Some scientists, with astro-physicists leading the charge, have gone out on a limb to say flatly that the formation of the Universe had nothing to do with God(or any such Supernatural Being), but with the simplest mechanics of quantum physics involving sub-atomic particles i.e photons, electron, neutrons (and their elemental structure called quarks) interacting in some ways to produce what we now perceive as the cosmic world that we now inhabit. If as they aver, an M theory (unified Theory) could explain everything that happens in the Universe, with that theory basically infering that the Universe was not any grand design by an intelligent entity. If so, what that does mean for our existence, except that we are just a happenstance formation of Hydrogen/Carbon/Nitrogen that happened to evolve into a volitional, sentient, creative, beings whose existence may not mean much.
Then why are you smiling? Seems to me that one should be morose after being told that life is as empty as a tin can.
Actually quite the opposite. I'd rather decide my own "purpose" than have one dictated to me.
Of Course, being human, you have the cerebral capacity to design your own utility, irregardless of what learned men of science (your fellow humans I might add) say, i.e that there was no grand design or purpose for the big bang, and every event that followed thereafter down to the creation of life on earth.
Which lead me to a rhetorical question. If the formation and evolution of life on earth (or any other planets out there that might be located in what scientist call the Goldilock zone of a solar system much like ours) was just a random event, albeit a lucky one, why even produce a specie (Homo Sapiens) that evolved with the brain that has allowed it to ask the when and the how, but most importantly the why of his existence?
Your question is meaningless. There is no reason. You think your question has some importance outside your own mind?
That's one way you could look at it. I prefer to look at as, a question asked must have an answer. If you can ask a question regardless of how (in)sane the question, it can be answered, accepting the answer is another story.
Did you just suggest that humans asking why they exist is an insane question?
Life isn't empty, unless you live it that way.
Only death is empty...well not really empty, just the end.
I likewise think that we are even less than trivial in the grand scheme of things. Sure, from our perspective, we are important. But as relates to the universe, our importance is ranked right up there with bacteria.
Why ask why?
Purpose inheres in the mind. Your existence doesn't require anything more than having parents. Your existence has nothing to do with meaning. Meaning is something you give to your existence, not the other way around. You were brought into existence by two intelligent entities. Isn't that enough? Why add a third, or a fourth, or a fifth, or ...
This present existence operates in this way...
Death unto death, Life unto Life. Or
Ignorance unto ingnorance, knowing unto knowing.
So therefore it is no surprise that many will only accept that the ignorance of death is the ultimate initiatiating cause of their existence.
They are death and will their lives will be the fulfilment of their father Death. So their sense of purpose for living will never transcend the grave.
Those of life will know that Life which is knowledge is the initiating cause of their existence...this existence they also know, was already present at the moment of initiation of this present existence and would remain even the curtains are drawn on it.
There is another piece of statistics which might interest you in this context. That also does not have any controversy about creationism or evolution etc.
I am not trying to make any statement against, God playing role in any of this - at least as far as I know in science one generally does not study such questions which you are sort of wondering about -- "God or some supernatural being has some thing to do with creation of universe or not"
Simply because as far as I know, currently used tools in science are enough to study such question - for example in Physics time being one tries to study only objects moving at most with speed of light. (One assumes in physics models that nothing travels faster than light - essentially that says these models are not suitable for studying universe in which some thing can travel faster than that)
So I do not know on what basis some body said the following
"Some scientists, with astro-physicists leading the charge, have gone out on a limb to say flatly that the formation of the Universe had nothing to do with God(or any such Supernatural Being)"
What ever models are used in science for universe - scientists are quite aware that they leave a lot of questions which do not have clear answers.
Generally at least good scientists are much more careful about their statements - they make statements only after a proper study.
But this information again coming from science which has less to do with God questions still may be quite interesting while considering such questions - role of humans and how important they may be in universe --
"if you took the entire population of humans, and squished all the space out of them, they would fit inside a sugar cube
the nucleus of the atom compare to the atom is like
a nickel compare to a baseball stadium"
and the basis for such statement is
"Most of the occupied part of an atom is in the nucleus, which is about 10^-5 times the diameter of the atom, and 10^-15 times the volume. If the nucleus were 100% full, the atom would be 99.999,999,999,999,9% empty space. We don't know how much of the nucleus is empty, but I would guess it is about as empty as the rest of the atom. In that case, the atom is about 99.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,9… empty space."
link for the above interesting discussion is
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 908AAMpnj9
Wonder what do you feel about it-
this whole universe it seems consists of mainly empty space - matter - substance in human beings all of them joined together is just a little larger than sugar cube?
Does it imply how much really human being matter in the universe?
If not them who matters may be question?
According to the same astro-physicists (Stephen Hawking being one of them) the universe is expanding (Hubble proposed the idea, and has been proved correct via measurements of the difference in the visible light spectrum emanating from distant galaxies) i.e galaxies are moving further apart from each other, and what is making them so is the presence of "dark energy" in what seemed empty space between those galaxies.
