The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

I am amazed at the dogmatic assertion in the bold above. This is not 'empirical truth', but highly speculative THEORY. How can smug statements of absolutes like this be made, considering how little we actually know about the universe? We have a very small window into the universe, & cannot make such assertions.. well, we can make them, but it only exposes our own absurdity.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Albert Einstein

There is NO WAY you can claim absolute knowledge about 'clouds of hydrogen', 'fused to form carbon', & other such wild speculations about matter. You cannot prove it, replicate it, or present any kind of model to show HOW it could even happen in an open system of the universe.

Gravity, or the 'basic laws of attraction' is not sufficient to draw together random particles hurling through infinite space. HOW did these particles come to be? All energy would have dissipated billions of eons ago across the vastness of infinity. There is NO organizing natural system that can compel matter to order itself, direct energy, or alter its state.

Life is a tiny speck in a vast universe. It is unexplainable, & impossible to replicate by any natural means. the mere existence of life provides evidence for a supernatural explanation of the universe, not a naturalistic one. Life is impossible. It could not have happened spontaneously, it is too complex & undefinable. The INTELLIGENT action & power of life OVERCOMES entropy & the move toward randomness. But life is not (apparently) universal. So unless you are arguing that some other form of LIFE provided the impetus for organizing the universe, the small, observable phenomenon of life on earth could not have possibly directed the order & complexity in the universe.

Randomness is still the rule in the universe. Unless you have intelligent (ie, life) power overcoming the dissipating law of randomness, the universe can only devolve to dark, cold, inanimate matter.

 

Great reply. Very thoughtful & open. IMO, dogmatism is the main enemy of discovery, & we should avoid it at all costs. ..but some people prefer the soothing reassurance of dogmatism over the upsetting confusion of discovery.

I find that the mere ABILITY for man to contemplate abstract concepts such as god, infinity, eternity, alternate dimensions, & the supernatural is amazing. Unbelievable, to be exact. HOW or WHY would this ability be in man? It has no contribution to our survival, & could not have evolved in a normal adaptation process.

I see you exploring the mysteries of the OP, but you cannot get away from your naturalistic assumptions.

You assert this, but there is no evidence that this can even happen, much less DID happen by natural processes. Environmental mutations? This is the 'god' that created us? This is the source of our angst, reason, & analytical minds? No, this is your belief, only. You have no way to demonstrate how this happened or can happen.

I also dispute your final thought:

Some truth is simple, but there are vast amounts of knowledge & truth that are not only INcomprehensible, but seemingly unknowable, by finite humans. We seem to have a flicker of awareness of something 'more', but we cannot put our finger on it. And anyone that has tried to communicate ANY knowledge knows that it is not always simple language that is the problem. Abstract ideas are not conveyed easily with material comparisons. Some people cannot grasp the abstract, but are stuck in the material world of the mundane.

 

The Hubble telescope has allowed astronomers & physicists to see hotbeds where stars are being born. Why should we be so pessimistic about the scientific assessment of the genesis process? It's not a bunch of guesswork. Gas and dust collect, heat up, and form stars. Some explode, some become dense monsters, and some form black holes. Scientists also get clues about what's going on in the nearest star, our sun.

Our universe is not an infinity. Beyond it is the supposed multiverse. We don't have any information on what lies in its extended hierarchy. It is reasonable to speculate that there is a Creator, and I tend to lean in that direction. However, I do try to play out the scientific position when I think it is being misconstrued, underestimated, or applied in a questionable manner.

Atheistic scientists will probably argue that matter does all of that without the help of any particular intelligence. They have faith and conviction in ultimate victory through reductionism.

I suspect that it is and we should know for sure if there is extraterrestrial life within a decade or maybe a few decades.

It's all about consciousness and energy, but the naysayers claim that there's not an iota of evidence for any external consciousness as high as or higher than what's in the human brain.

 

and yet others don't 'contemplate the unknowABLE' in the first place. too busy doing life for navel gazing. mouths to feed and wars to end, etc.

 

yet people do it anyway. it isn't even necessarily about the vanity of posturing (I have all the answers .. for I am SPECIAL!), it's about monkeys uttering their distress when they can't find a pattern.

omnipotence compared to what? this is an absurdity. we're as omnipotent as it gets, so far.

 

Because 'a lot' of people aren't interested in indulging the futile vanity of it. And yes, it is sometimes pure vanity (along with monkey distress). Those who don't indulge this particular demon usually avoid it because they're content and happy as is. This doesn't mean they never think about universe/big picture stuff, it simply means they don't try to read something personal or personally advantageous into it.

