Cosmic Indifference: What do you do after you realise the Universe doesn't care?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Still, the google searches and resultant information has low or no relevance to threeps comments/conclusions' , or maybe I misunderstood threeps reply.

How precious. Let's recap ...

• You fabricate a claim.
• It's show to be wrong.
• You blather something about how it's no big deal because the fabrication was irrelevant.

OK ...

 

[metis]

I have a problem with the "International Scientific Conspiracy against God" approach.

 

[Milton Platt]

If there is no god, man has no special place or significance in creation. The universe was not "created" for us. We are simply here. we may be the result of underlying physical processes, but it does not carry any moral significance. I realise bringing this up in the context of atheism will necessarily be controversial because the term has such varied definitions but I wanted to discuss how people respond to the realisation that life has no purpose, meaning or significance beyond the fact we simply are here and have our own experience of pleasure and pain. that is our measure of right or wrong, but there is nothing really "objective" about it. its just how we evolved to sense of surroundings and what is in the interests of our survival as living organisms. our intellect is only one step away from that.

I think anyone here- regardless of their beliefs- may understand what I mean if you think about Outer-space. You can look up in the sky and the "universe" is out there, billions of light years in any direction. And here we are on this one tiny piece of rock hurtling round a giant ball of molten gas, and as tiny particles of organic matter with an infinitesimally small lifespan by comparison, we try to comprehend our significance amidst it all. why is the universe so peaceful when mankind is so violent? Is that a consequence of our egotism or do natures conflicts simply work on different timescales?

Maybe in thousands of years we will have spread out across other planets or stars, and found the secret to faster than light speed travel. It is possible, we may not make it that far, as we have no natural right to take our existence on his planet for granted. life is not a right. life just is. each of us can lose it, but the species may survive. And perhaps we can be convinced that it must be so. These are questions that those future generations will have to ponder as they go out into the vast open emptiness of outer space, and perhaps overcome the egotism of the adolescence of human history as we advance to become a global and then a planetary civilisation. what will our descendants say of us in a thousand or even million years time? Who will be there to greet us, if anyone at all?

I leave you with Carl Sagan's speech on the Pale Blue Dot. I don't have the answer, but it is none the less an interesting question of how we see ourselves in the context of a (practically) infinite universe and whether that it something frightening or liberating.

It has no difference on my life because I never assumed it did care..........

 

[Walter Russell]

If there is no god, man has no special place or significance in creation. The universe was not "created" for us. We are simply here. we may be the result of underlying physical processes, but it does not carry any moral significance. I realise bringing this up in the context of atheism will necessarily be controversial because the term has such varied definitions but I wanted to discuss how people respond to the realisation that life has no purpose, meaning or significance beyond the fact we simply are here and have our own experience of pleasure and pain. that is our measure of right or wrong, but there is nothing really "objective" about it. its just how we evolved to sense of surroundings and what is in the interests of our survival as living organisms. our intellect is only one step away from that.

I think anyone here- regardless of their beliefs- may understand what I mean if you think about Outer-space. You can look up in the sky and the "universe" is out there, billions of light years in any direction. And here we are on this one tiny piece of rock hurtling round a giant ball of molten gas, and as tiny particles of organic matter with an infinitesimally small lifespan by comparison, we try to comprehend our significance amidst it all. why is the universe so peaceful when mankind is so violent? Is that a consequence of our egotism or do natures conflicts simply work on different timescales?

Maybe in thousands of years we will have spread out across other planets or stars, and found the secret to faster than light speed travel. It is possible, we may not make it that far, as we have no natural right to take our existence on his planet for granted. life is not a right. life just is. each of us can lose it, but the species may survive. And perhaps we can be convinced that it must be so. These are questions that those future generations will have to ponder as they go out into the vast open emptiness of outer space, and perhaps overcome the egotism of the adolescence of human history as we advance to become a global and then a planetary civilisation. what will our descendants say of us in a thousand or even million years time? Who will be there to greet us, if anyone at all?

I leave you with Carl Sagan's speech on the Pale Blue Dot. I don't have the answer, but it is none the less an interesting question of how we see ourselves in the context of a (practically) infinite universe and whether that it something frightening or liberating.

I'd feel cheated looking up at that cosmos knowing the orbs of space will exist for eons and all I got was 1 shot for 80-100 years if I was lucky.
I'd probably be too scared to leave the house for fear of dying in an accident and being cheated with an even shorter existance.

Honestly I have quite a few atheist friends and I can't understand why they aren't depressed as hell.
And as hard as it would have been for evolution to get me to this point, i'd be even further lost in the reasoning.
In a case like that It would make more sense if evolution just evolved each species to replicate itself over and over rather than distinctly seperate "individuals" that would only exist 1 time for a very brief period.

Just my two cent

 

[Milton Platt]

I'd feel cheated looking up at that cosmos knowing the orbs of space will exist for eons and all I got was 1 shot for 80-100 years if I was lucky.
I'd probably be too scared to leave the house for fear of dying in an accident and being cheated with an even shorter existance.

