Before The Big Bang!

[Cantousent]

... "why do we ponder these things in the first place?"

 

You speak forcefully and well, meta.  Nevertheless, you can believe in your cause with all you heart; you can speak with great eloquence for your cause, but you might still be wrong.  That's true for all of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intelligence is a cul-de-sac in the highway of existence; it is a dead end where too many precious resources are wasted to create the brain that ultimately ends up contemplating its navel instead of continuing the gene game.

 

The armoured anthropods had it right, first. Loads of dumb animals will overcome even the most puzzling of survival problems with sheer numerical force and a frequent reproductive cycle to react quickly to the environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've waited to respond to this for a number of reasons. First of all, I was afraid that my immediate response would appear to be advocacy. I'm not afraid to advocate a position, even in strong terms, but I didn't want to muddy the waters when I have more of a question than an answer.

 

I also didn't exactly know how I felt about this. meta's response really does go to the heart of what I said in my post. I still don't know what to think on this issue, but it is one of the thoughts I've often pondered. Finally, I just decided to seek your thoughts.

 

I also suspect that this discussion deserves a new thread, but it's set up very well in this thread, so here I am.

 

Why is it that man ponders his existence? Why is it that I ponder the pondering?

 

As meta states, the insects seem to do very well. Bacteria is thriving. Why is it that man is compelled to seek a higher purpose.

 

Then I look at my cats. I have three of them. They don't appear to seek a higher purpose, but they do seem to have needs beyond those of an insect. My cats appear to desire company and companionship. Some folks claim that animals don't think, but most folks concede that animals have "feelings" of some sort or another.

 

People in society who don't exhibit emotion often make others uneasy. Is that because they don't process their feelings very well, or is it because they don't have them in the first place? ...And why would emotion be a positive genetic trait in the grand scope of evolution? Is it because emotions foster community? Do emotions serve a purpose for the advancement of the species?

 

Intelligence, though, that's the tough one, isn't it? Virtually everybody values high intelligence. Ask a parent about his child. The kid is invariably "smart." Nevertheless, we must value intelligence. After all, it is mankind's most significant advantage over other species.

 

I'm curious about this and I have often thought about it, "gazing at my navel" rather than other, more immediate problems.

 

...But please, don't make this an either/or debate. Don't make this a war between religion and science, because it will only cheapen the debate and muddy the issue. I'm really curious to hear what folks have to say. Religious responses are undoubtedly going to be the target of science minded folks and perhaps the opposite will also be true. ...But target the specific response.

[metadigital]

The short answer, based on Logical Positivism, is that Intelligence is a random result of the infinitely changeable survival tactics of life

[Reveilled]

Personally, I find a far more compelling argument for the existence of a creator in the fundamental forces. Look at magnetism. It's a completely crazy and stupid thing to exist. Why the hell should chunk of metal project an invisible field that attracts other chunks of metal? Jeez, it sounds like some completely crazy spell from Dungeons and Dragons. I mean, invisible lines of force? Come on! Sure, science can explain what magnetism does, and how it does it, but you can't use science or logic to explain why the **** such a nonsensical force like magnetism would be part of the universe, all you can use is your gut feeling. Some people's gut feeling tells them there is no creator, and for most of my life, so did I. But now, after thinking about it, and being confused by it, my gut now tells me that someone had to put all this here*.

 

Is it scientific, or logical? No. Can I prove it? Nope, not a word. Am I all that bothered if you don't think the same way? Not at all, and I don't imagine the creator cares much either. But despite all that, do I believe it? I do.

 

*Please note that by put all this here I do not mean put all this hear fully formed in the way in which we see it today. I mean start off the universe in the form of the Big Bang, and set the ground rules for how the system would operate.

[metadigital]

...

So, I would rather say "I don't know" and stare into the void looking for answers without knowing, then stand back and say "I know -- God told me". ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[213374U]

The paradigm of oversimplification.

[Cantousent]

Let me wax poetic for just a moment.

 

I don't have a vested interest in proving the existence of God by citing matter, energy, or brain functions. For my faith to have personal meaning, it must be driven by conviction beyond earthly means to defend.

 

I'm just trying to figure out what drives the longing of my heart.

 

Why should I yearn for things I can neither name nor understand? I spend my days in constant contemplation, searching for answers when I don't even know the questions. I'm asking all the wrong things, but the other questions I hear don't make any sense either. In the meantime, there are others asking nothing at all. I should be envious, because my questioning doesn't seem to give me peace of mind or happiness. Nevertheless, I'd rather live my life longing for answers and never finding them.

