Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[Brilliant!]

I just realized I was very vague in that last post.

What I mean to say is that technology does not evolve in a natural way. It's based on ideas from men, which are executed by men. It's our knowledge and understanding that are improving, or "evolving"; faster, stronger, smarter, and more powerful technologies are just the by-product.

 

[Pythagorean]

I just realized I was very vague in that last post.

What I mean to say is that technology does not evolve in a natural way. It's based on ideas from men, which are executed by men. It's our knowledge and understanding that are improving, or "evolving"; faster, stronger, smarter, and more powerful technologies are just the by-product.

define natural

 

[Brilliant!]

define natural

I suppose I mean those things that exist or occur without pre-meditation, which would rule out manufacturing, amongst other things.

I mean to say that all products of a mind, any mind, are unnatural.

 

[p764rds]

I just realized I was very vague in that last post.

What I mean to say is that technology does not evolve in a natural way. It's based on ideas from men, which are executed by men. It's our knowledge and understanding that are improving, or "evolving"; faster, stronger, smarter, and more powerful technologies are just the by-product.

I don't disagree with you strongly, I mostly agree with your advanced views, just I see us as made by the universe (evolution processess) and we make computers - so both are actually made by the universe itself - whatever that force/process is - some type of intelligence IMO but it leaves us alone to get on with implementing its grand clever design.

As I said before - we have a similar type of intelligence to the universe itself probably. We are not separate. Newton thought the universe was 'straining towards intelligence' as well as being made by numbers - wow!, both right probably.

Notice how computing 'makes itself valuable' and desirable to us. I knew it would do that at the outset when only geeks liked them. People told me they were just machines and would not even be good at chess!
How did I know the truth? Because they are Von Neumann machines that can 'think' - a dead ringer for evolution. Right on the path we tread.
They 'have to' or are straining to evolve more (they are intelligent, but not manipulative -its evolution doing it) and the mechanism to use? - we build them and they give us money and pleasure and run our businesses and transport etc. they are really 'wanted' by nearly everyone - that's in the plan or is the direction of evolution.

Its not that they are conscious and thinking about taking over - not at all like that - its that the universe evolution path has made them and they are Von Neumann machines and the universe itself must be a type of Von Neumann machine - a very very good model of course - quantum and multiple processors etc. So computers are simply damn good at being involved with life and evolution - they are so good that they can hardly fail to succeed.

Next step is to take on management functions (which they will do better than us) unless the next step is implants into our brains as suggested in a PHd paper as their mechanism for progress to genetic takeover. Maybe we will retain a few cells to remain in power or be like Davros or something.

 

[inspireme]

you talk about humans as if we are tourists within the universe separate from atoms ...looking in on a seperate,yet we are of atom...

 

[inspireme]

in reply to robertm 'why' page 1 btw

 

[p764rds]

you talk about humans as if we are tourists within the universe separate from atoms ...looking in on a seperate,yet we are of atom...

Yes, I objectify humans - I am an intelligent but external observer. Its me that I have separated from the Universe - not humans. And that aspect of a separate 'me' is my von neumann machine-like brain. I assume my brain is processing in an abstract way - its using mathematics, logic - but is stuck with 'data'.

I don't view 'atoms and energy' as the Universe, rather its the information that is behind it all.
I have completed my paper on this now.

 

[inspireme]

then I am sorry but i think your paper is flawed

 

[inspireme]

ever so slightly to deviate but... one train of thought I've been dabbleing with ...is that the universe has purpose and meaning...but we are not part of that purpose...just waste within it...a by-product of the intent...i think atheism and religion are both crumbleing around us ,,,,new fresh possibilities have sprung up...they are just visible and their meanings are beginning to form...is something greater than both those exstremes ?

 

[sylas]

I've just seen a really great video extract of an interview with Richard Feynman, which explains perfectly why I find questions like the one posted for this thread uninteresting.

