How amazing is it that we exist?

[TheGMan]

Bad choice of words on my part, perhaps. The anthropic argument is not the obvious answer, or the 'common sense' answer.

Peut-être... But I suspect there are an awful lot of people who feel that the anthropic argument is neither the obvious answer nor the 'common sense' answer to the question "Why does the universe exist?"

That does not usually prevent the theist from stopping his philosophical reductionism with God. Gods are usually surrounded by dogma anyway; ascribing a trivial purpose ("God was bored") is hardly out of phase.

Undoubtedly some do. Although equally I've heard it said that "His purposes are not ours to know."

 

[TeddyKGB]

Peut-être... But I suspect there are an awful lot of people who feel that the anthropic argument is neither the obvious answer nor the 'common sense' answer to the question "Why does the universe exist?"

It probably isn't. But, then, I wasn't trying to get there via reductio anyway.

Although I do submit that "Why does the universe exist?" has far fewer obvious interpretations.

Undoubtedly some do. Although equally I've heard it said that "His purposes are not ours to know."

Which is backhandedly ascribing a purpose nonetheless.

 

[TheGMan]

Although I do submit that "Why does the universe exist?" has far fewer obvious interpretations.

Not quite sure what you mean here. My point was simply that the anthropic argument doesn't really satisfy us over "Why does it rain?" (in any interpretation). Why should it be more satisfying when applied to "Why does the universe exist?"

Which is backhandedly ascribing a purpose nonetheless.

I don't think you ascribe a purpose when you answer "Why does the universe exist?" with "God made it." If you then ask "Why did God make it?" it seems that it's the questioner ascribing purpose rather than the one who answers, "His purposes are not ours to know."

 

[TeddyKGB]

Not quite sure what you mean here. My point was simply that the anthropic argument doesn't really satisfy us over "Why does it rain?" (in any interpretation). Why should it be more satisfying when applied to "Why does the universe exist?"

As before, I think "why" usually has a subtly different meaning in each question. It is, of course, up to the questioner whether she can be satisfied with any particular answer, but were those questions posed to me with no additional context, I would take the former "why" as "by what mechanisms" and the latter as "for what purpose."

I don't think you ascribe a purpose when you answer "Why does the universe exist?" with "God made it." If you then ask "Why did God make it?" it seems that it's the questioner ascribing purpose rather than the one who answers, "His purposes are not ours to know."

The concept of God is usually suffused with purposefulness in any case, but the latter answer begs the question of purpose outright.

 

[elman]

That's certainly a more cynical view than I take. It would be nice to learn all we can while we're alive, and contribute something to the future, whether or not our souls are there to see it flourish.

I agree it would be nice but if there is no God it matters not a whit to you after you die.

 

[JGL53]

...The concept of God is usually suffused with purposefulness in any case, but the latter answer begs the question of purpose outright.

Exactly. It's just verbal slight of hand, semantic prestidigitation, and linguistic legerdemain. The question "Why does the universe exist?" already assumes the universe exists for a purpose, thus it must have been intentionally brought into existence, thus there must be a godlike being (a god) that must exist also to be responsible for the universe’s existence.

Thus, in "asking a question" the alleged "answer" is assumed in the question. Thus the "question" is not in fact a real or sincere question, it is actually a statement or an argument merely presented in question form.

Religionists will never grow tired of this ploy. They think they (and it) are so, so clever.

They are wrong.

Ditto on the ever popular question by religionists of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” I usually reply “ Why is there a god rather than no god?”. When they reply, “Because god just is and always has been.”, I then retort “The universe just is and has always been. So – why are you multiplying causes beyond necessity?”

 

[elman]

]



Well, whether elman’s reaction to the idea of a non-created universe is cynical or egotistical or what, I think that the error is in offering the dilemma between the two choices of either 1. god or 2. accident. I really think it's more complicated that that. There is also at least the All is One concept, not to mention the open-ended “we can’t know” view of the agnostic.

If by all is one concept you mean God is everything, and I am not sure that is what you mean, I don't buy that I am God and being a drop of water that reenters the lake and is swolloed up by it when I die gives little comfort to me either nor does it answer the question why do I exist? If my reason for existence is the same as rock or bug, that is depressing. I hope for better.

Of course, believers in a personal god believe that god “just is”, thus requiring no further explanation or justification. In other words, to ask "Why does god exist rather no god?" or "What is the PURPOSE of god's existence?" are types of questions that make no sense to a believer in a personal god.

I think God was not created. I think this is what you were referring to and if I am correct then it is moot thinking about why God was created if He was not created. On the other hand if a Creator is responsible for my existence that raises the possiblity that He had a reason to do that and expects or hopes for some result as result of His going to the trouble of creating me. This allows me to think in terms of what that reason might be.

But, what if it is the universe that "just exists"? Then to ask these same questions concerning the universe should make no sense either, yet "believers" still ask them. This illogic merely reveals their prejudice and preference and disregard for Occam's Razor - they seem to feel that multiplying causes beyond necessity is just fine if it boosts their egos, allegedly gives some ill-defined "meaning and purpose" to their otherwise pointless existence and life, or some such. (I might ask them "Does god exist for a purpose?" - if the answer is "no", I might then facetiously ask "Then, is god's existence likewise pointless and meaningless - as you claim yours would be if it had no purpose?".

