There is no point to our existence, and all life is disposable.

[physicscrap]

I have a harsh realistic philosophy. I enjoy it too. I am a atheist, and do not believe in any "super natural power" such as a "God." I know that science has its laws and that we were created by some chemical process. Humans contribute nothing, nor is there anything to contribute too. The universe shouldn't even be here, it does not make any sense. But besides that impossible debate, humans and life itself of all kinds are pointless. We study life and everything, for what? We are born then we die, it is a continuous cycle. So whatever you do in life, it does not matter. Sure it may benefit other humans, but they are going to die too. Who says murder is wrong? There is nothing wrong with it, though society and the human survival technique of fear has led to morals against it. We are simply organisms, just more complex than that roach you killed. Why don't we just go and party 24/7 and enjoy ourselves while we are here? why do that? since we all die and our experiences do not matter since they were just a mental feeling and etc...

basically, life is pointless. Though I admit to being human and with my morals that I have been taught, I can not simply change my ways and career due to my strong feelings toward nothing. Too renegade.

Yup, just thought I would express myself a little.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Haha, what a coincidence, I just submitted a question on okcupid about this:

Life is
A diversion while we pass on our genes
A diversion for our immortal souls
An all-important end in itself
Important for the improvement of our souls

Only four options allowed, so I couldn't include your option - pointless and ridiculous btw, doesn't this count as enjoying ourselves? I don't need to get wasted and have sex out in the street to enjoy myself. Soooooooo isn't that evidence that life is about enjoying yourself enough to stay alive and pass on your genes? Plus, those morals you deride are ultimately aimed at ensuring the majority of people's enjoyment. I don't think it's a bad thing that people are discouraged to kill each other. Why live if life is going to consist of pain? I also don't have a burning desire to kill anyone, which would cause me pain anyhow. Your morals don't control your own career choice either, your need to eat and live comfortably do. You're free to go pack up and live in the (limited) free wilderness if you like. Of course, if you want to hang out with others, you'll have to put up with the "system."

 

[Rade]

You know, your 24/7 party-time idea is not a crazy idea--if that is what makes "you" happy. But such a state of existence may not make all happy, some may wish, for example, to sit and meditate 24/7 , others to read Physics Forums 24/7 Yet is does seem logical, as stated by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (Book 1, Ch.8), that "happiness then is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world". But, I do not hold that life (either in general or specific) is "pointless", for the purpose of life is to continue to exist, and thus a "point" is found. Even then the purpose of existence itself is to continue to exist, thus even existence (the sum total of all reality) has a "point" to it. Now, then, if I may suggest the "point" of your existence Physicscrap, it is to "follow your bliss" and to "experience the rapture of being alive" (to borrow a few lines from Joseph Campbell). You may enjoy this essay by J-P Sartre, who outlines one way for the atheist to follow their bliss:
http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/sartre/existen.html

 

[selfAdjoint]

Good link Rade. Nietsche had some comments on feeling our atheism down deep too.

 

[eggman]

Exsistentialism!

Hell Yeah!

Eat drink and be merry...for tommorow we die!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Exsistentialism!

Hell Yeah!

Eat drink and be merry...for tommorow we die!

This is essentialism. Existentialism says we have no essential nature and are nothing but the sum of our past actions, nor do we have any sure thing ahead of us, but are "condemned to be free" to choose at every moment.

If you want to have been a pot-tosser then sure, eat drink and be merry.

 

[eggman]

Who is condemned to be free ?

Where and upon whom are you placing this burden of responsibility?

...a sperm got lucky...here I am...and in no way responsible for this

non sense called exsistance...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Who is condemned to be free ?

Where and upon whom are you placing this burden of responsibility?

...a sperm got lucky...here I am...and in no way responsible for this

non sense called exsistance...

Yup. And there's no god to blame it on or pray to for advice, so no help in your lonely task of figuring what to do next. Shall you paint yourself blue? Commit some "foul" act by received (and now known to be worthless) standards? Camus wrote about this in The Stranger. Why not murder some stranger? You have no connection to a moral code that would forbid it.