Honestly I have quite a few atheist friends and I can't understand why they aren't depressed as hell.
And as hard as it would have been for evolution to get me to this point, i'd be even further lost in the reasoning.
In a case like that It would make more sense if evolution just evolved each species to replicate itself over and over rather than distinctly seperate "individuals" that would only exist 1 time for a very brief period.

Just my two cent

Believing that there is a god does not make it true. If fantasy cheers you up, go for it. And if there is a god, it still does not mean you are special.

 

[Walter Russell]

Believing that there is a god does not make it true. If fantasy cheers you up, go for it. And if there is a god, it still does not mean you are special.

It depends on what you deem god to be.
I don't believe some bearded man looking deity is coming to save me from the world. I think we can agree that a belief of that nature has no substance.
If we are talking about a conscious presence that is the cause to the effect of our reality evidenced by the complex mathematical and geometrical patterns that template all of creation than I have no need to look any further than the way man creates to understand the intelligence behind the creation of man himself and the universe.

Its cool if you don't see it the way I do but don't play like my belief based on my own observation and understanding is nothing more than wishfull thinking.
To the contrary I feel as though its takes alot of effort on your part to ignore the intelligence behind the design.

 

[Milton Platt]

It depends on what you deem god to be.
I don't believe some bearded man looking deity is coming to save me from the world. I think we can agree that a belief of that nature has no substance.
If we are talking about a conscious presence that is the cause to the effect of our reality evidenced by the complex mathematical and geometrical patterns that template all of creation than I have no need to look any further than the way man creates to understand the intelligence behind the creation of man himself and the universe.

Its cool if you don't see it the way I do but don't play like my belief based on my own observation and understanding is nothing more than wishfull thinking.
To the contrary I feel as though its takes alot of effort on your part to ignore the intelligence behind the design.

I agree....we do not have to agree. I do not see the dots going from a complex universe to intelligent agent. It sounds like you are saying that since you have no other explanation, you are simply inserting that belief. That would be an arguement from ignorance. You should first demonstrate the intelligent agent exists, and then you still have to demonstrate how it is responsible for creating anything.

That being said, I do respect your right to believe what you wish.

 

[Walter Russell]

I agree....we do not have to agree. I do not see the dots going from a complex universe to intelligent agent. It sounds like you are saying that since you have no other explanation, you are simply inserting that belief. That would be an arguement from ignorance. You should first demonstrate the intelligent agent exists, and then you still have to demonstrate how it is responsible for creating anything.

That being said, I do respect your right to believe what you wish.

Its cool we don't agree. I understand that a masterpiece in art is created in the artist mind first. Then the masterpiece is intelligently painted on the canvas. Wavefields are gods canvas and electricity is his paint and the universe we observe is his masterpiece.
Thats logical reasoning based on observation.
Not wishful thinking lavking substance.

Peace

 

[Nietzsche]

I have a problem with the "International Scientific Conspiracy against God" approach.

That's probably because you don't have brain damage.

 

[metis]

That's probably because you don't have brain damage.

You obviously have never talked to my wife.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

How precious. Let's recap ...

• You fabricate a claim.
• It's show to be wrong.
• You blather something about how it's no big deal because the fabrication was irrelevant.

OK ...

Hostile, hostile eh? Better pour yourself a warm milk toddy and relax before you have a coronary.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I have a problem with the "International Scientific Conspiracy against God" approach.

Lol I suppose so. Maybe the 'science' establishment wasn't the sole motivator. However, it is safe to say atheist scientists have an a priori commitment to materialism that causes them to be biased. Richard Lewontin's review of one of Carl Sagan's books* said ;

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Now, I don't think all the worlds top atheist scientist etc gather in a darkened room and conspire do anything nefarious. However I do believe there is an unspoken dislike of all things God or lets be more accurate substitute 'God' with 'metaphysical'. Its natural that this dislike trickles down to infect or minimize much theory, especially cutting edge cosmological theory such as TOE's and related theory of the universes origins. Ah' how I wish the Vienna Circle was filled with more Gödel's and less or no Wittgenstein's Wittgenstein’s!

* The Demon Haunted World.....'Science as a Candle in the Dark'

 

[metis]

...Now, I don't think all the worlds top atheist scientist etc gather in a darkened room and conspire do anything nefarious. However I do believe there is an unspoken dislike of all things God or intelligent design etc and it trickles down to infect or minimize much theory, especially cutting edge cosmological theory such as TOE's and related theory of the universes origins.

Sorry, but I operated within the scientific realm for decades, and the above is simply not true, and I think it's just a convenient excuse to dismiss what the research is actually indicating.

 

[metis]

Oh, btw, as a point of clarification, most cosmologists and physicists are not theists, but overwhelmingly there's more agnostics than there are out-and-out atheists within their ranks. In the case of cosmologists, according to a Pew survey of scientists, less than 10% are actually atheists. And agnostics are not at all likely to be biased with their research to somehow disprove or ignore there's a God or Gods because their theological position is one of not knowing whether there's one, more than one, or none at all.