It's not that the answer would be uninteresting, but there's no useful way to answer it. Any answer is a guess or presumption or belief; which is okay, but I'd much rather ask questions where there's a way to really make some progress towards answers. But Feynman says it better, of course!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0

This video starts out pretty much directly addressing the question of this thread!

 

[inspireme]

wonderful but at 2:14 and 28 seconds what was that in the bk-ground...fllew up from behind the mountain...hovered for a moment then shot off south at tremendous speed ?...ha..jk..point taken though..with enuff points maybe we can burst this bubble

 

[Martini]

The universe does not need a why.
"Why" is a human invention.

 

[inspireme]

humans are the universe and so is 'why'

 

[WaveJumper]

Will humans ever really understand why consciousness exists?

 

[inspireme]

Will humans ever really understand why consciousness exists?

if consciousness is a by-product of the universe ..waste to some as yet unfathomable creative endeavor then answering that may be humans only chance at eternity

 

[inspireme]

im currently righting a paper on my theories entitled 'Escaping gods Loving arms' that explores the idea futher...parts of it where wrote while i was completeley off my tits on a combination of alcohol and extasy...the latter half also drifts a bit ...but there is sufficient meat in there for me to publish it i think

 

[inspireme]

a previous paper of mine entitled 'Are drug induced spiritual experiences valid ?' is available now to d/l free as a text document or in audio format

 

[pgsleep]

there is no "why?"... no justification, nothing.. infinity can be applied inward as it is outward.. on that note we hardly exist in the first place. If we do have a role or purpose, it's only relevant to our own misconceived view of existence.. and in the end, even the soul decays... sorry.

-pete

 

[Count Iblis]

http://countiblis.blogspot.com/2005/11/universe-doesnt-really-exist.html" , so there is nothing to explain.

 

[JaredJames]

After reading all this I still see no reason for us needing a 'why'. Does there have to be a reason the universe is here? The 'how' questions I believe will be answered (or at least sound theories put in place in time), but i just don't understand the need for a 'why'. It is purely a humanity based question which we have created. By asking why the universe is here you imply there is a reason for it, as if there is a creator (this is where religion jumps in). You end up in a continuous bout of creator of the creator of the creator...

Is there no reason it couldn't just have happened by chance?

 

[WaveJumper]

http://countiblis.blogspot.com/2005/11/universe-doesnt-really-exist.html" , so there is nothing to explain.

If a mathematical, informational or computer-simulated universe exists, there is still a lot to be explained.

 

[WaveJumper]

After reading all this I still see no reason for us needing a 'why'. Does there have to be a reason the universe is here? The 'how' questions I believe will be answered (or at least sound theories put in place in time), but i just don't understand the need for a 'why'. It is purely a humanity based question which we have created. By asking why the universe is here you imply there is a reason for it, as if there is a creator (this is where religion jumps in). You end up in a continuous bout of creator of the creator of the creator...

Is there no reason it couldn't just have happened by chance?

Why would anyone propose that at some point answers should stop flowing in? If 99.99999% of all questions you ever had can be answered, what reason dictates that the other 0.000000001% should not? The universe was born in a state of infinitely low entropy, how does that not deserve a meaningful explanation?

 

[tchitt]

I don't think it's any more possible for us to understand why the universe exists than it would be for bacteria to understand why the petri dish exists. The fact of the matter is that our perception is so limited by so many different things that what's "really" there will never be known to anyone species.

Animals without eyes can't comprehend sight, but we can... I don't see why there wouldn't be billions of different things happening that we're missing out on and always will.

 

[WaveJumper]

I don't think it's any more possible for us to understand why the universe exists than it would be for bacteria to understand why the petri dish exists. The fact of the matter is that our perception is so limited by so many different things that what's "really" there will never be known to anyone species.

Animals without eyes can't comprehend sight, but we can... I don't see why there wouldn't be billions of different things happening that we're missing out on and always will.

