The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

Yes, very much 'philosophy', as you have done here as well! This is a nice, philosophical anecdote, & has good philosophical lessons for humanity. It does not alter the fact that the monk is dead by now, eaten by one of the tigers, or of your PHILOSOPHICAL conclusions about the meaning & purpose of life. Others could argue that it does not matter if the monk was eaten by the tigers, or killed the tigers, or just escaped from the tigers. It is all pointless & absurd.

 

Oh, i know that many try to 'blend' the 2 options, but that is a logical fallacy, & requires us to suspend reason & embrace altered consciousness or fuzzy redefinitions. But i'm stuck in the natural world, & can only see things from a human, empirical perspective. So there is either a naturalistic explanation, that requires NO metaphysics, or there is a metaphysical reality that we cannot perceive with our natural senses. Blending them is just admitting to the second option, since if there is a metaphysical reality, that answers the question. If there is, there is. If there isn't, there isn't. That seems pretty simple & obvious to me, & i see no need to obscure the simplicity of this with altered consciousness reasoning.

 

A case could be made for "natural theology"...Deism if you will...that a Supreme Intelligence initiated the Big Bang and set in motion the natural processes of physics and biology which gave rise to the stars, the planets, life on certain planets, and even intelligent life.

The problem is that many Christians falsely then use that to leap to "sacred theology"....the idea that it was a "personal, loving God who cares about each individual human being" and who deliberately set about to create not just the Universe or even Earth....but Mankind.

Dishonestly, it is also used by some who are Creationist Christians...who go even further and make the Snake River Evel Knieval LEAP from that argument for Deism....to a belief that the simplistic and primitive and clearly false and illogical "Genesis" myth is "true".

 

Well, sure. IMO this is the default position for most people. They believe in God, but they also believe in evolution. Obviously, this blend of 'beliefs' is possible. They have, at their core, a mystical belief in the supernatural, but they also believe that naturalism explains *some* of 'what God hath done'.

So in essence, these people are simply supernaturalists.. they do not hold to a purely naturalistic view of the universe, but a hybrid.. a blend of the 2, which still allows a supernatural explanation. So it is, in effect, a supernatural view of the universe.

This does not mean their 'beliefs' have any empirical evidence, but the naturalists do not, either. Both rest on beliefs of origins that are outside of empirical science. I will remind of the original premise in the OP:

I see 2 basic options for Origins:
1. All matter & life was created by an unknown being or beings: Supernatural Design.
2. All matter & life happened by accident, via unknown natural processes: Natural Accident.

There really is no other option. Even alien seeding is a supernatural explanation, since we have no empirical evidence of this, either. Unseen, unknown, unprovable aliens are just as 'supernatural' as deities.

 

The thing is, there is no way of knowing if there is a supernatural or metaphysical cause of the universe, but I can see the natural processes all around me. This is why I choose to follow science instead of religion. I have no way on knowing which religion is even right much less if there really is a "true" one.

 

Call it a who or a what. It doesn't matter.

 

There is a need to get unstuck, because the naturalistic explanation doesn't cut it and never will because quantum mechanics has shown that the source of physical reality is unnatural, i.e subatomic confuscation, quarks popping in and out of existence, electrons in zero time orbits, probable sharing through links to the multiverse, extra dimensions, etc. The source is waveform energy that expresses reality through probability distributions as it converts to physical certainty such as particles when value is locked in upon cognition or recording of measurement. This was determined about 90 years ago, and human nature has been trying unsuccessfully to deny it ever since. Now the number of deniers are shrinking at an accelerating pace.

Perception of the universal mind is possible with training, practice, and determination. Those who know how can readily switch back and forth between the two states and even parallel process. Empirical scientific methods have been applied to produce a consensus of findings based on their experiences/explorations. You can call that non-drug induced tinkering with altered states of consciousness if you wish, but more widespread embracing of it is inevitable. It's the only route available for further progress beyond refinement of practical applications. Humanity is evolving. Welcome to the future.

 

IMO, this is a completely rational position. I think it is the default one for humans, once you factor out any indoctrination. But i see another problem: Belief masquerading as science. People shroud philosophical beliefs in scientific terms, & call them 'science'. This does true science a disservice, imo, & cheapens it. It is completely possible to hold beliefs that are not proven by the scientific method. It just requires the ability to distinguish between them.. the thing i have not observed in humans much. Too much 'blending' goes on, with the lines blurred between empirical facts & beliefs.