Now they are also proposing the possiblity of not one but million other universes(multiverse), thus the potential for intelligent life on other solar/planetary systems is multiplied by a factor too unimaginable to contemplate. Thus Humans in their earthly corner located in a distant arm of the Milky Way Galaxy holds no claim to being the center of the universe or any universe for that matter.
No, just a bunch of gullible people running around rampant claiming humans are special for some odd reason.
Rare is the human who does not look at his existence in an egoccentric manner. Man's ego has been bruised enough by the realization that he is not the center of the Universe, and now to be told that his formation was never an intentional event, but rather the result of cascading events that , in all its multiplicity and complexity had randomness written all over it, starting with the Big Bang down to the formation of galaxies and the star systems that form those galaxies. to the initiation of intelligent life on a small planet humans call home. It's just too much to take, and for those who believe in Divine Intervention, the probity of these scientific theories are suspect, to say the least.
I guess the bigger question is what meaning are other people perceiving about your actions versus what you think your own actions mean?
Are they both the same? Or different?
Your question is irrelevant. Meaning, as with beauty is always in the eyes ( or in the mind) of the beholder. What matters most is, if my intentions and actions led to a result that is acceptable (morally, ethically, or aesthetically) both to myself and the people perceiving my actions.
Explain why you think my answer to your question stunned you to disbelief.
First you make the claim that the questions I posted were irrelevant. Then you proceeded to tell me that "meaning" is like beauty, as it is in the eye of the beholder- which isn't truth. Purpose works like beauty because it's suited to the individual. Meaning isn't.
Edit: the questions were quite relevant. If you had the ability to see past yourself, you would have understood the questions and their relevance.
Now it's my turn to be stunned. I still maintain that your question is irrelevant.....for the same reason that you think I don't have the ability to see past myself. My answer infers that in all matters of human interactions, what might be meaningful to me may not necessarilty be meaningful to you... thus the subjective nature of "meaning" and the intentions and actions emanating from it.
If you disagree with that formulation... it's your prerogative. But to infer that I am being narcissistic by labeling your questions irrelevant is stunning.
You must spend an awful lot of time being stunned. "Meaning" and "Meaningful to me" are not the same thing at all. The former is constant (except where religious zealots such as yourself are trying to obfuscate and prove their mental superiority in the face of overwhelming evidence against), the latter is subjective to you.
It is a concept and personal to you only. Like a god.
For a blind universe to produce a wonderful sentient bunch of beings that can marvel at its glory, but then one day they have passed into nonexistence; seems like the universe is playing a sick joke, made sicker because it is oblivious to our existence.
It makes no sense to me unless there is a God whatever flavour religion one chooses to follow.
The mind needs a brain to function. When the brain dies the emergent property of mind goes with it. What seems sick is for entities beyond the natural - gods if you will - to allow physical suffering and pain if the physical form is unnecessary.
And what of our evolutionary ancestors and animal cousins? Are they just a means to an end who pass into nonexistence suffering pain and death as we do? We marvel at the numinous and we are repulsed by the cruelty and evil. Are gods who are oblivious to the starving, diseased infants and children who wants for food, water, shelter and love worthy of worship? Where were the gods during the Holocaust? The Rape of Nanking, the Trail of Tears? What a wicked, sick, cruel game existence would be if gods were real.
The gods you are referring to do not exist.... but have utility in the narrative of man's creativity, by conceptualizing his existence via mythologies and theologies.
If those mythologies/theologies lead to ideas and ideals that make his existence more meaningful and fitful, then they have served their purpose
Hitler believed he was doing God's work.
That the sort of thing you are talking about?
Hitler was delusional. If you did not know that...how come I am noy the least surprised.
You're not helping your case with such a statement...
And what if those mythologies lead to hate and intolerance? Does it matter if they originated in the Stone Age, Bronze Age or New Age? I think not.
Let's assume gods exist. Whether there are .1, 1, 10 or an infinity^10 of them doesn't matter. Why bring into existence a universe with 100 billion galaxies containing an average of a hundred billion stars so that 13.7 billion years into its expansion, a great ape, on one of the trillions of planets, could branch from the evolutionary Tree of Life and form hundreds of religions and thousands of religious sects that deny the existence of the other's gods?
Now, in order to get to this perfect place in time - call it the Cheshire Zone - billions of years of evolution had to occur leaving the fossilized remains from the ancestors of those great apes - including fossil fuels, which will only power the apes' technology to spread their beliefs for a few hundred years. After that, the limited resources will lead to a drastic reduction in the apes' population and evolution will bring to an end the species of homo sapiens.