True, but as opposed to bacteria and animal life, We are developing and progressing. This is of fundamental importance, as our knowlegde and the means to explore reality are growing in time, thus giving us almost endless possibilities. That we don't know something in 2009 is not a guarantee that it will remain unknown in the near or far future. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that all questions will have answers, but at least it hints in that direction.

I guess it all boils down to the question - is there a fundamental limit to what we can comprehend in the universe(now or in 3000 years)?

Would this guy have imagined that we

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9905/180pxhomohabilis.jpg



would one day know about this?

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8043/cmbtimeline.jpg



If i could get into the mind of a Homo Habilis, he'd probably say that there is no reason Why there is rain, why there is snow, etc. etc.

 

[JaredJames]

Why would anyone propose that at some point answers should stop flowing in? If 99.99999% of all questions you ever had can be answered, what reason dictates that the other 0.000000001% should not? The universe was born in a state of infinitely low entropy, how does that not deserve a meaningful explanation?

I don't know what that has to do with what I just said. Did I say the answers would stop flowing? Did I claim they would? No.

All I was trying to say was, is there a reason people feel there should be a 'why'? Why should there be a reason for the universe being here? Can't it just be down to sheer luck and there just be the 'how it is here'. As I said before, 'why' implies a purpose or a creator or something along those lines. If we do eventually understand as much as there is to know, then yes, I have no doubt that research will swing round to looking if there is a 'why'. I just don't understand why humans require a 'why' all the time.

 

[pgsleep]

True, but as opposed to bacteria and animal life, We are developing and progressing. This is of fundamental importance, as our knowlegde and the means to explore reality are growing in time, thus giving us almost endless possibilities. That we don't know something in 2009 is not a guarantee that it will remain unknown in the near or far future. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that all questions will have answers, but at least it hints in that direction.

I guess it all boils down to the question - is there a fundamental limit to what we can comprehend in the universe(now or in 3000 years)?

Would this guy have imagined that we

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9905/180pxhomohabilis.jpg



would one day know about this?

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8043/cmbtimeline.jpg



If i could get into the mind of a Homo Habilis, he'd probably say that there is no reason Why there is rain, why there is snow, etc. etc.

he'd probably kill you rip your apart... and he wouldn't think anything of it.

 

[Anticitizen]

I don't see why it would be true that asking 'why' implies a purpose.

See what I did there? Lemme rephrase:

I don't see a reason to believe it would be true that asking 'why' implies a purpose.

Those two sentences mean the same thing. Asking why is simply asking for the cause. In logic, the antecedent to a consequent.

Even in psychology, the 'why' question is being treated this way. Take the following exchange:

'why did you do that?'
'because i wanted to!'

In the behavioralist (BF Skinner) school, that answer isn't treated as valid - there's a reason why the behavior was expressed, and a reason why the person 'wanted to'. That doesn't make the question 'why did you do that?' any less valid.

 

[baywax]

I don't see why it would be true that asking 'why' implies a purpose.

See what I did there? Lemme rephrase:

I don't see a reason to believe it would be true that asking 'why' implies a purpose.

Those two sentences mean the same thing. Asking why is simply asking for the cause. In logic, the antecedent to a consequent.

Even in psychology, the 'why' question is being treated this way. Take the following exchange:

'why did you do that?'
'because i wanted to!'

In the behavioralist (BF Skinner) school, that answer isn't treated as valid - there's a reason why the behavior was expressed, and a reason why the person 'wanted to'. That doesn't make the question 'why did you do that?' any less valid.

The why can be answered by an explanation of the succession of events leading up to the event in question. You're right to say that "why" does not necessarily beg an explanation of "purpose". But asks only for the explanation of the causative events that lead up to the event(s) in question.

Asking about the "purpose" of an event is usually executed by asking what the "purpose of an event" could be (which will always elicit a relatively, subjective answer).

Asking why an event takes place is like asking how it happens with an emphasis on learning the details of its cause(s). When you ask "what" an event is, the how and the why of what made the event take place are not far behind.