It is also a completely rational position to 'infer' natural processes, since that is what we observe today. Extrapolating that to millennia past is logical, & requires no mental gymnastics. IOW, there should be obvious & scientifically plausible explanations for our origins, based on naturalistic processes. The problem is, there are not. We know we are here. But HOW we got here is beyond our ability to conclude, with our current knowledge base. But as i have said, that is unsatisfying, so we fill in the gaps with guesses & speculation, often phrasing them in technical jargon for an appearance of authoritativeness.

But at this juncture in our information timeline, we don't have much info about our origins.. so some hypothesize a supernatural origin, while others speculate a natural one. But neither are provable by scientific methodology, so we are left with the unknown & a few beliefs. We know quite a bit, of the empirical realm, but there is a lot that we don't. Much of the naturalistic conclusions about origins are like Reagan's famous quote: '“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” ~Ronald Reagan ..have to interject some politics in here, somehow.. this is PF, so it is expected.

 

You're still making a leap (of "faith" if you will) when you say "believe in God".....you mean the "loving personal God who cares about me"?

That's 1000 yards away at another goal-post from a "Supreme Intelligent Creative Force that initiated the Big Bang and 'arranged' for certain laws of physics, and maybe biology."

It's the difference between a kid who has a beloved dog as a pet that he bought at the pet store....

and a person who draws a picture of a rock....and somebody else claims that that person "has a pet rock that they love and care for."

 

No, i'm not talking about any specifics.. just the concept of 'creator vs naturalism'. That has enough mind boggling possibilities without going into any dogmatic descriptions of this creator. Considering the universe we live in, i don't know what conclusions can be drawn 'about' God. But from a purely logical position, there seems to be an either/or.. either we came about through natural processes, or there were supernatural ones.

Like i said earlier, this would include the concept of alien seeding, which many people believe. I just don't see much difference between that & any supernatural explanation.

 

Pretty deep stuff, Gele.. but i'm sure you mean this as just a belief, as there is no way you can prove this, either by empiricism or any 'altered consciousness' sense that you claim 'human nature' has. I have a hard enough time with reality, without having to take into account every possible imaginary imagination of reality. Allowing for the possibility of a metaphysical realm is a pretty big leap, without trying to analyze the conditions of this realm with some alleged new senses.

“I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal.” ~Groucho Marx

I do accept that IF there is a possibility of a metaphysical reality, then it would make sense that this 'reality' would intrude from time to time into the natural. This is a possible explanation for many of the mysteries that have no plausible naturalistic explanation. Now, that doesn't prove much to the naturalistic skeptic, but it certainly works for people who already have a supernatural view of the universe.

I don't think it is fair to call the skeptic a 'denier' which implies some kind of absolute knowledge of this as fact, & IF there is indeed a spiritual realm, AND IF this realm is possible to perceive from some kind of innate human sense, THEN it is safe to assume it to be a 'natural' sense.. IOW, something universal with all humans, & not just to some elite or privileged few. BUT, if you're claiming some kind of special power or ability that is beyond normal man, then that smacks of elitism, or plain old hucksterism to con people out of their money while you enlighten them about the supernatural. Wasn't that the role of priests, witchdoctors, shaman, wizards, & sorcerers? As someone who has gone through the enlightenment, it won't be easy to drag me back to attributing special powers & abilities to an elite class, who always seem to need to be supported lavishly.

 

1. It is still basically you hoping for confirmation of your concept of God ...from others...by getting them to agree to a natural theology argument. But under natural theology ...every aspect of evolution and cosmology still works WITHOUT "divine intervention".

You can say "God started the Big Bang and set up the laws of physics"...that's fine. But one nano-second after the Big Bang....."God"...could have abandoned his "creation" or even DIED....and the universe, life on Earth, the rise of Man would look exactly the same.

The "supernatural" or "metaphysical" "reality"....could have ceased to exist at the moment of the Big Bang....couldn't it?

2. As for "alien seeding"....it's not "supernatural". Aliens would be a material, biological entities....not "ghosts" or "angels". Plus the actual theory is more along the lines of COMETS seeding the Earth with amino acids or unicellular life.....but again, comets are simple material objects not "supernatural entities."

 

1. On this thread? Read the OP again. I'm not looking for any 'confirmation'. This is an exercise in existential thought, angst, & pondering the mysteries of the universe.

And yes, that is another pop concept, especially among theists.. that God kick started everything via the 'big bang', & then left for vacation. But that is indeed a 'supernatural' view of origins, still. Then you have the difficult task of showing some kind of mechanism that does all the 'evolution' stuff of increasing complexity.. but that is for another thread, too.