 

[Semaphia]

Im also an atheist, but your views are alien to me. Although things we do now may not matter in years too come, they matter now. Nothing replaces feelings such as love, Even though we'll all die one way or another, as will the universe will live in, the things we hold close, are irreplacable, And, I personally can't see that as disposable

 

[Omega_6]

I'm agnostic, and I'm well aware that our (and my) existence probably means absolutely nothing. Yet I still live, and want to keep living, just for the sake of being alive. I understand that I may be able to do anything, no matter how horrible, and still ultimately end up the same as everybody else. I don't do this because I wouldn't want anybody to ruin my life, so I won't ruin their's. As for needing God, I honestly don't think that I do. If I knew for sure that there was a god, it wouldn't change anything about the way I live and act.

 

[Semaphia]

I think, If I knew for sure there was a god I'd be tempted to change how I live my day to day life.

 

[Omega_6]

I think, If I knew for sure there was a god I'd be tempted to change how I live my day to day life.

How so? I know that nothing for me would change, except for the fact that I would acknowledge the existence of a god.

 

[Semaphia]

I think I might atone my life to be more, thankful to the force that put my here :)

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think I might atone my life to be more, thankful to the force that put my here :)

Many people are non-theists intellectually, but "down-deep" they continue the religious attitudes of their ambient culture. This is an example; not all forms of religion emphasize sin and atonement, but I'll bet your family came from one that did.

 

[Semaphia]

Well, My family, well, natural parents are mainly english, irish and sicillian, So I come from a strong religious background. :) If I knew there was something there, It would definatly change my way of life

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, My family, well, natural parents are mainly english, irish and sicillian, So I come from a strong religious background. :) If I knew there was something there, It would definatly change my way of life

From the Irish and Sicilian I conjecture Roman Catholic. I was a Catholic for many years (adult convert) but I eventually "converted back" out of it. As just about the only branch of Christianity that preserves a sacrament of reconciliation (still called "confession" by many), it certainly does focus on sin, the unworthiness of the sinner, and of the saving power of liturgical atonement. And I have heard your gratitude to your maker expressed as a reason for good works in many small group sessions of Catholics.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have a harsh realistic philosophy. I enjoy it too.

These two statements, so close together, are somewhat telling. (I used to swing my atheism around my head like a dead cat, waiting for someone to walk close enough.) When one is at peace with one's beliefs, one doesn't feel the need to be so challenging about them.

I am a atheist, and do not believe in any "super natural power" such as a "God." I know that science has its laws and that we were created by some chemical process. Humans contribute nothing, nor is there anything to contribute too.

You are not alone in this philosophy, by any means. But it does not have to lead to despair.

So whatever you do in life, it does not matter. Sure it may benefit other humans, but they are going to die too. Who says murder is wrong? There is nothing wrong with it, though society and the human survival technique of fear has led to morals against it. We are simply organisms, just more complex than that roach you killed. Why don't we just go and party 24/7 and enjoy ourselves while we are here? why do that? since we all die and our experiences do not matter since they were just a mental feeling and etc...

Just because the universe and all life in it does not have any purpose (an enlightened philosophy more common than you may realize) does not mean we - as highly complex and subtle creatures - do not still experience joy, love, sadness and hate. And as long as we personally experience those things, it does not matter whether there is a higher "purpose". We still have excelllent reason to act in such as way as to make our lives more "happy" and less "sad".


Consider the irony: it may be *you*, of all people, who seeks a "reason" to choose Happier over Sadder.

 

[J77]

Life.

If you're not enjoying it, you need to have a rethink

Life's brilliant.

Don't get bogged down with mundane stuff - enjoy life

And I don't have a religion, but I don't get people that say they're an atheist. Have they no imagine? Can they not imagine that there is something bigger out there than our present understanding?

This is my god.

God is the unknown - organised religious texts are more handbooks to ethics, they don't necessarily represent my god.

But I wouldn't dismiss a higher power that we haven't tapped into, which I think people do by labelling themselves an atheist.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Certainly, all life is 'disposable'- all life gets disposed of. Nothing new in that is there. As far as a "point to life" is concerned, your life has whatever point you give it.

