolic.

Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe expands forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates. The ultimate fate of an open universe is either universal heat death, the "Big Freeze", or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

Conversely, a negative cosmological constant, which would correspond to a negative energy density and positive pressure, would cause even an open universe to re-collapse to a big crunch. This option has been ruled out by observations.

Flat universe

If the average density of the universe exactly equals the critical density so that Ω = 1, then the geometry of the universe is flat: as in Euclidean geometry, the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees and parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance. Measurements from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have confirmed the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.^[10]

Absent of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as an open universe.

Theories about the end of the universe

The fate of the universe is determined by the density of the universe. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "big freeze" scenario below.^[11]

Big Freeze or heat death

The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature.^[13] It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for 10¹² to 10¹⁴ (1-100 trillion) years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. As existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker. Eventually black holes will dominate the universe, which themselves will disappear over time as they emit Hawking radiation.^[14] A related scenario is heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed, and there are no gradients — which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The heat death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.^[15] Random quantum fluctuations or quantum tunneling can produce another Big Bang in

10^{10^{56}}

years.^[16] Over an infinite time there would be a spontaneous entropy decrease by Poincaré recurrence theorem, thermal fluctuations^[17]^[18] and Fluctuation theorem.^[19]^[20]

Big Crunch

The Big Crunch hypothesis is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered (see Quantum gravity).

This scenario allows the Big Bang to be immediately after the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have a cyclic model which is also known as an oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe.

Big Bounce

The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the beginning of the known universe. It derives from the oscillatory universe or cyclic repetition interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Theophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Theophysics is a term used occasionally in philosophy for an approach to cosmology that attempts to reconcile physical cosmology and religious cosmology. It is related to the term physicotheology, the difference between them being that the aim of physicotheology is to derive theology from physics, whereas that of theophysics is to unify physics and theology.

Paul Richard Blum (2002) uses the term in a critique of physicotheology, i.e. the view that arguments for the existence of God can be derived from the existence of the physical world (e.g. the "argument from design"). Theophysics would be the opposite approach, i.e. an approach to the material world informed by the knowledge that it is created by God.^[1]