The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

I started a thread in the science subforum about scientific evidence for evolution, but most debaters, it seemed wanted to have a philosophical debate about the Big Questions. So i will revive this thread for that purpose, & submit a challenge.

The OP makes a premise that there are 3 basic worldviews, regarding 'the ultimate answer to life, the universe, & everything':

1. Supernatural. Unknown God or gods, or some other sentient beings did this
2. Natural. Unknown natural processes did it
3. 42. the questions are meaningless

Can anyone provide any evidence for the objective reality of any of these statements?
I have not seen any that is credible.

Are not these statements merely personal beliefs about the universe & reality?

 

The answer to creation is God. Not a movie. Sick demons.

 

Well, it was originally a book, but it's not really claiming to have the answers.. just ridiculing the Questions.

I'm not promoting any view, just defining the possibilities.. imho, anyway.

Your view is probably the majority opinion, for most of human history.

 

I do apologize.

God constantly getting attacked is very frustrating. Not saying you did that, I just took it that way from everybody else doing it lately. How can one bring people to Jesus, when the second one brings Him up, that person and Jesus get attacked. It's almost like it has begun, just not to the point of bloodshed and chopping of heads yet, well at least not in America yet.

Either on the internet or face to face, almost everyone hates Jesus, thus the truth.

 

I completely agree with your perception. I have seen an increase in hostility & disgust from mainstream institutions toward traditional, biblical christianity. It is very perplexing, from a human point of view. Why would anyone have such hatred for a religious belief? Especially one that has brought such benefits to humanity? The reformation, the enlightenment, the age of reason, education, advances in science, the end of slavery.. lots of events over the last few hundred years can be directly traced to christian activism & influence.

I don't find much in the way of rational responses from many so-called 'scientific' types.. they are more pseudo scientific, if you ask me. They are not rational, have unbridled hate for anything 'christian', & cannot even restrain themselves from incivility. It is a very bizarre phenomenon.

 

Very well said man!

I hope you don't mind if I take some of your words to share with others.

 

the correct answer is 3. the statements are meaningless, until you first ask another set of questions.

temporarily set aside the 'GOD' question for now, and ask these three questions regarding 'consciousness' instead:

1. does 'consciousness' exist?
2. does anything greater than 'human' consciousness exist in the universe?
3. is this consciousness 'creative'?

once you answer these three questions regarding 'consciousness', then you can proceed to the 'GOD' questions.

1. define 'GOD'. (the definition is ultimately subjective and varies from religion to religion and from person to person.)
2. is there a 'GOD'? (you can't answer this question without first defining 'GOD'.)

 

I agree. The 'knowability' of knowledge is the first step.. .in a purely philosophical discussion. I have assumed that first one, to evade the muddled mess that pure skepticism brings up.

Nothing can be known, not even this". Carneades (c. 214 - 129 B.C.)

I actually cover this option, but not with greek logic terms. To the historical philosopher, it would be more like this:

Skepticism
Relativism
Empiricism

I have presented the same basic concepts as:

Naturalism
Supernaturalism
Absurdism

They don't completely correlate, but they are close enough, at least for philosophers.

And, i did address it in the OP, with the quote from Descartes..

For my comparison, i did not feel it necessary to define 'God'. I have merely a 'supernatural entity' as the creative 'cause' of the universe. this can be a god, or a supreme alien, or something else that is undefined or unknown. I did not want to open pandora's box to narrowly define this entity, & have the discussion go off the charts about that.

By providing a 'supernatural cause' for everything, i presume this consciousness, & it's creative ability. It is the antithesis of naturalism, & covers just about every other possibility of God, gods, aliens, or other 'supernatural' explanations for the universe.

I don't think you have to conclude absurdity for making an assumption about a creative force. Absurdity also nullifies the naturalistic option as equally absurd, & is still basically assuming knowledge as unknowable. This is a difficult assumption in our technological society, where knowledge is not only knowable, but taught & built on for technological advances.

 

No philosophers around who want to ponder the meaning of life & the universe? Just want to bicker about partisan political issues?

 

any discussion about the metaphysical/supernatural is inherently philosophical/non-scientific. once the argument becomes scientific/natural, it is no longer metaphysical/supernatural/philosophical.

 

Ah but what is "reality"?
Quantum physics is making scientists ask the same question-
"The quantum atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts"
– Prof. Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize winner in Physics)

Re the famous Double Slit Experiment- "If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you.."- Jim Al-Khalili OBE, Professor of Theoretical Physics

And as other great thinkers have said-
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one''- Einstein
"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream"- Edgar Allen Poe
"You can be in my dream if i can be in your dream"- Bob Dylan
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on"- The Tempest
"Strawberry Fields...nothing is real"- The Beatles
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes" - Bible,James 4:14
"Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"- Morpheus in The Matrix

 

That is merely a belief, or a dogmatic declaration. It is not a logical conclusion, if you presume the 3 basic possibilities. you are merely setting YOUR belief up as the Ultimate Truth, & defining others as 'not true'. It is label based reasoning, with the 2 (3?) logical possibilities still there, even with your attempts to label pejoratively.

So, you are saying, the answer is 42! I had that on my list of options.

You are merely asserting that knowledge cannot be known.. which i covered in the OP, & again in this post:

I have ASSUMED a level of empiricism, here, in order to use logic. Without the 'knowability' of knowledge, everything is absurd, nothing is knowable, & the answer becomes, '42'.