 

[clouded.perception]

As one who considers themself an athiest, I'd like to take this opportunity to defend myself. Sorry if I'm getting in the way of your conversation.

When we use the term 'athiest', most of us mean that we are convinced that there is no divine conscious entity that created and/or is watching over us all. I know that this isn't the literal meaning of the word but it's the generally accepted use. I and most of the athiests I know are not blind to the possibility of a god, we have just concluded that one doesn't exist until we have credible or logical evidence to the contrary -- much how I won't believe in pink unicorns until somebody presents credible evidence for their existence.

On the topic, I agree with HallsofIvy -- life has the meaning we give it. Your life is YOU, dammit, it's the only thing you really own. I don't understand why people expect a higher meaning than just ourselves, and then get depressed when they can't find one. There's no reason why there should be a better reason, and I don't see the problem with having no purpose other than our own.

 

[Smurf]

I have a harsh realistic philosophy. I enjoy it too. I am a atheist, and do not believe in any "super natural power" such as a
...
...
Yup, just thought I would express myself a little.

Your post practically shouts existentialism in almost every statement. Have you ever read any kierkegaard, I wonder? It could be said in his name that, because life is meaningless, and because the universe is absurd (The universe shouldn't even be here, it does not make any sense), then why not believe in something? Why not believe in anything? Why not believe in God?

Your philosophy almost says for it's self; have no reason not to.

food for thought, sartre would probably (mostly) agree with you though.

 

[JCCol]

This is odd but I have some of the same views, in fact most the same. I find their to be no God or at least their is no proof so I cannot believe their is a god, I guess that's agnostic. I also find that I should do whatever I want to make me happy here because I don't know if I will have the opprutunity to be happy later, I guess I just do what I want.

 

[Smurf]

Carpe Diem

 

[pallidin]

I think a general aspect of our "purpose" is to develope to a point were we can start populating the rest of the universe.

 

[heliocentricprose]

or... to spread life as far as it can go, so to say.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think a general aspect of our "purpose" is to develope to a point were we can start populating the rest of the universe.

Ah yes, the James Kirk/Will Ryker immortality gambit...

 

[arildno]

I just think it would be nice to have a nice life.
Not much of a deep philosophy, I'm sure..

 

[selfAdjoint]

There was a cartoon in this week's New Yorker that expresses the up side of life extension. Two luscious babes in skimpy bikinis romping in the surf. Caption: "I never thought turning 80 would be this much fun."

 

[selfAdjoint]

There was a cartoon in this week's New Yorker that expresses the up side of life extension. Two luscious babes in skimpy bikinis romping in the surf. Caption: "I never thought turning 80 would be this much fun."

(Yes it was about the anniversary of the bikini, but I didn't interpret it that way! )

 

[Jameson]

Who says murder is wrong? There is nothing wrong with it, though society and the human survival technique of fear has led to morals against it. We are simply organisms, just more complex than that roach you killed.

It is a generally accepted moral that killing in general is wrong. I have yet to find someone truly partial to the idea of simply killing others for no reason except for serial killers. I see the truth in your statement, but personally I like laws against murder simply to maintain some order in society. This order is what allows your and me to type on this forum without fear of death.

Why don't we just go and party 24/7 and enjoy ourselves while we are here? why do that? since we all die and our experiences do not matter since they were just a mental feeling and etc...

I also used to adopt this philosophy, but then I asked the question, "If life is pointless and I'm just going to die, why should I enjoy myself?" It's not like when you die you're going to remember all the good times that you had, all that sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. If we all adopted the philosophy of hedonism, I think it's safe to say that our civilization would have progressed much more slowly and would continue to progress slowly now. Instead of me justifying to you why you shouldn't party and have every action depend on your happiness, tell me why you should.

 

[MeJennifer]

I and most of the athiests I know are not blind to the possibility of a god, we have just concluded that one doesn't exist until we have credible or logical evidence to the contrary

Then you and those you know are not atheists but agnostics.

 

[loseyourname]

Then you and those you know are not atheists but agnostics.

