Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not much of a fan of philosophers. I hope you will forgive me. They lead to statements like... We simply do not know. Philosophy cannot tell us. Science has not told us. And religion is mostly just doctrine and dogma. Do you have any thoughts of your own?It looks like you are new to Philosophy.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.
In Philosophy, the first issue that is normally addressed is Epistemology -- the question of what can we know about anything and how do we know it?
This fundamental question is usually answered in Philosophy with agreement that only pure rational logical human thought can discover anything, and then only to the extent of our limited feeble senses -- seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting.
Drebbel and Galileo added precision instruments to Natural Philosophy and this gave birth to Science, a new concept and completely separate from Philosophy and Religion, changing Philosophy and Religion forever at the micro level but not at the macro level. Science enables us to improve our sensory perceptions by seeing the almost infinitely distant and infinitely small.
But the fundamental questions of Philosophy are still unchanged. What we can know about anything and how we can know it has changed by orders of magnitude but not infinitely and not exclusively in every case.
Once you have determined by pure rational logical human thought that you yourself do indeed exist, then you must determine what else is real besides yourself. The Modern Empiricists point to the world and universe around us and accept as a given that these all exist.
Once you have ascertained that you and the world and the Universe around us exists, then you must ask "Where did it all come from?"
If it created itself, "How" did it do this?
If it was created, "Who" did this?
Thus then "We" were either created by (1) the Universe or (2) by the Creator of the Universe.
YOU are asking WHY? To what PURPOSE?
We don't even know WHO yet.
Our scientific instruments have not found the center of the Universe yet and we have not seen a Creator walking in his backyard garden.
Our pure rational logical thought has not yet been able to determine WHY?
We simply do not know. Philosophy cannot tell us. Science has not told us. And religion is mostly just doctrine and dogma.
Why would I need to do that? You think this is the first time I have seen that link? The reality is that I have you right where I want you. Chasing me around like a bitch in heat. I can literally smell you from here.Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang TheoryOf course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.FARTSMOKE ALERT! You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?
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.
I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.
You might have to rethink your theory.
I always thought it was funny to make comments directed at specific people and not direct it to those specific people.It is funny how people eventually learn that without a thorough study of Philosophy they themselves really don't understand anything, even Science. And certainly NOT Religion either.
... I'm not much of a fan of philosophers. ...
Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this.
It has no purpose.
Oh... you want to talk about authority...It is a fallacy of false authority to muddle into Philosophy as a Scientist.“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.
That would be like a priest muddling in Science.
Or like a scientist muddling in Religion.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
What proof would you accept?Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this.
it's not about refuting. You've offered up an opinion on why things are the way they are. But not proof. You are waxing lyrical about how you think things came into being. That's fine. But a it is is waxing lyrical...shrug...
[
What proof would you accept?
... I'm not much of a fan of philosophers. ...
Everyone is a philosopher who tries to find plausibility.
The fallacy is about being a scientist but then dabbling in Religion or in Philosophy.Oh... you want to talk about authority...
I'm a huge fan of accepting knowledge on authority. Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on authority of someone else would have to go around knowing practically nothing his entire life as 90% of what we know is accepted on authority. The issue with accepting knowledge on the authority is blindly accepting knowledge on authority. It is better to listen to the authority and then investigate for one's self before accepting that authority. My problem with philosophers is that most of them like to hear themselves speak and needless make things more complicated than they need to be.
The list of priests who have "muddled" in science is long and distinguished. Teilhard de Chardin ( paleontologists who discovered Peking Man and Piltdown Man), Gregor Mendel (the father of modern genetics) and Georges Lemaitre (professor of physics pioneered the Big Bang theory) just to name a few.
Fathers of Science | Catholic Answers
Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia
Why do you think so? More concrete: How do you explain "existance"? The universe is the background of our existance. Somehow we are the universe on our own. We could not exist without this extremly gigantic universe.
That sure was vague. Empirical, peer reviewed research of what? Can you be very very specific about the type of proof you are looking for? For instance, let's say that you found a cell phone two hundred years ago. What proof would you need to prove that it's purpose was communication? Now... take that example and tell me what proof you would need to see to know what the purpose of the universe is. Fair enough?[
What proof would you accept?
Empirical, peer reviewed research.
Why? Because you say so? Tell me then, what has all of your acceptance of authority told you the purpose of the universe is?The fallacy is about being a scientist but then dabbling in Religion or in Philosophy.Oh... you want to talk about authority...
I'm a huge fan of accepting knowledge on authority. Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on authority of someone else would have to go around knowing practically nothing his entire life as 90% of what we know is accepted on authority. The issue with accepting knowledge on the authority is blindly accepting knowledge on authority. It is better to listen to the authority and then investigate for one's self before accepting that authority. My problem with philosophers is that most of them like to hear themselves speak and needless make things more complicated than they need to be.
The list of priests who have "muddled" in science is long and distinguished. Teilhard de Chardin ( paleontologists who discovered Peking Man and Piltdown Man), Gregor Mendel (the father of modern genetics) and Georges Lemaitre (professor of physics pioneered the Big Bang theory) just to name a few.
Fathers of Science | Catholic Answers
Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia
You yourself need to pick up some Philosophy books and start reading.
For your first Philosophy book I highly recommend "History Of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. He has done the best job of summarizing the world history on this, even though the book is 70 years old.
For your second Philosophy book I then recommend "Modern Philosophy" by Roger Scruton. He is a British Empiricist and therefore this is the most common sense group/discipline of all the Philosophers.
That should give you a start to tackle your questions.
Ultimately I think you will conclude that Philosophy is the pressure valve on Science and on Religion.
Whenever Science or Religion start to get ridiculous, Philosophy brings them back into line.
Somehow we are the universe on our own.
Somehow we are the universe on our own.
I just got through telling you that nobody knows the answer.Why? Because you say so? Tell me then, what has all of your acceptance of authority told you the purpose of the universe is?
So what good would come from reading it?I just got through telling you that nobody knows the answer.Why? Because you say so? Tell me then, what has all of your acceptance of authority told you the purpose of the universe is?
And that nobody can know the answer.
My personal Deist mythology is irrelevant to anyone else, but my own fantasy is that the Deist Clockmaker God threw us into this hellhole and is reaping archangels out of all those who survive it without being unethical in the process.
Somehow we are the universe on our own.
So do you believe that what you are made out of was created when space and time was created? Because it was.
No offense, but that was even more than less than helpful. I am telling you that all matter and energy was created at the big bang or as I like to affectionately call it, Creation. Since then matter and energy have not been destroyed but have only changed form. The only exception to this is the loss of usable energy that we so affectionately call entropy. Anyway all of the matter and energy in your body today, came into existence at the moment space and time were created. Happy birthday... you are 14 billion years old. So your statement that, "Somehow we are the universe on our own," is technically true. You are made from star dust. So when the Bible says, "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return," that is true too.Somehow we are the universe on our own.
So do you believe that what you are made out of was created when space and time was created? Because it was.
I think a hundred, a thousand, a million or a billion years ago someone or something was able to avoid my existance, so I never had to be here. But I am here. Since about 13.82 billion years meanwhile. Since some decades I'm in interaction now. So I would say the interaction which I am is an answer to this what had happened before. Everyone is such an answer. In my special case I guess I would not be a be sad, if the answer which I am, had not to exist. I'm for example also an answer because of evil events as for example World War 2. Not a nice idea. But I trust in god on my way home. This allows me to think and to do whatever I like to think and to do, because no one is able to fall deeper than in the hands of god. In my case god is like one of this indian gods with thousand arms and hands.