 

[Count Iblis]

If a mathematical, informational or computer-simulated universe exists, there is still a lot to be explained.

Yes, but if all that exists is really nothing more than abstract math, then what needs to be explained is why we considered as algorithms find ourselves embedded in a universe described by the known laws of physics. And since there is nothing more than math, the reason for that can only come from abstract math.

 

[p764rds]

A 'purpose' is derived from intelligence isn't it? We use our intelligence to think up purposes etc. But. 'intelligence' is nothing more than a logic based process in a von-neuman-like machine. We are intelligent - its a type of intelligence that wants to make things, and to survive. But, there are infinite types of intelligence just as there are infinite number of computer programs. If a type of intelligence did not want to survive, then I suppose it would not last long.
There's is nothing particularly 'special' or 'magical' about it. Mathematics and logic implemented in information can be anything within the bounds of what these tools can do.

 

[WaveJumper]

Yes, but if all that exists is really nothing more than abstract math, then what needs to be explained is why we considered as algorithms find ourselves embedded in a universe described by the known laws of physics. And since there is nothing more than math, the reason for that can only come from abstract math.

It's hard to resist the only possible conclusion from Planck scale physics, that space and time are not fundamental, but derivative approximations "to more fundamental concepts that still await our discovery" as Brian Greene states in The Elegant Universe. Our Planck scale theories and predictions do not point to a fundamentally existing physical Universe(as we perceive it). That's why i don't find these mind-bending ideas of mathematical/informational universe out of the question. In fact, i'd venture to say, that whoever scientist has been engaged in probing the Planck scale limit has forever been wondering about the 3D "universe" as we perceive it. I however, don't think that the software can be able to describe the computer running it, so wherever it is information may be flowing in from, given our 3D limitations, IMO the source of this information will forever be buried for 3D bound creatures like us.
Roger Penrose in his twistor theory has suggested that space-time is built up from more primitive mathematical entities called twistors, and that ultimately the spacetime concept may possibly be eliminated from the basis of physical theory altogether.

BTW, a mathematical universe that's supposed to be a model of our reality should be bound to cause-effect logic and thus presuppose pre-programming of mathematical laws and fundamental constants(at least that's what feeble human logic dictates).

 

[getitright]

The question of 'why' anything exists implies purposed creation, reason, and logic in the subject of the why. This tends to fly in the face of science but walks right through the door of the church. Religion aside, there are certain things that I believe we will never understand, nor develop the capacity or technology to understand. Therein lies faith.

 

[WaveJumper]

The question of 'why' anything exists implies purposed creation, reason, and logic in the subject of the why. This tends to fly in the face of science but walks right through the door of the church. Religion aside, there are certain things that I believe we will never understand, nor develop the capacity or technology to understand. Therein lies faith.

There is more faith in the interpretation of science and its assumptions than you can imagine. Generally speaking - the more we know, the more we know that there is much more to know. Science does not in any way imply if the universe was created or not. It's just an atheist assumption to suit a preconceived agenda. I find this approach pure Propaganda to brain-wash people into believing what atheists believe in.

 

[p764rds]

It's hard to resist the only possible conclusion from Planck scale physics, that space and time are not fundamental, but derivative approximations "to more fundamental concepts that still await our discovery" as Brian Greene states in The Elegant Universe. Our Planck scale theories and predictions do not point to a fundamentally existing physical Universe(as we perceive it). That's why i don't find these mind-bending ideas of mathematical/informational universe out of the question. In fact, i'd venture to say, that whoever scientist has been engaged in probing the Planck scale limit has forever been wondering about the 3D "universe" as we perceive it. I however, don't think that the software can be able to describe the computer running it, so wherever it is information may be flowing in from, given our 3D limitations, IMO the source of this information will forever be buried for 3D bound creatures like us.
Roger Penrose in his twistor theory has suggested that space-time is built up from more primitive mathematical entities called twistors, and that ultimately the spacetime concept may possibly be eliminated from the basis of physical theory altogether.