Not exactly. I've posted this classification scheme elsewhere:

Regarding The Existence of God

• The Theist: Believes in the existence of a god or gods.
• Strong Atheist: Holds the positive belief that no god exists.
• Weak Atheist: Does not believe in the existence of a god, but does not make the positive assertion that no god exists.

Regarding the Possibility of Knowledge

• Gnostic: Believes it is possible to have knowledge of whether or not a god exists.
• Strong Agnostic: Holds the positive belief that it is not possible to know whether or not a god exists.
• Weak Agnostic: Holds no belief regarding whether or not it is possible to know whether a god exists.

According to this scheme, the commitment one makes regarding the existence of a god and the commitment one makes regarding the certainty of this knowledge can overlap in a variety of ways. It is entirely possible to be an agnostic theist, believing in the existence of a god or gods even though you believe it impossible to have certain knowledge of its existence. Someone like Pascal or even Kierkegaard might be classified in this way.

You'll note, if you've studied the philosophy of religion at all, that I've added my own category: weak agnosticism. I don't know of any philosophers that currently use the term other than myself, but I felt there was nothing to cover the possibility of people that simply did not care or did not feel qualified to make any epistemic commitment.

 

[arildno]

It is a generally accepted moral that killing in general is wrong. I have yet to find someone truly partial to the idea of simply killing others for no reason except for serial killers.

Eeh, serial killers DO have reasons for killing.
For example, their victims must die because their right ear lobe is of the wrong shape.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I have a harsh realistic philosophy. I enjoy it too. I am a atheist, and do not believe in any "super natural power" such as a "God." I know that science has its laws and that we were created by some chemical process. Humans contribute nothing, nor is there anything to contribute too. The universe shouldn't even be here, it does not make any sense. But besides that impossible debate, humans and life itself of all kinds are pointless. We study life and everything, for what? We are born then we die, it is a continuous cycle. So whatever you do in life, it does not matter. Sure it may benefit other humans, but they are going to die too. Who says murder is wrong? There is nothing wrong with it, though society and the human survival technique of fear has led to morals against it. We are simply organisms, just more complex than that roach you killed. Why don't we just go and party 24/7 and enjoy ourselves while we are here? why do that? since we all die and our experiences do not matter since they were just a mental feeling and etc...

basically, life is pointless. Though I admit to being human and with my morals that I have been taught, I can not simply change my ways and career due to my strong feelings toward nothing. Too renegade.

Yup, just thought I would express myself a little.

Doesn't matter since you're all just a figment of my imagination.

 

[Neil@Libra]

Jeez... you cats sound depressed as all hell.

 

[meldave00]

Existence, and all life is disposable

Perhaps feeling itself is the reason for living. Whether its pain or joy. If you imagine that your existence is merely a blip in time compared to the beginning and end of our universe. There is a famous quote that goes a little something like this: "true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing". So perhaps assuming life is meaningless is foolish. I'm assuming we are all to ignorant to assume life is meaningless. Do we have all the evidence to prove this to be the case?

The mere fact that I can type my thoughts in this forum is a miracle within itself. To think that I am able to communicate my thoughts thru cyberspace to some other person sitting across the world is an awesome achievement and to me seems to complex to be a mere coincidence.

I choose to decide that life has meaning because it feels good and I have no evidence to prove it doesn't or does not. I will take the glass is half full approach (positive route).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

the only reason to live for me is to enjoy life, not hedonism but to really apreciate all the amazing things in the universe, to live each day as if it were a discovery, a challenge and had at least some meaning, or at least to live as many days like this as I can before I die, the meaning fo life is indeed that there isn't one at least you will never find it while you are alive(assuming God exists) And not at all if not. Camus said life is absurd and who am I to argue? Is there anything in life that makes absolute sense, are there any hard fast rules? I've yet to see them. Nihilism is all very well but what you going to do with the other 99% of your life

I'm agnostic but there are many forms of this belief in the unknown question, here's wikipedias take on Agnosticism which includes a broader base than just the understanding that there can be no understanding of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Other variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.

Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge Vs Beliefs) Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It may also imply the belief that although there is something that resembles (or would at least appear to us as) a god (or gods), there remains doubt over their true nature, motives, or the validity of the claim to be 'God' rather than superior, supernatural being(s).

Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

I would also include, couldnotgivearatsasseitherwaysticism which is prevalent amongst many of my friends which is a form of apathetic agnosticism

 

[Pythagorean]

I always say I'm agnostic and pluralist

pluralist meaning all religions are equally valid.
agnostic meaning don't know, can't judge.

My assumption is that religion is a mechanism necessary to human survival in some way. One person suffering will invent an imaginary friend, but hundreds of people suffering together will create a religion.

I'm not religious myself, but I've had a reasonably easy life in comparison to most of our ancestors worldwide.

EDIT: I also consider myself a taoist on some levels, which is not necissarily a 'religion'

 

[KnightTemplar]

I have a harsh realistic philosophy. I enjoy it too. I am a atheist, and do not believe in any "super natural power" such as a "God." I know that science has its laws and that we were created by some chemical process. Humans contribute nothing, nor is there anything to contribute too. The universe shouldn't even be here, it does not make any sense. But besides that impossible debate, humans and life itself of all kinds are pointless. We study life and everything, for what? We are born then we die, it is a continuous cycle. So whatever you do in life, it does not matter. Sure it may benefit other humans, but they are going to die too. Who says murder is wrong? There is nothing wrong with it, though society and the human survival technique of fear has led to morals against it. We are simply organisms, just more complex than that roach you killed. Why don't we just go and party 24/7 and enjoy ourselves while we are here? why do that? since we all die and our experiences do not matter since they were just a mental feeling and etc...

basically, life is pointless. Though I admit to being human and with my morals that I have been taught, I can not simply change my ways and career due to my strong feelings toward nothing. Too renegade.

Yup, just thought I would express myself a little.

Do you really believe that complex being like us earthlings just came about from some accidental chance from nowhere? Do you disagree with science in respects to the law of biogenesis that says that all life came from life, not non-life?

Are the laws not written in our hearts and minds? If meaninglessness is true, then law is not true; and if law is not true then we don't need police; and if we don't need police we don't have any meaning left in keeping them since there is no law by your meaningless hypothesis. So rape,murder, and suicide is all acceptable and we should just live for nothing, right? How long will you keep this hollow philosophy of meaninglessness? Will it produce happiness for you? Does it lead to productive or deductive results?

 

[iknowNOTHING!!]

okaaay. so its really not very clever to come up with 'there's no point in life'. Really that's a simplistic perspective...Rather than watching a clock with a blank face on as the hands go round and round thinking 'this is hopeless'... question yourself as to how the hands are spinning and how the hell we even see all this nothing into something anyway. see...we can't imagine what we don't know. just think of that. we used to think the world was flat and when the suggestion of round was made it was scoughed at. were all ignorant, and affraid to beleive. Dont you think that brought hope?? to have made a discovery that literally turned the world around. I think that's our problem, that's why people are feeling there is no point, its too much consistancy...and not enough to worry about. our minds are bored and we need a new perspective. Just think...if there was a giant purple ape roaming streets ready to eat you alive everytime you left you house, would you be thinking life was pointless then!? No! youd be just be happy to have made it home alive. Just don't be affraid to think past all we know towards a world we can't even imagine. Or...we can genetically inhance aps to be killers and solve everyone's problems that way...i don't know.
lol...
its all rather mystical if you think about it though. us, humans that are made up as the same stuff around us but can be consciously aware. Our brain made up of nothing, can transform everything around us into this reality. So actually the guestion isn't what the point, its is any of this real??

 

[Paddy]

...I also used to adopt this philosophy, but then I asked the question, "If life is pointless and I'm just going to die, why should I enjoy myself?" It's not like when you die you're going to remember all the good times that you had, all that sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. If we all adopted the philosophy of hedonism, I think it's safe to say that our civilization would have progressed much more slowly and would continue to progress slowly now. Instead of me justifying to you why you shouldn't party and have every action depend on your happiness, tell me why you should.

Well, I think hedonism is my philosophy, until now I didn't know how it was called, but thanks to Jameson and this website, I know its hedonism.