 

Why laugh or cry? Why hate or love? I gaze at my navel, but my navel never has an answer for me. If our navels answered our questions, undoubtedly we'd worship our navels.

[metadigital]

I should envy those who wonder not about the source of life.

 

Such a contented life.

 

But then again, I wonder if they have sufficient knowledge to know they are contented, or if they spend all their time hurrying in agitated discomfiture from one unexplained stressor to the next.

 

The unexamined life is not worth living, allegedly sayeth Socrates ... then again, what did he know, he ended up dead before his time.

 

What a waste of energy and resources, all this re-learning, re-creating and re-building of human knowledge and culture and achievement, from one civilization, generation and person to the next.

 

Nah, the bugs have the right idea. :D

I'm just trying to figure out what drives the longing of my heart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a natural and unavoidable consequence of the cumulative agglomeration of sense data beyond the self-awareness threshold.

[213374U]

I should envy those who wonder not about the source of life.

 

Such a contented life.

Indeed.

[jaguars4ever]

I should envy those who wonder not about the source of life.

 

Such a contented life.

Indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ignorance is bliss...especially when pertaining to FF game mechanics.

[11XHooah]

I should envy those who wonder not about the source of life.

 

Such a contented life.

Indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ignorance is bliss...especially when pertaining to FF game mechanics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many unhappy people :D J/K

 

Anyway, I've decided to revisit this thread. Now, I'm going to be earnest and admit that I don't know jacksh*t about most of the scientific theories that you guys are throwing around. To be truthful, I'm not a real fan of science. But I have a hard time understanding how a massive explosion created the universe. How was the explosion created? And what was in place of the universe before it was created? Was it just a huge empty space? But then you have to answer the question of what created that space. I just can't believe that something as massive as the universe was created in the way that science believes it to have happened. The only explanation that I can provide is that God created it. But that's just my .02. I know that most of you are either atheist or agnostic, but you should keep an open mind about the possiblity that perhaps a great being such as God created the universe.

[Commissar]

Anyway, I've decided to revisit this thread. Now, I'm going to be earnest and admit that I don't know jacksh*t about most of the scientific theories that you guys are throwing around. To be truthful, I'm not a real fan of science. But I have a hard time understanding how a massive explosion created the universe. How was the explosion created? And what was in place of the universe before it was created? Was it just a huge empty space? But then you have to answer the question of what created that space. I just can't believe that something as massive as the universe was created in the way that science believes it to have happened. The only explanation that I can provide is that God created it.  But that's just my .02. I know that most of you are either atheist or agnostic, but you should keep an open mind about the possiblity that perhaps a great being such as God created the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what created God, then?

 

I know, I know...he's the supreme being, nothing created him.

 

But what you're arguing there is that it's okay for God to exist without having been created, but it's not okay for an explosion to exist without having been created.

 

What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer. A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out. We're just not going to be around to see it.

[Reveilled]

So what created God, then?

 

I know, I know...he's the supreme being, nothing created him.

 

But what you're arguing there is that it's okay for God to exist without having been created, but it's not okay for an explosion to exist without having been created. 

 

What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer.  A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out.  We're just not going to be around to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The idea that god(dess) was not created is in fact a fairly new (in a "relative to the history of religion" sense) idea in religion. For instance, the particular deity I choose to believe created the universe (Eris, the greek goddess of quarrels and strife) was according to classical mythology birthed by the goddess of the Night, who sprung from primordial chaos, the universal equivalent of the primordial soup. There is no particular reason why a god would have to have always existed. After all, we create worlds of our own all of the time with books, films and computer games, and within those worlds, those who created them are all-powerful, and can do absolutely anything to them, even if outside of that universe, we have little or no power in our own. It may be the case that the being we believe created us herself believes in a being that is all powerful within the universe that our creator lives in. Personally, the idea that a supreme deity has always existed strikes me as an extremely strange attribute to assign to a god(dess).

[metadigital]

Without wishing to rehash the previous pages (ahem, Commissar ) the whole "God is eternal" argument is just another rhetorhical position to counter the "Watchmaker's Father" paradox, which counters the Watchmaker inductive fallacy ( " ) which basically says that the Universe is so well suited to its purpose(s) that someone must have created it -- usually an analogy to a "savage" finding a pocketwatch washed up on the shore (where the someone is the divine Watchmaker -- God -- and we are the savages).

 

(Here's a quick rundown of the logical refutation.)

 

It is just another slavo in the endless war to "prove" the existence of god ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... because once the atheists do that, it's curtains for God. :cool:

[Reveilled]

But the "watchmaker's father" argument doesn't do anything to refute the watchmaker argument (other arguments do, but not this one).