As Joe Biden might say, the idea that "atheistic scientists" dominate the scientific scene is "malarkey".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hostile, hostile eh?

I don't feel at all hostile. But if it somehow helps you to think otherwise, feel free. You've already managed to show yourself to be more than capable of fabricating your 'facts' ...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

rit


I am so happy to see people of like minds in this forum! I totally agree with your reply. As you pointed out the idea of gradualism ushering in new species is now being replaced by PE. In other words an important part of evolutionary theory is/was simply wrong. The 'scientific establishment' cant bear to admit ID (creation) may be an viable alternative explanation for rapid appearance of new species so they chose PE. It seems like 'Evolution' (as in the original 'Origin of the species by the means of natural selection) is being changed so much by mentioned changes and additions it is almost a new theory!

Yes, certainly according to Darwin, he was entirely open about potential fatal flaws in the theory, by his own arguments, he would acknowledge them today.

Followers of Darwinism today would have a lot to debate with him!

In any case, to change subject a bit, can I add another causality of good theory to your list? I believe the standard big bang theory is on its way to a fate similar to evolution. As soon as the BB's theistic implications became brutally apparent and those implications began to be used to explain how creation is a rational and equal explanation as to how the universe began, the atheist theorists began casting doubt on the parts of big bang theory that most supported ID (intelligent design). In the 'modern age' William Craig, and many other Christian PhD and other apologists with specialties ranging from cosmology to philosophy to biology were using those parts of the big bang to win debates with atheist apologist scientists and others in defending theistic explanations for the origins of the universe and other subjects. I believe their success was a catalyst and motivator to encourage atheist scientists and 'atheist friendly' skeptics to cast doubt on the validity of the standard (hot model) Big Bang theory. If not the entire theory at least parts of it. A very good article about such God is dead skullduggery is here;

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html

yes, good point, and I think that is a continuation of the same subject really, -

'a brief history of time' from the atheist point of view;

the universe is static, eternal, no creation hence no creator

Okay, so maybe it looks like it had a beginning, but that's just an illusion (steady state)

Okay maybe it really did have a beginning, but that's just part of a cyclical system, the universe expands and collapses repeatedly (big crunch)

Okay, so it looks like it's expanding indefinitely and won't collapse...

hmmm, well how about an invisible infinite probability machine which can create absolutely anything and everything?* (multiverse)

* oops, except God of course!



So yes I agree entirely, most atheists still refuse to acknowledge the BB as a beginning/ creation event. Even though scientifically, it is the absolute beginning, creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly ever know it

Once again the theist accepts the scientific evidence as is, the atheist must interject additional philosophical speculation to get around it

God be with you and this forum ~

Thank you, and you!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Occam's Razor serves us well, I'm not sure why you have a problem with it.

classical physics

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I finally broke down and scored a new PC, loved XP but win 10 and the machine that runs it is stable unlike the biomachine that thinks it knows something about the universe. Any this biomachine hopes to be a better member and be a little nicer since smoke has ceased coming from my ears due to a herkey jerkey freeze, do it again pc machine.

So yes I agree entirely, most atheists still refuse to acknowledge the BB as a beginning/ creation event. Even though scientifically, it is the absolute beginning, creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly ever know it
Once again the theist accepts the scientific evidence as is, the atheist must interject additional philosophical speculation to get around it

I would be a hypocrite if I criticized atheists who allow their emotions i.e. their worldview of atheism etc to influence of 'flavor' the way knowledge and truth are determined. My ideas are influenced because I am sure God exists. So isn't it obvious, that we all are influenced by our world view sometimes even to the point of corrupting evidence supported and fact based assessments. What smokes my shorts is dishonesty, extreme bigotry and or one-upmanship, either from 'scientific' materialism or the metaphysical side of the coin. A short smokin' example is when an atheist switches or modifies his or others theory etc due to theistic implications being discovered or popularized. Sometimes its admitted most times its not.

Similarly classical physics was held to be a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, leaving no room for mysterious unpredictable forces guiding the universe. Again, no coincidence that Max Planck (quantum mechanics) was a staunch skeptic of atheism.

True. However, I am not too fearful that metaphysics will be fully minimalized, because some theory such as the MWT takes more faith and wishful thinking than any religious or metaphysical theory....

God Bless this forum and all that want to be blessed~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

classical physics

Hey Guy, maybe Occmans razor is our friend! What reduces more Complexity and is more simple than God did it? Lol, in all seriousness I employ Occmans theory in my version of the KCA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hey Guy, maybe Occmans razor is our friend! What reduces more Complexity and is more simple than God did it? Lol, in all seriousness I employ Occmans theory in my version of the KCA.

I agree in the sense that 'God did it' is the least improbable answer.. and simpler in that it removes the need for the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Multiverse!)