If Life is pointless and we are going to die, not remembering all the good times we had, all the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll (Even though I don't like rock 'n' roll), then why worry about it? My answer to this question Jameson is simple, if we will not remember all this when we are dead, if after death there is no feeling, why worry about death? why worry about the future? Its the present that matters isn't it? if right now I feel good and enjoy having sex or doing something, why not do it? why not enjoy life? sure we are not going to remember once dead, but we are not going to remember that we didn't do it either, so why not think about the present? why not think about enjoying life step by step?

I believe there is something out there, however I am not religious

...And I don't have a religion, but I don't get people that say they're an atheist. Have they no imagine? Can they not imagine that there is something bigger out there than our present understanding?
...

Like J77 said i do image and am convinced that there is something bigger than us out there, might not be God as we know it, but there is something out there definitely.

I believe but i am not religious, I do hardly follow religion (I hardly do anyway).

 

[TuviaDaCat]

to the one who opened the topic:

heh, i thought about it in age 16, with all the hormons going wild, its a bad thinking material to the mind... suicide came in mind, yet here i am.

anyway, there is know "book of life" for me, those who are confused to have indepent thoughts, like this one, chose some sort of bible to live by.
it is all meaningless, no astral, or defult laws. yet it does not mean a man should end life for being aware to such facts.

think of yourself as a machine, a machine driven by two factors:
-positive feedback: some things you do in life, make u feel "good", and you would like to repeat them the most.
-negative feedback: some thing you do in life make you feel "bad" and you would like to avoid repeating them.

so your goal in life can be defined by: repeat the most positive feedback, and avoid the most negative feedback.

so life shouldn't be comlicated with eternal ideas, do whatever you wish to do. heh, but just to keep in mind that humans who would get a negative feedback, by one's positive feedback(killing?), this one will get lots of negative feedback when caught.

 

[Veritas]

First of all i am atheist to. And from what i have learned, though highly unprobable, there could be a "higher power" but even if there is one why would it exist. I mean no matter how you think about there is no point for existence. If anyone knows about the ring or string theory, it helps explain what I am saying.

 

[Tzemach]

GOD'S EXISTENCE SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

Professor John Wheeler, former Chair of the Physics Department at the University of Texas at Austin, formerly a colleague of Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr, and considered one of the foremost contemporary thinkers in theoretical physics and cosmology, had this to say (from a PBS science documentary, "The Creation of The Universe"): "To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, 'How could it have ever been otherwise?'"

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature – like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Newcastle University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies, adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life – almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and G-d: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: "The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present."

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

Dr. Gerald Shroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T., wrote to us and had this to say. "As is, the site is excellent. Any additions I suggest here are merely fine-tuning. But let me give me two or three more major examples":
1. Nobel laureate, high-energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if anyone of several physical quantities had slightly different values."
2. Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile: "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bull’s-eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."
3. Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.


Yes I am a believer, there is too much to indicate that it is not all just some sort of strange accident. If it was truly that simple we would have discovered it all by now.

 

[Rade]

...Yes I am a believer, there is too much to indicate that it is not all just some sort of strange accident. If it was truly that simple we would have discovered it all by now.

OK, but is it not yet more strange--your belief--that universe is outcome of a designer that itself was not designed ? What are the odds against this, for a designer not to be designed ? -- seems to me to be 0.0 %. Thus at least the argument of universe from accident has some odds of possibility (even if small), while your argument from designer has 0.0 % possibility.

 

[PIT2]

OK, but is it not yet more strange--your belief--that universe is outcome of a designer that itself was not designed ? What are the odds against this, for a designer not to be designed ? -- seems to me to be 0.0 %. Thus at least the argument of universe from accident has some odds of possibility (even if small), while your argument from designer has 0.0 % possibility.

What about a TV that was designed by a non-designed human? Also 0.0% chance? Does that mean its 100% chance that humans were designed?

Also I am curious why u would say there is a 0.0% chance, would a designer designing itself have a higher probability? Or is it just the idea of a universe-designer in any form that u think is unlikely?