What is the purpose of the universe?

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. As cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. We know from our own experiences that men do evil not for evil's sake but for the sake of their own good. We know from our own experiences that we prefer good over evil. We know from our own experiences that when we violate the moral law we rationalize that we didn't, but we never abandon the concept. We know we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything does happen for a reason and everything is connected. When what we perceive as bad happens there is something good that comes from it.

We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.

There is order everywhere. It is all around you. Order from chaos. The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation was very chaotic - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - and occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. All of these processes followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements and chemical compounds that we see today.These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state (i.e. order). During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. The universe did not construct itself randomly. It followed natural laws. Each phase was pre-destined to occur by the laws of nature which came into existence at the time space and matter were created.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage. Thereby starting this process all over again. At every step of the way matter complexified into order until at last beings that know and create began to exist. Thus, the universe began to know itself in the ultimate act of order from chaos.

But make no mistake, beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.

A common belief of atheists is that they believe that everything happened as a result of random chance and they mistakenly point to entropy as the basis for their belief. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way they imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. Thus, during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.

The matter/energy which we are made of was created when space and time were created. We are literally star dust. We came from dust and we will return to dust. Just as the laws of nature pre-destined that we - beings that know and create - would arise.
 
Last edited:

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.
 

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
20,736
Reaction score
6,925
Points
360
Location
North Coast, USA
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
I know the purpose of the universe.

The answer to the oldest question in mankind's mind...



...Put simply... the Earth needs plastic...

 
Last edited:
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.
You got nothing. Got it.
Right now there is somebody walking around with nothing (i.e. Mudda) because I have it all.

Just call me butter because I am on a roll.
 

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
No content. Thread closed.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
 

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?
 

esthermoon

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
3,022
Reaction score
998
Points
295
Location
Ho Chi Minh City - Vietnam
We almost don't know anything about the Universe. Maybe it has some purpose.
But it's possible the Universe has no purpose at all.
Maybe it's just an eternal flux of energy and matter who know? :)
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
We almost don't know anything about the Universe. Maybe it has some purpose.
But it's possible the Universe has no purpose at all.
Maybe it's just an eternal flux of energy and matter who know? :)
We know a great deal about the universe. We know that matter formed from subatomic particles into clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. We know that cosmic structures formed from the clouds of gas. We know that supernovas then created all of the elements and compounds that we see. We know that life made the lead from non-living matter. We know that life then evolved into all the life forms that we see and eventually made the leap to beings that know and create thus allowing the universe to know itself. We know what something is created for by what it produces. All the steps I mentioned above were the processes needed to create beings that know and create and were controlled by the natural laws which came into existence at the time space and time were created. Beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?
See post #14.
 

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?
See post #14.
That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?
See post #14.
That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?
We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.
 

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again. :D
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?
See post #14.
That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?
We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.
"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.
 

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
We almost don't know anything about the Universe. Maybe it has some purpose.
But it's possible the Universe has no purpose at all.
Maybe it's just an eternal flux of energy and matter who know? :)
We know a great deal about the universe. We know that matter formed from subatomic particles into clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. We know that cosmic structures formed from the clouds of gas. We know that supernovas then created all of the elements and compounds that we see. We know that life made the lead from non-living matter. We know that life then evolved into all the life forms that we see and eventually made the leap to beings that know and create thus allowing the universe to know itself. We know what something is created for by what it produces. All the steps I mentioned above were the processes needed to create beings that know and create and were controlled by the natural laws which came into existence at the time space and time were created. Beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.
FARTSMOKE ALERT!

You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you? :lol:
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
We almost don't know anything about the Universe. Maybe it has some purpose.
But it's possible the Universe has no purpose at all.
Maybe it's just an eternal flux of energy and matter who know? :)
We know a great deal about the universe. We know that matter formed from subatomic particles into clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. We know that cosmic structures formed from the clouds of gas. We know that supernovas then created all of the elements and compounds that we see. We know that life made the lead from non-living matter. We know that life then evolved into all the life forms that we see and eventually made the leap to beings that know and create thus allowing the universe to know itself. We know what something is created for by what it produces. All the steps I mentioned above were the processes needed to create beings that know and create and were controlled by the natural laws which came into existence at the time space and time were created. Beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.
FARTSMOKE ALERT!

You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you? :lol:
Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top