As we leave the Cheshire Zone, the planet the apes live on will warm and the sun it revolves around will grow larger, enveloping the extinct apes home world until it is blown away with sun's outer atmosphere 5 billion years from now. Forty billion years after the gods brought the universe into existence, it will die. Even the subatomic interactions between matter will cease. And for what purpose? So the unknown gods could be worshiped by long-extinct apes who existed and suffered as a species for 5-7 million years on one of trillions of planets?
Man made mythologies (and theologies for that matter) have in fact been used by humans to inflict pain and suffering on his fellow humans. Man's earthly history is littered by layer upon layer of the debris and detritus of the wars that man has waged on each other based solely on myths and religious beliefs.
I would argue that, in this our century, myths and religious beliefs have become less and less a factor in the chaos that man has brought upon each other. Ideologies, be they political, cultural/tribal, and economic have become the central etiologies of almost all of the major wars (W W 1and W W 11) and regional wars (Korea, Vietnam, The Balkans, The Middle East) of the 20th century.
Now that we are at the dawning of the 21st century, it looks like more of the same.
Your allegorical tale is not too allegorical since it has happened here on earth, and maybe somewhere else in the universe, where similarly predisposed supposedly intelligent entities exist. I must tell you though that your script would make for a blockbuster Hollywood movie... titled, "The Apocalypse 2"
Al...Cag thinks the universe revolves around him. Meaning and purpose is suited to the individual...he doesn't get that you said the same thing. 'Eye of the beholder' IS the individual.
Hey Druid, do me and yourself a favor.
Quit talking about me and making false statements.
Just going by what you said. And don't threaten me pal.
My point, exactly...that's why you shouldn't do it. So you don't deny that I was only talking about what you said before.
You are attempting to change the focus here. I stated an 'opinion', that Cagsil thinks the universe revolves around Cagsil...you got bent. So...get bent. Easy enough. Spend your whole day that way.
Do what I do...blow it off. You still haven't denied that the statement you made concerning the forum subject was totally in agreement with what A.V. was saying, and that you simply were not comprehending. Just admit it. I said that about you and the universe because SO MANY of your statements tends to support this observation. Move on.
Now, back on subject. A.V. I still maintain that mankind has set itself upon a mission: To rise above what we were, to quell the animal nature, and become more than the sum of our parts, this is why the search for God lies, not in the past or in some man written book (Although, there is much there that has been overlooked) but, rather in the future, further down the path away from our primitive beginnings, away fro the Garden. Our path is forward, into the unknown, continually striving to rise above what we are. We were the meal, now we are the chefs. We, as carbon based life have been, and are, under pressure, and as such, our 'purpose' is to become 'more perfect' as a diamond of a lifeform, surpassing all man has ever done...to find that there will always be more Everests to conquer, more frontiers to cross. Cross them all, and new ones will appear. That is why, as evidenced by the Olympics, that man is faster, better than ever before. The real test is for us to live on this finite planet. To continue, things really do have to change.
Mark, your attempts to categorize that which defies categoration is really lame. I'm surprised that you can see someone elses righteousness through the self righteousness which is blinding you. Someone discusses a real aspect of existence, and all you can do is focus on religion. I still think you would fit in real welll in a church setting.
Sorry you didn't understand. Maybe lying about being a Druid dunnit?
How brave of you to be yourself - oh - wait.................. LOLOLOL Dun I defy categorization? Iz I too hard fer yer ter unnerstand?
So...is Ice Tea lying...he obviously isn't ice, and I'm sure you'll agree that he's not tea. Did Buddy Holley play with 'Crickets'? Were the Beatles insects? Hell, even the 'Beach Boys' weren't really beach boys! You focus on some of the most idiotic stuff. GROW UP.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
If, as is suggested by astro-physicist, the universe had its beginning after the Big Bang,( with the exact nature of what initiated it still up for a lot of conjecture), the question needs to be asked: Did the the cascading events that emanated from the Big...
by Peter Leeper 10 years ago
Question for those with faith and atheists. Existence. No Preaching Please!Whether you beleive in a God or you do not, both arguments would have to explain how something could come to exist from nothing. For religious people, how did God come to exist? For Aetheists or...
by Bill Akers 8 years ago
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God? There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator...
by M. T. Dremer 5 years ago
How do atheists fight depression?This is a legitimate question. I'm an atheist and I find that when I start to think about death and the sheer vastness of the universe, I get overwhelmed. The birth and death of the earth (and the human race) is so quick and insignificant in the grand scheme of...
by ArockDaNinja 6 years ago
I've read about many different theories about death and what happens. It is the main question that is in the back of everyone's mind. It's very difficult to picture it or to question the point of existence. The fact that we are here is a miracle in itself, who says that some sort of afterlife isn't...
by Rui Carreira 9 years ago
What is the difference between God and a unicorn?Why don't people believe in Dragons if they believe in God? What's the difference here? I'm not an atheist, I'm just curious.
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|