If there is no God and this universe is simply a different form of what has always been, then there is no purpose and we exist for exactly the same reason and purpose as the stink bug, no more and no less. That is a possibility. I think a depressing one, and given the complexity of life it seems unreasonable to me that it all came together based on random causes over billions of years, but I grant the possiblilty. If there is a God who is uncreated and who is love, then it logically follow such a being would possibly create other beings capable of loving and being loved. I don't know what Occam's razor is. How does that apply to our discussion?

In a causeless multiverse that just exists because it exists (just like the alleged personal god), you will have infinite possible "island" universes – the so-called bubble universe idea - where some universes will be devoid of life, but many others will have life, and where some will have planets that have life but maybe no intelligent life, other universes will have evolved intelligent life - like our universe with earth - and maybe many other planets in our universe - who knows.

I don't see a question or point here.

Western monotheism, contrary to popular belief in the west, is not the end all and be all of religion. A personal god creating a universe for some unknown "purpose" is only one paradigm that explains the nature of reality we experience. Buddhism (to the degree it addresses ontological questions) and Taoism are based in the concept - literally - that the universe is One. Rather than pantheism, I would call their view panmonism (All is One). Think about that for a while without getting a headache.

I think I have already delt with the being a drop of water in the lake after I die being no more interesting to me than the no God which I think is also what Buddhism is saying. Reincarnation to being a stink bug is also not a joyful idea to me. If true I find little hope there. Hope for meaning as far as I can tell lies in a creator who is loving. If there is no God and no after life and this is all there is, then hope for ultimate meaning is useless.

 

[elman]

I have asked the question, "why does the universe require a god? Why can God be infinite, but not the universe?" and it's been met with .. well .. mostly it's been ignored or "don't be silly" type responses.



I'm not sure that we will find an answer to the reason for the universe existing, which is really what I was elluding to in the original post. We may find that the universe is infinite, I just can't see something not being infinite, as hard as it is to absorb. Undoubtedly we are here, created or not, but there has to be a source for our universe, or the universe itself is infinite. Space-time may be infinite, with universes occurring within it due to singularities, or the universe may contain all of spacetime and itself be infinite. I'm not sure, I'm not sure that anyone's sure.

Here is one theory suggesting that the universe itself is infinite, and that the big bang is an illusion of the curvature of spacetime :
http://www.thecosmiccommode.com/

Despite it's funny name, it brings up a couple decent points..I don't know how serious these guys are, though.




I've been thinking about it for a while

You said above: "Undoubtedly we are here, created or not, but there has to be a source for our universe, or the universe itself is infinite."

I agree with that and if you are talking about God as the source, then both terms i.e. God and infinite are not comprehensible to humans. We have no point of reference for understanding such concepts. I understand your reference to the circle but a circle or even a round ball has an edge to it but inifinite has no edge.

 

[elman]

Bad choice of words on my part, perhaps. The anthropic argument is not the obvious answer, or the 'common sense' answer.

That does not usually prevent the theist from stopping his philosophical reductionism with God. Gods are usually surrounded by dogma anyway; ascribing a trivial purpose ("God was bored") is hardly out of phase.

My trivial purpose is God is love. What make it superior to me is the alternative is _____________________ nada. If there is no alternative to offer then based on that it is no longer trivial but the most important explancation existing.

 

[TheGMan]

As before, I think "why" usually has a subtly different meaning in each question. It is, of course, up to the questioner whether she can be satisfied with any particular answer, but were those questions posed to me with no additional context, I would take the former "why" as "by what mechanisms" and the latter as "for what purpose."

Mmm. But surely the anthropic argument answers the "by what mechanisms" question rather than than the "for what purpose" question?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Mmm. But surely the anthropic argument answers the "by what mechanisms" question rather than than the "for what purpose" question?

I wouldn't think so. If someone asks me "Why does it rain?", describing evaporation and condensation seems a good deal more apropos than the anthropic argument.

 

[JGL53]

....I don't buy that I am God and being a drop of water that reenters the lake and is swolloed up by it when I die gives little comfort to me either nor does it answer the question why do I exist? If my reason for existence is the same as rock or bug, that is depressing. I hope for better....if a Creator is responsible for my existence that raises the possiblity that He had a reason to do that and expects or hopes for some result as result of His going to the trouble of creating me. This allows me to think in terms of what that reason might be….If there is no God and this universe is simply a different form of what has always been, then there is no purpose and we exist for exactly the same reason and purpose as the stink bug, no more and no less. That is a possibility. I think a depressing one....If there is a God who is uncreated and who is love, then it logically follow such a being would possibly create other beings capable of loving and being loved…. I think I have already delt with the being a drop of water in the lake after I die being no more interesting to me than the no God….Reincarnation to being a stink bug is also not a joyful idea to me. If true I find little hope there. Hope for meaning as far as I can tell lies in a creator who is loving. If there is no God and no after life and this is all there is, then hope for ultimate meaning is useless.

