Meaning Of Life Stuff...
-
Thesus
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:13 am
- Race: Ancient
- ID: 0
- Location: Depends When You Ask
Re: Meaning Of Life Stuff...
surely if someone with that much knowledge of a creation of an entire universe would have better things to do now i mean if the seven day theory is correct then what is he doing now what has he been doing for the past millenia?
~ThEsUs~
-
Taure
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:12 am
- Race: Asuran
- ID: 25525
- Location: England
Re: Meaning Of Life Stuff...
Science does not create anything. Creation implies a creator, and science is not a creator. The universe simply is and science is a methodology we use to explain it.
As to the above comments.
You are lacking the concept of "burden of proof".
The negative position - that things are false - is the default position.
If I postulate that there is an interplanetary teapot orbiting this planet it is up to be to prove it to be the case. Until I do so, the position which everyone should take is that my postulate is false. The burden of proof is on my to show that it is there, not on everyone else to show that it is not.
This is for two reasons.
Firstly, unless you can observe the entire universe all at once it is impossible to disprove something completely.
Secondly, without this principle anyone could postulate anything they liked and we'd have to take it seriously. I could say that there's an invisible and intangible purple dragon sitting behind you as you sit at your computer, and you'd have to accept that I was correct, because you couldn't disprove me (since it's invisible and intangible).
No, the default position must be that of doubt until positive evidence is found, if we are to have intelligent discourse.
So, God does not exist until there is positive evidence showing him to be so.
The Genesis account of creation was not the case until there is positive evidence for it being the case.
Moreover, there is positive evidence for theories that contradict the Genesis account, which is to say the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis theories and evolutionary theory.
The Big Bang theory and evolution are two of the theories in science with the most evidence behind them. Theories of abiogenesis are still in their early stages, but what there is points to it being perfectly possible for something like DNA to come about naturally.
So not only is there no positive evidence for the Genesis account of creation, there is also evidence against it (positive evidence for a contrary theory is negative evidence for a theory).
Any person with any sense realises this. Even most Christians do, which is why the majority of Christians today (at least in the West) have a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.
As for meaning of life: I don't see what the meaning of life has to do with how the universe began, but whatever. I agree with Semper: there is no meaning except what we give it.
On the topic of the origin of the universe: the big bang is not entirely satisfactory, because it itself needs explanation.
In the end I don't think we will ever find a satisfactory explanation for the universe. This is because the universe is either caused by
A) An infinite series of causation, or
B) A final cause which is itself uncaused.
Neither of these, if we came across them, would satisfy our scientific spirit. In A we would seek the sufficient reason of the infinite chain. Think of it like this: you have a chain hanging down in front of you. Each link you look at can be explained as being held up by the previous link. The chain goes on forever - it is infinite. Yet this still does not explain the existence of the chain as a whole, or why it is hanging rather than laying on the floor.
With B we would have a problem, because such a thing would be contrary to the very way science is done, which assumes a cause-effect relation. How can an effect (i.e. the final uncaused cause) exist without something to cause it?
As to the above comments.
You are lacking the concept of "burden of proof".
The negative position - that things are false - is the default position.
If I postulate that there is an interplanetary teapot orbiting this planet it is up to be to prove it to be the case. Until I do so, the position which everyone should take is that my postulate is false. The burden of proof is on my to show that it is there, not on everyone else to show that it is not.
This is for two reasons.
Firstly, unless you can observe the entire universe all at once it is impossible to disprove something completely.
Secondly, without this principle anyone could postulate anything they liked and we'd have to take it seriously. I could say that there's an invisible and intangible purple dragon sitting behind you as you sit at your computer, and you'd have to accept that I was correct, because you couldn't disprove me (since it's invisible and intangible).
No, the default position must be that of doubt until positive evidence is found, if we are to have intelligent discourse.
So, God does not exist until there is positive evidence showing him to be so.
The Genesis account of creation was not the case until there is positive evidence for it being the case.
Moreover, there is positive evidence for theories that contradict the Genesis account, which is to say the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis theories and evolutionary theory.
The Big Bang theory and evolution are two of the theories in science with the most evidence behind them. Theories of abiogenesis are still in their early stages, but what there is points to it being perfectly possible for something like DNA to come about naturally.
So not only is there no positive evidence for the Genesis account of creation, there is also evidence against it (positive evidence for a contrary theory is negative evidence for a theory).
Any person with any sense realises this. Even most Christians do, which is why the majority of Christians today (at least in the West) have a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.
As for meaning of life: I don't see what the meaning of life has to do with how the universe began, but whatever. I agree with Semper: there is no meaning except what we give it.
On the topic of the origin of the universe: the big bang is not entirely satisfactory, because it itself needs explanation.
In the end I don't think we will ever find a satisfactory explanation for the universe. This is because the universe is either caused by
A) An infinite series of causation, or
B) A final cause which is itself uncaused.
Neither of these, if we came across them, would satisfy our scientific spirit. In A we would seek the sufficient reason of the infinite chain. Think of it like this: you have a chain hanging down in front of you. Each link you look at can be explained as being held up by the previous link. The chain goes on forever - it is infinite. Yet this still does not explain the existence of the chain as a whole, or why it is hanging rather than laying on the floor.
With B we would have a problem, because such a thing would be contrary to the very way science is done, which assumes a cause-effect relation. How can an effect (i.e. the final uncaused cause) exist without something to cause it?