 

Yes, we can't know everything but it's fun to speculate.
For example all we know (unless it's an illusion) is that we're trapped in these squishy bodies which are held to this spinning ball of mud by something called gravity which is orbiting the sun, which in turn is orbiting the hub of the milky way galaxy which is flying away from all other galaxies in the expanding universe in which space-time itself is stretchy and flexible..
PS- has anybody here seen the Matthew McConaughey film "Interstellar'? It intelligently has the time dilation effect scripted into it and illustrates how we're safe and secure on this island called earth ("Here on this bank and shoal of time"-Macbeth), drifting in a sea of space and time, but once we travel out into space we're at the mercy of time dilation, and the film comes across as a fascinating philosophical speculation rather than straight sci-fi, some people in youtube comments are saying it had them in tears.
Below- On a planet raked by immense gravitational effects- "An hour on this planet is 7 years back on earth"..

 

Thanks for the reply, Johnny.. I am a student of philosophical thought, & the social trends that mold it. Your replies are very thought provoking in that they show the influence of the entertainment industry, education, & the media on our developing worldviews.

I looked at your profile, & see you are about the same age as me, with many of the same influences & social pressures, that have likely molded our worldviews. None of us exists in a vacuum, but have had processes & events that have directed us to the perceptions & beliefs that we have.

From an empirical perspective, which are more my roots , you have to have some kind of 'knowability' of facts, in order to employ reason. I have quoted your countryman, John Locke many times, & have been an eager student of his philosophical musings.


Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and knowledge nothing. ~John Locke

So while i can appreciate the relativity view, & even the absurdists view of the universe, empiricism seems to offer the most substance for any rational thinking. I have difficulty in seeing the other perspectives, and how they seem to use reason in a haphazard manner.. picking & choosing the times & topics to use it, but denying it when it is inconvenient.

 

so what? you're against beliefs? you can label any statement as 'dogma'. we can label any of your statements as 'dogma' just as well.

why would one assume the three basic possibilities?

i've not declared any ultimate truth. nor have i declared anyone else as 'not true'. science does not accept philosophy as ultimate truth.

you're labeling my belief/statement as 'dogma'. i have no idea why. there is nothing pejorative about it. you may be interpreting my statement harshly.

 

reality is reality and a dream is a dream.

if a dream is confused with reality and/or if reality is confused with a dream, it is merely an evidence of psychological dysfunction/illness.

the brain cannot accurately discern knowledge or the nature of reality if it is ill/sick. it will merely miscalculate most everything that it ponders.

 

My eyes and brain tell me these wheels are turning, but the website where I found them tells me it's just a non-turning static picture, so which version of "reality" shall I believe, my eyes/brain or the website?

 

We are not moving away from other galaxies. Other galaxies are moving toward us. In fact we are really part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, which was captured by the larger Milky Way Galaxy. Right now the Milky Way Galaxy is absorbing several smaller galaxies.

In a few billion years the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies will merge.

 

A website doesn't have to tell you nothing is turning. Look at the pic and pic a spot. Nothing moves. That's my eyes and brains telling me, the picture is static.

 

In the end.....everything and everyone becomes food for something else.

I find that refreshing.

AA

 

Except for Chef Ramsay, who will probably send himself back as undercooked, watery and disgusting and then curse out God as a "(*)(*)(*)(*)-poor (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ****** excuse for a proper restarauteur"

Seriously, none of these things will get answers until somebody comes up with experiments that can prove/disprove things like the multiverse, etc. They say such are inherently impossible but I think eventually they will come up with a whole class of them, not just one, and they'll be the coolest things in science since chemistry; whole rooms or even giant complexes full of weird devices that will not only function on stratospheric high mathematics but even LOOK like super complex equations, and maybe some will be the opposite, super tiny nano devices that make and remake themselves over and over in the course of their functioning, redefining reality itself as they endlessly transform.

 

the eyes/brain are in error.

 

Hmm, scientists were saying for years that the universe was expanding like debris from the explosion of the Big Bang, but that the rate of expansion was slowing down under mutual gravitational attraction.
Then amazingly they started saying the rate of expansion was speeding up!
Wish they'd make up their minds..

 

Perhaps different people see it differently. The wheels are turning for me, so the point is whether we can trust our senses to give us a true picture of "reality" in relation to the world and universe around us..
PS- For many years I've been trying to see the "hidden picture" in images like the one below, but have never been able to. They always look like meaningless bits of carpet or wallpaper to me, is there something wrong with me? (sniffle)..

 

Some years ago I remember either Time or Newsweek coming out with special on the State of the Art in Science. They said, basically, that the Universe was sussed, just a few more details and we'd wrap the whole thing up.

I remember thinking, "this sounds like what physicists said in 1890, 'all the next generation will have to do is add the next decimal point.' " (the next generation saw Einstein and quantum mechanics)

Sure enough, Dark matter was being discussed in a year, and Dark energy just a few years later. The more we know. the more we know how much we don't.

And most of what we've been finding out is due to better observation tools, particularly computers and automated telescopes, which let us make more and better observations, literally millions of them which not even thousands of astronomers could have interpreted in thousands of years before. They let us make measurements where before we just had theories. The two are not agreeing and science is happy, for we have new mysteries to plumb, new secrets to be revealed