You need to try to start thinking outside the box, elman. And the box in which your mind is presently imprisoned is the "if there is no personal god then all is lost" paradigm that was inculcated into you from the time you were old enough to cogitate on abstractions like ontological theories.

The fact that you think that life is just not worth living if things aren't a certain way - and that you threaten to just give up hope if your fondest dreams won't come true - well, so what?


A child falls on the floor in a tantrum because he didn't get the shiny new red bike he wanted for christmas. Am I supposed to be impressed by his disappointment? Well, I'm not. Neither do I see a reason to be impressed by your reasoning here on this more important topic.


You can believe or think or assume or hope or desire whatever you believe you "need" to in order to get through another day - as I also will. But what you are saying here is as useless to me as what I am saying here is apparently useless to you.

I know just about all there is to know about literalist christianity and western monotheistic assumptions. I don't think there is any new and exciting concepts known to you that I am ignorant of that it would be worth your while to run past me for my education and edification and/or salvation.

So, unless you commit to spending a few hundred hours reading and studying eastern thought philosophy - I suggest you start with Alan Watts - then perhaps you and I should just agree to disagree.

And have a nice day.

 

[TheGMan]

I wouldn't think so. If someone asks me "Why does it rain?", describing evaporation and condensation seems a good deal more apropos than the anthropic argument.

Sorry. I get the feeling we're talking somewhat at cross purposes here.

Let's go back to the top...

One of the most fundamental questions about nature that science will never be able to answer is, “why isn’t the universe empty?”

In any case, there are several answers to that question, depending on perspective. One of which is, "otherwise, you would not be sitting here asking it."

Now it strikes me that the answer you are proposing here (the anthropic argument) is an answer to the question "by what mechanism is the universe not empty" and not "for what purpose is the universe not empty". However, I get the impression that you think it's answering the latter question. Which could be why I'm getting a touch confused.

So I have a couple more questions just to get this straightened out...

Which question do you think "otherwise, you would not be sitting here asking it"?

By what mechanism is the universe not empty?

 

[SedjmNeter]

P.E.A.C.E and Blessings...

It's good to know that the wonder of being is still experienced by people. Many times we ask to many questions and forget feel as well as think.

My applause to the creator of this thread...

SHEM HETEP

 

[SedjmNeter]

unfortunatly some have used the thread to contemplate the how, where, why, when, who, what etc. of existence. Remember also to quiet you mind and simply feel the wonder of existence.

 

[JGL53]

...

It's good to know that the wonder of being is still experienced by people. Many times we ask to many questions and forget feel as well as think....

SHEM HETEP

I've always agreed with this quote from Albert Einstein - it seems to speak to your conviction:

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." - from "The World As I See It"

 

[Casstranquility]

five,
It is totally amazing that we exist! Life as we know it couldn't exist on this planet if we were closer to the sun, or farther away! Earth is in exactly the right place for life to form. It's amazing, it really is!

I don't wish to offend anyone's religious sensibilities but, to me, this idea regarding the nature of ultimate ontology is far more awe-inspiring, mind-blowing, and generally existentially invigorating than the idea of a personal god and his creation.

That doesn't offend me at all. I am more awed by the universe than any God-being. This is why I can only see the universe as God.

 

[JGL53]

...That doesn't offend me at all. I am more awed by the universe than any God-being. This is why I can only see the universe as God.

And I can't imagine anything I would say that would offend a pantheist. I just don't use the word "god" as a synonym for the universe. A semantic difference is not much of a difference.

 

[Casstranquility]

And I can't imagine anything I would say that would offend a pantheist. I just don't use the word "god" as a synonym for the universe. A semantic difference is not much of a difference.

I'm a slightly religious person. (I'm a Christian as well as a pantheist.) If I didn't use the term God, I'd have a few problems when trying to talk to my Christian friends.
"Today the Universe blessed me with a beautiful sunset!"
"Cassie, are you worshipping the creation instead of the Creator?"

 

[JGL53]

...I'm a slightly religious person...

Well, I am "deeply religious" in the sense that Einstein spoke of (see my previous post of the Einstein quote). But this isn't a contest - maybe it would turn out we are equally religious.

...(I'm a Christian as well as a pantheist.)...

Well, I'm a christian (small c) in the sense that I hold the Golden Rule as my moral guide in dealing with others.

...If I didn't use the term God, I'd have a few problems when trying to talk to my Christian friends...

Well, of course.

..."Today the Universe blessed me with a beautiful sunset!"

"Cassie, are you worshipping the creation instead of the Creator?"...

You might try explaining to them that since a creator god's existence can not be scientifically or empirically proven (or disproved) it is a matter of faith. The idea that the creative force and the creation are utterly ONE likewise cannot be proven or disproven. Rather than faith I would say it is a logical conclusion.

But if your Christian friends wish to continue to abstract out the creative force from the created, personify and anthropomorphize it, and then worship it - well, that's a choice. Seems an illogical over-belief but, as the agnostic says, it MAY be true. Who can say?