 

The watchmaker's father

Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker anology, god has a father. Who is the father of god? and who is the father of the father? etc... This leads to an endless series, and the only way to end the series is to say that the original god just is without an origin and a cause. What then stops us from making the same assumption of the universe or Ultimate Reality? Occam's razor should even encourage us to do so!

 

And why, pray tell, do we need to end the series? I see no reason to do that, in fact I'm perfectly comfortable in my personal theology which does allow for a continuous series.

[11XHooah]

What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer.  A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out.  We're just not going to be around to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge.

[metadigital]

And why, pray tell, do we need to end the series?  I see no reason to do that, in fact I'm perfectly comfortable in my personal theology which does allow for a continuous series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We don't need to end the series. Nothing compels us to do so. I subscribe to a Logical Positivistic interpretation of science, whereby a statement is not scientific unless it can be proved or disproved via observation; and truth is this Empiricist a posteriori knowledge, together with any analytic truths (propositions that is true by definition).

 

So, nothing demands it, except my faith in a logical framework for the universe, which behooves me to apply Occham's razor to all such teleological propositions: why have a Watchmaker's antecedent?, which is logically more complex to an equivalent extention of the universe back endlessly or as as an endless series.

 

So, you pluck your duck and I'll pluck mine. :D

What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer.  A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out.  We're just not going to be around to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have thought someone so bold on the field of battle would not display such a lack of valour in the field of ontology. "

[11XHooah]

What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer.  A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out.  We're just not going to be around to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have thought someone so bold on the field of battle would not display such a lack of valour in the field of ontology. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm just saying that there are some questions that we may never be able to answer. Perhaps we are built to not understand such things as the creation of the universe for a reason. There will always be a question that has no correct or accurate answer.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Before the big bang, God was bored.

[Nartwak]

It's turtles all the way down.

[metadigital]

It's turtles all the way down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought there were only a few turtles ...

I would have thought someone so bold on the field of battle would not display such a lack of valour in the field of ontology.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just saying that there are some questions that we may never be able to answer. Perhaps we are built to not understand such things as the creation of the universe for a reason. There will always be a question that has no correct or accurate answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never give in! Never! Seek and ye shall find!

[11XHooah]

It's turtles all the way down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought there were only a few turtles ...

I would have thought someone so bold on the field of battle would not display such a lack of valour in the field of ontology.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just saying that there are some questions that we may never be able to answer. Perhaps we are built to not understand such things as the creation of the universe for a reason. There will always be a question that has no correct or accurate answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never give in! Never! Seek and ye shall find!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I must admit that admire your tenacity to pursue answers for these types of questions. And there is much wisdom in what you just said

[Reveilled]

And why, pray tell, do we need to end the series?  I see no reason to do that, in fact I'm perfectly comfortable in my personal theology which does allow for a continuous series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We don't need to end the series. Nothing compels us to do so. I subscribe to a Logical Positivistic interpretation of science, whereby a statement is not scientific unless it can be proved or disproved via observation; and truth is this Empiricist a posteriori knowledge, together with any analytic truths (propositions that is true by definition).

 

So, nothing demands it, except my faith in a logical framework for the universe, which behooves me to apply Occham's razor to all such teleological propositions: why have a Watchmaker's antecedent?, which is logically more complex to an equivalent extention of the universe back endlessly or as as an endless series.

 

So, you pluck your duck and I'll pluck mine. :D

 

Hmm...can you prove or disprove via observation the statement "a statement is not scientific unless it can be proved or disproved via observation"?

 

I'm not really a big fan of applying Occam's Razor to the question of the creation of the universe, because when I look at the universe, I see a place that makes no sense. Sure, it follows rules, but some of those rules are just plain crazy. And as much as we can use logic and science to explain those rules, and how they function, will we ever be able to use them to explain why the rules are there? Occam's Razor should be applied to questions of what is going on, and how it is going on. I don't think you can really apply it to questions of why things are going on, because the answers to why questions, even the terrestrial ones, never seem to be very logical or scientific at all.

 

Once, I thought that logic and science would provide me all the answers I'd ever need. But now, much like Eldar, I find myself navel gazing, and feeling that when I ask why this is all here, there has to be an answer. It's somewhat ironic, I think, that many of us who are religious find ourselves envying those who can go through life content that there doesn't have to be a why, while many who are not religious have said that they wish they could believe in a god and an afterlife for the comfort and security they think it would bring them, but find themselves unable to believe something for which they have no evidence. Maybe we should all trade places.