2. I see alien seeding in the same camp as other supernatural explanations, but instead of an unseen all powerful god, you have unseen powerful beings, both of which used unknown processes to create life. The only quibble is the extent of their omniscience & power. But any 'being' able to traverse the universe, create life, & remain hidden from our perception is not any different, functionally, from a deity.. at least to us. That is mostly a definitional problem.
Why would alien seeding fall under 'naturalistic' origins, when we have nothing natural to explain them with? That is a quibble about definitions. It is still unseen, unknown, & mysterious.. maybe that is all God is, too.

I defined the terms early on. The OP had this:

I see 2 basic options for Origins:
1. All matter & life was created by an unknown being or beings: Supernatural Design.
2. All matter & life happened by accident, via unknown natural processes: Natural Accident.

Alien seeding implies intelligent design, another way of saying supernatural design, which would not be a purely random accident of nature. They would fall under 'supernatural' from our perspective, since it is just as 'otherworldly' as postulating any metaphysical being or beings.

But its not a big deal.. you can put alien seeding under 'accident of nature' if you wish. We can assume, for the sake of argument, that they employ only natural methods for their seeding & life creation. And since it has no more evidence than any other 'theory', it is just as valid as an explanation for the mysteries of life.

 

You flatter yourself.

 

There is a 3rd Option you have not considered.

I will need to use a bit of Logic to explain it.

We no NON-EXISTENCE is IMPOSSIBLE because I am typing this right now.....and thus EXISTENCE must first be defined at it's most basic level.

What is the most basic existence level in the Universe or Multiverse or at the very least PART of the MULTIVERSE?

Quanta.....Quantum Particle/Wave Forms of Energy.

Examples......Photons, Electrons, Quarks, Gluons, Higgs-Bosons....and a few other Exotic Mesons..etc.

What do these Quanta Comprise?

ALL MATTER AND ENERGY ANIMATE OR NOT!!!

Is the Quanta that comprises a Human Being any different that the Quanta that comprises a ROCK....or a PIECE OF WOOD.....or a PLANT.....or an INSECT.....or a STAR...etc?

Answer.....NO!!!

Question.....Is there a difference between Matter and Energy?

Answer....NO! All Matter is completely comprised upon it's smallest on most basic level of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms of Energy.

Thus Option #3......at least in our Baseline Reality Universal Grouping within the Multiverse where in our Grouping all Infinite in Number Divergent Universal states of Reality all have the same natural physical laws but each are all slightly different......MINIMUM 10-D Universal Space-Time created by the White Hole Big Bang Ejection of Quanta results in BOTH MATTER AND ENERGY SOME ANIMATE SOME NOT but over time such Quanta can exist as BOTH!!

As you are what you eat.....and LIFE is a byproduct of the Universe.

AboveAlpha

 

Naw...I am better at doing that!!!

What he should have said is....Perception of the Baseline Reality Universal Grouping mind is possible with training, practice, and determination.

OK...I am patting myself on my back now! LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

Which leaves me with the eternal puzzle, why the f.u.c.k. so we bother to ask questions about 'The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything' when we haven't the slightest idea what it is we're even asking?
We are a most peculiar species so addicted to certainty we delude ourselves we'll survive death intact.

 

Some people cannot psychologically handle even the possibility that when they die that's it!!

That is why some people are so Religious.

And in my experience....the more religious a person is....the more fearful of dying without an existing afterlife they are.

Absolutely terrified of this concept some are.

AboveAlpha

 

A tipping point will be reached when mainstream science sees so many people jumping on the bandwagon of the new paradigm that they can no longer afford to ignore it. Science will then lay claim to be the authority on it like they always do and then it will no longer be a metaphysical subject.

The double slit experiment is suitable proof, but the general tendency is to avoid full realization of its impact. Other proof is in the form of personal experience, but that is not claimed as proof to others.

The leap is not so terribly big. You have your pieces of the action: you have consciousness, you experience growth and progression, and you know that information can exist in the invisible energy realms (radio and TV waves, etc.).

"Imaginary imagination of reality" is not appropriate or applicable. For example, remote viewing is not imaginary quackery.

It does intrude, but it is generally kept minimized and random. Our reality is a subset of a larger reality wherein the rules and constraints are less strict compared to ours. Ours features logical physical causality and consistency in order to provide an optimal learning environment. The paranormal is not allowed to become pervasive and commonplace in this reality.

Yes, it is unfair to cite the uninformed as being in denial. However, those who brush aside what was discovered 90 years ago and cling to the old paradigm are deniers.

It is not reserved for any special class of people or people with unusual abilities, just as meditation is not subject to any kind of exclusiveness.

 

Putting aside for now your evalution of the meaning of the double slit experiment and certain claimed results from nuclear physics have you ever pondered the validity of your experiences when in altered states such as meditation? I ask from the perspective of one who practiced strict tantric yoga ( not the watered down western sexualised version) for seven years. Nothing I experienced ( if we can use the term 'I' in such a context) would validate the kinds of conclusions you claim.