I think THAT'S troubling to those who feel they must have answers.

 

This is the problem I have with such musings ...

1) why does it matter? if you found out tomorrow that you were designed by a giant lizard on a computer made of rainbows, would it change anything?
2) if you need to be TOLD your purpose, you're a low ranking gorilla waiting for the silverback to give you orders - metaphorically speaking. in other words, the question is one rung up from basic pattern seeking.
3) see 2), 'waiting for silverback'.
4) higher social mammals have always been confused by death.

 

and let me guess here ... that intelligent mind is a god of some sort, right?

 

who is claiming to have all the answers? science doesn't claim any such thing. it has no agenda other than truth - and goes wherever truth takes it. the arrogant (of the highest order) liars are those who tell us there's nothing else to know.

 

it's not amazing because we're SMART monkeys. and how the heck do you know that such ponderings don't in some way benefit tribe cohesions or similar? pretty much everything we do is directly or indirectly related to a survival mechanism of one sort or another. of course, in a world in which we don't live to survive, many of these things are distinctly 'indirect', and to the uninformed will appear incongruous or mysterious. add in a dash of self-importance and the wealth to be idle, and you end up with .... philosophy.

 

i hope you mean they see what they think is such & such. Obviously, the time involved in such a process does not lend itself to human observation.

How can you say this? this is only speculation. As far as we know, the universe extends forever in infinite space. It is pure speculation to hypothesize anything else. There is no way to be dogmatic about someone's 'theory' about what lies beyond visible space.

They can argue it all they want. Science is about what you can prove, empirically, not about speculating about what we can imagine. That is called science fiction. If someone wants to theorize the ability of matter to organize itself into complexity, they will have to demonstrate a process or mechanism that does it. Theorizing that there is some unknown natural process that organized the universe is no different than appealing to gods.

Maybe. And maybe we'll discover God. Or Bigfoot. Or the lochness monster. That is faith, or perhaps wishful thinking. As far as we KNOW, we are all there is. We have NO evidence of life beyond the earth.

Agreed. If we're going to be consistent, we cannot 'believe' in aliens, but have skepticism about the supernatural. they are both beyond the ability of empirical science to prove.

 

So, you think the angst of humanity is just animal frustration? the millennia of philosophers, gurus, debates, theorizing, searching, sleepless nights, & soul wrenching cries for understanding are all just an animal frustration of not being able to get a snack out of a hole in a rock? Ok. That is a pretty simplistic view of man, but if that is how you see it, fine.
Omnipotence compared to the vast amount of things we DO NOT know, yet pretend to. Human arrogance, especially in the realm of origins, the universe, the supernatural, & the complexities of life are still mysteries, yet there are some who will dogmatically claim absolute knowledge. They do not, but they merely bluff & bluster, with no scientific evidence, or even sound logic.

You are merely assuming the answer to be '42'. You think the quest for understanding is absurd & it is all unknowable. It may be, but humans forever have sought the answers. Wise men, gurus, & philosophers have spent their lives searching for the answers to life's mysteries. Just because you are not interested in these things does not give you the right to ridicule other's life's quests.
Some search for the answers. Some pretend to have the answers. Some ridicule the questions. You do what you want to do, & others can do what they want to do. ..that work for you?

I see. 1-3 you like the answer '42'. Life is absurd, & there is no meaning or purpose. ..could be. That is the point of such philosophical musings, to examine what the possibilities are.
#4 is a bit of a stretch. This is perhaps you projecting human angst onto dolphins or monkeys. You have no idea about their mental states, & no other mammals seem able to deal with abstracts like humans do. Communication is much simpler, relating to mating or survival. Humans grapple with abstract concepts of infinity, eternity, & alternate dimensions. I don't think you can prove that other mammals do this.

 

You misunderstand. Or I don't communicate well - either way. This isn't about NOT asking questions. I'm a science geek, so I'm all for asking questions. This is about the angst element - the personal. I don't understand why we listen to that particular monkey voice to the point of angst. And it IS a monkey voice - albeit a confused one. It's a brain smart to enough to ask abstract questions, but too limited to get answers to those questions. As for the 'supernatural realm', you'd need to define what that is, before science (or in fact anyone) can actually look for or at it.

Once again, the only people claiming to have all the answers are theists.

I have no problem with philosophical musings, when they're on the science or intellectualism side of things. It's when it devolves into a self-focused angst party that I have no time for it.