[metadigital]

Hmm...can you prove or disprove via observation the statement "a statement is not scientific unless it can be proved or disproved via observation"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. So far it hasn't been disproved and the antithesis hasn't been proved.

I'm not really a big fan of applying Occam's Razor to the question of the creation of the universe, because when I look at the universe, I see a place that makes no sense.  Sure, it follows rules, but some of those rules are just plain crazy.  And as much as we can use logic and science to explain those rules, and how they function, will we ever be able to use them to explain why the rules are there?  Occam's Razor should be applied to questions of what is going on, and how it is going on.  I don't think you can really apply it to questions of why things are going on, because the answers to why questions, even the terrestrial ones, never seem to be very logical or scientific at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, but we must keep collecting data until it all makes sense. Did Mendelev give up before he discovered that elements can be arranged in a lawful taxonomy? Did Heinrich Hertz give up because he didn't believe James Clerk Maxwell's equations would come to anything?

Once, I thought that logic and science would provide me all the answers I'd ever need.  But now, much like Eldar, I find myself navel gazing, and feeling that when I ask why this is all here, there has to be an answer.  It's somewhat ironic, I think, that many of us who are religious find ourselves envying those who can go through life content that there doesn't have to be a why, while many who are not religious have said that they wish they could believe in a god and an afterlife for the comfort and security they think it would bring them, but find themselves unable to believe something for which they have no evidence. Maybe we should all trade places.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fear the insanity of certitude that grips too many religious people. I would more readily believe that our models are wrong than a particular faith is straight from the mouth of god.

[Reveilled]

Yes. So far it hasn't been disproved and the antithesis hasn't been proved. 

That argument sounds suspiciously like a rather dubious argument I've heard a great number of theists advance over the years.

 

 

Ah, but we must keep collecting data until it all makes sense. Did Mendelev give up before he discovered that elements can be arranged in a lawful taxonomy? Did Heinrich Hertz give up because he didn't believe James Clerk Maxwell's equations would come to anything?

 

Ah, but those are whats and hows, aren't they? Will you ever be able to tell me why I prefer Billy Joel to Metallica? Or why I'd like to explore outer space? There are many things that I do not think can be measured or proved, things that transcend logic or science. We have units of measurement for distance, time, speed, and countless other things, but what is the unit of measurement for beauty? Or love?

I believe that someday we will be able to answer any and every question of what or how something happens, but I think that there are things both in this universe and outside it that transcend and defy measurement or true understanding.

 

But hey, don't let me stop you. If you think you can do it, it would be wrong of you not to try.

 

I fear the insanity of certitude that grips too many religious people. I would more readily believe that our models are wrong than a particular faith is straight from the mouth of god. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I too find that certainty unnerving. As you can tell, I believe these things are beyond our knowledge. We can speculate as to the motives or the reasons of a creative power, and I believe we can get close to the right answer, but to claim that you know is to defeat the very purpose of religious belief. How can you believe in something when you claim to know already?

[metadigital]

Will you ever be able to tell me why I prefer Billy Joel to Metallica?  Or why I'd like to explore outer space?  There are many things that I do not think can be measured or proved, things that transcend logic or science.  We have units of measurement for distance, time, speed, and countless other things, but what is the unit of measurement for beauty?  Or love?

I believe that someday we will be able to answer any and every question of what or how something happens, but I think that there are things both in this universe and outside it that transcend and defy measurement or true understanding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Because although Metallica may have metaphysical leanings, but their music is as mellifluous as cats mating, amplified by 196 decibels. And Billy Joel simplifies cosmic ruminations down to simple terms, so that the everyman in the audience can ponder along, too.

2. Because no-one's been there yet. (I'm sure when OS is as boring as Utah, no-one is going to be in a hurry to go there.)

3. For faces, it is a ratio of facial features, i.e. size and relative positions, that is the closest approximation to the Golden Mean. Look at anime (or Pandas); see the big eyes and small noses?

4. Please clarify which type of love: eros, agape, religious devotion, etc.

We just need to expand our meta-dictionary to include transcendental terms such that they may encompass the new phenomenological discoveries ... or should that be the other way around ?

I fear the insanity of certitude that grips too many religious people. I would more readily believe that our models are wrong than a particular faith is straight from the mouth of god. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I too find that certainty unnerving. As you can tell, I believe these things are beyond our knowledge. We can speculate as to the motives or the reasons of a creative power, and I believe we can get close to the right answer, but to claim that you know is to defeat the very purpose of religious belief. How can you believe in something when you claim to know already?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, well made. All singing from the same hymn sheet.