 

That's only part of the answer. Our species is prone to 'religious' experiences that can and do have profound mind altering effects.
Having said that I'm not claiming these experiences are anything other than internally altered mind states. Some, such as i did when practicing tantric yoga, can live through such intense happenings yet still keep their feet on the ground and not throw their greatest gift, the power of logical thought, out the window. Others minds are so altered they not only lose all touch with logic making them vulnerable to whatever theological gibberish that's pushed at them but go on to insist on pushing their 'evidence' on others as proof such hallucinations were 'real'. There is little point in arguing with anyone who has allowed these experiences to overtake all common sense.
Organised religion's power comes from having developed well thought out means of inducing these states and then manipulating the subjects whilst in a vulnerable state. The brainwashing of children with guilt and fear of hell etc is another and far dirtier game.
If their is a creator, he/she/it would most probably be disgusted with the priesthood/priestess-hood of our species and their cynical manipulation of their followers.

 

Nice profound thinking there, AA.. very thought provoking.

I still do not see the other option. Even if you define all matter & life as 'energy', the EXPRESSION of the various forms of energy is locked in a constant. Matter remains matter, even if it changes its composition or state. Energy moves about the universe freely in the form of heat & light.. aka, radiation.

And since all living things (that we can observe) consist of matter, their life is tied to that expression. Once the life is gone, the matter decays & becomes lifeless. The source of the life is unknown, & disappears from our natural senses. It is speculation & a philosophical construct to hypothesize imaginary possibilities that are based more in altered consciousness thinking, rather than anything empirical.

And while i like speculating about the universe & possibilities, without the constants of visible reality, there are too may variables of imagination. Without some grounding in reality, hypothetical imaginings will leave us tossed about in a sea of fantasy, with no basis in the material universe.

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

I am having trouble grasping just what you mean, even abstractly, with the 3rd option. I don't know if you can explain it more simply, or show an example of how there can be a 3rd option in the 'supernatural/natural' dichotomy. But i would be very interested in some clarification, if you can.

 

Ah, we come to the crux of the matter. WHY do we do this? Why do philosophers, gurus, shaman, witchdoctors, & scientists grapple constantly with these questions? And they ALWAYS have! this is hardly a new thing.

And we still don't know! We don't even have a consensus! IMO, i see a basically 3 'answers' to these Eternal Questions of Man.
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

IMO, those who answer #3 are merely assuming #2, but that is a fine point.

Of course death is a big part of it. But the source of life, the impossibility of it all, & plain old curiosity also factor in. Death might be a major factor for some, but for many others, death is just another reality of life, which also defies explanation. What is this Life? How did it come to be? Is there any point to it? These are constant, nagging questions for humanity, & there is NO simple, obvious, consensual explanation. You just get dogmatic assertions of Truth, but it is all based on opinion.

 

+1
I agree. this has been the pattern of human history, & it has not changed. Biases & turfs have to be protected, & cries of 'Blasphemy!' await those who say otherwise. Still, for a metaphysical reality to be accepted, there will need to be some kind of empiricism.. some way of observing or defining this reality, even if it remains beyond the scope of traditional science to analyze.

For the 'deniers' to come around, they will need to see more evidence of this 'intrusion' from the metaphysical realm into the physical one. IMO, some people see it, or at least they believe they do. But the danger i still see is the elitist view this promotes.. some kind of special sense is needed, which rubs empirical people the wrong way. We have escaped from millennia of domination by spiritists, witchdoctors, priests, shaman & wizards, only to allow a new class of 'enlightened' superiors? No, it will have to become plainly evident to all, with NO special abilities, for it to become mainstream & fit within a world of reason. I am not ready to cast out reason for any & every claim that man can make. We still HAVE to retain some skepticism, & insist on reason & evidence. Mere assertion is not enough.

 

good points. This is an important factor, when analyzing any metaphysical claims. But the mere existence of frauds do not FORCE a conclusion that ALL are frauds, no more than the existence of wrong answers in any discipline means there is not a correct one.

IOW, it is good to be skeptical, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And i do agree that this 'manipulation' by scoundrels & charlatans has left many without a baby at all! They threw it all out, & are now left with nothing of substance in their perception of the supernatural, so they cynically conclude materialism. But this is not an empirical decision. It is based on bias, disgust, & observed flaws in the claims of others. they are letting the influences of other people, either for or against the belief, color their perception. That is merely a peer induced reality, not based on anything of substance within the individual. It is a pathetic surrender of the quest for Truth & Reality to the pop religion of the day. It is bandwagon philosophy, with no basis in personal thought or experience.