Higher social mammals have been long been observed to be confused by death. Some even appear to have considerable understanding of its permanence. More than can be said for some humans.

 

Why not? There had to be a cause for the universe. What was it? It certainly didn't create itself. And which is more logical? All of existence just happening for no reason at all, or a all powerful being, who exists outside of space and time creating it. There has to be a primal cause for everything. And this cause must be eternal, without beginning or end. Otherwise you're stuck with an infinite regression of causes. Something that science tells us is impossible. The only thing that fits the bill is God. No other explanation makes any sense.

 

The least logical explanation, imaginable, is that the universe was created by a magical jewish man living in the sky. I doubt it's actually possible to come up with anything more absurd.

 

So you're saying that the belief that it just happened all by itself isn't absurd? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one. Keep believing that.

 

I'm not saying anything - I'm a human being, therefore have no idea how the universe started.

For all I know the lizard king from the horsehead nebula created earth and uses it as an 'ant farm'. Or we could be a CGI for a bad sci fi made by someone named JJ Abrahams in the next universe. Or the universe could have been here forever but in a different form. We could speculate all day ... but deciding on one answer (and an infantile one at that) is laziness and vanity. Laziness because it gives us permission to desist from thinking further, and vanity because we make the answer 'personal'.

 

And then there are people like you. You reject the obvious fact that the universe is the result of intelligent design. You do this because you have rejected God, so that you can be your own god. So that you can live your life as you please. Keep thinking that. You will stand before your Creator one day to be judged. What excuse are you going to give Him? I know you think I'm crazy, or just plain stupid. I bet you think all Christians are stupid and ignorant. Well. That means the majority of the planet is. I guess that the very small percentage of atheists are the only sane ones, huh?

 

I can see I hit a raw nerve. I'm sorry about that.

Sadly, I'm not unfamiliar with the venom excreted by Christians when their scaffolding is given a shake. The very reason I feel bad for them - rather than assume they're stupid or ignorant. Of course, some ARE ignorant and stupid, but most are handed the burden by 'well meaning' parents.

 

What metric is used to differentiate the unknown from the unknowable?

 

Actually, you hit nothing. And what venom are you referring too? I'm merely stating the facts, as I see them. My scaffolding is firm because it is based on the infallible word of God. And your last comment is simply absurd. There are many Christians who are former atheists. You are implying that I'm a victim of indoctrination. I could say the same thing about children of atheists parents who have gone to public school. There is also the fact that many of the brightest minds in history also believed in God. I guess you think they're idiots also.

 

I dunno, Rob. I don't have a metric for that question

 

You resorted to old "well you'll be sorry when you die" that some retreat to when things get icky. It's the debate equivalent of "ah .... um .... ah ..... well you stink!"

'some of the brightest minds in history believed in god'? seriously? wow, what a world changing fact ... especially since until very bloody recently, pretty much everyone on the planet believed in god. and don't kid yourself that most of them weren't there by force or compulsion - because that's the only way religions can sustain themselves. make religion a CHOICE, the way it is in 2015 in the west, and people leave it in droves.

Were did I say YOU were the victim of indoctrination? I said many are, I didn't say you are. In the meantime, I'm an atheist parent, the child of atheists, and I was never indoctrinated into atheism. religion just wasn't mentioned at all until we were past the age of reason - then it was introduced even-handedly (with no single religion getting focus). Likewise, I would not tell my own kids there is no god/s, or that they should not believe in gods, and would not discourage them from their own enquiries into religions. One of mine even attends voluntary scripture classes at her PUBLIC high school, and I have no problem with it. Most atheists are not brainwashers.

 

It is impossible to say the something is obvious without providing credible facts as to whether or not it is obvious. That's frankly really asinine. I'm not here to bash your beliefs or say you're wrong for believing in a higher power as that is only your prerogative but at least try and make a claim with some credible facts.

 

The thing about the religious beliefs of bright men of science is really essentially a fallacy, as it implies that religion had something to do with their work.

Yet, scientific method is based on evidence, not belief. There is no room for proposing God as part of a scientific result.

So, take a look!

Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Galileo, Darwin, Descartes, ... The list scientists who held beliefs in the supernatural goes on and on and on.

BUT, these people also share a characteristic other than their scientific advancement - their religion does not show up in the work for which they are known. One of their strengths was that they were able to separate their religion from their science, so they could strictly focus on evidence.


This should point to the importance of our programs of science education including this separation. Those who don't manage that separation really have no future in science. So, one might ask why one would bother teaching science in a way that is guaranteed to incapacitate the student.