BTW, a mathematical universe that's supposed to be a model of our reality should be bound to cause-effect logic and thus presuppose pre-programming of mathematical laws and fundamental constants(at least that's what feeble human logic dictates).

Yes, yes. yes - you've got it., I think.
I have written an independent article with more meat
and mechanisms in it. The plank scale and renormalisation at that size is included -
i.e. capping lengths at around the plank length (in my view too many bits would
be needed to specify space-time in this region, so it doesn't bother)
http://BestManEver.wordpress.com for this viewpoint.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

There is more faith in the interpretation of science and its assumptions than you can imagine. Generally speaking - the more we know, the more we know that there is much more to know.

While both statements are arguably true, what point are you making in linking them?

Science does not in any way imply if the universe was created or not. It's just an atheist assumption to suit a preconceived agenda. I find this approach pure Propaganda to brain-wash people into believing what atheists believe in.

Again, what point are you making? Don't all faiths have a beginning-of-the-universe mythos? Why do you single out atheism?

 

[p764rds]

Again, what point are you making? Don't all faiths have a beginning-of-the-universe mythos? Why do you single out atheism?

The beginning of the Universe becomes a different problem if we think of information
actually creating space-time and everything in it. The mathematics and logic that
it uses to create space-time can exist outside space time. Information has no mass
and needs no 3D space to exist. (use this to simply predict the further reduction in size of
memory chips, as a side bar discussion)

So the beginning of time? Time is only necessary to enable movement of objects in a 3D space.
Relativity - an unfortunate mathematical consequence of cause and effect in 3D space making
time algorithms (Lorenz covariance etc) needed.

-Time is a design feature of 3D space produced by mathematics, logic and information, it
has to be there or objects could not move around.

Who or what did it? Well, intelligence (which is in logic and mathematics, and we have it too)

Does intelligence need a person? No, it lives very happily in information.

 

[WaveJumper]

There is more faith in the interpretation of science and its assumptions than you can imagine. Generally speaking - the more we know, the more we know that there is much more to know.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

While both statements are arguably true, what point are you making in linking them?

I am against pushing the atheist agenda(as Truth) that somehow science implies that there is no Why(or cause/reason) for the existence of the universe. Moreover, science doesn't have a collection of Truths on which we can base single possible logical deductions about the beginning and existence of the universe and conclude that "Why" is a human invented concept. Why are some people doubting certain human invented concepts? What is not a human invented concept? The reality of reality? Time? Matter? Is there a single thing in this Universe that can with 100% certainty be said to exist apart from our human concepts in the way we perceive it?. If we trust the assumption that we have free will, that there is an outside physical world, that randomness exists, that human logic is a tool that is correctly describing reality/what exists, etc. what is it that makes some people doubt the human concept of Why(which is the same as reason and cause when applied to the beginning of the universe)?

Again, what point are you making? Don't all faiths have a beginning-of-the-universe mythos? Why do you single out atheism?

Because very often one can see atheist beliefs being announced as if they were truths. "There is no why, why is a human made concept" is just one of many. One cannot logically conclude from what we know from fields of science that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause. And while one can choose to believe this, it is by far not the only available explanation of reality, nor is it the most convincing one. Such a conclusion is an assumption to suit pre-conceived beliefs. While i am not against people's beliefs, i find it arrogant when people talk definitively about the origins of the universe and reality from a particular faith-based point of view. I'd be equally opposed to someone pushing a religious agenda as the Truth(i.e. someone claiming - the Why is because god said "I am what i am" interpreted to mean in whatever way fanatics twist the scripture)

 

[DaveC426913]

I am against pushing the atheist agenda(as Truth) that somehow science implies that there is no Why(or cause/reason) for the existence of the universe. Moreover, science doesn't have a collection of Truths on which we can base single possible logical deductions about the beginning and existence of the universe and conclude that "Why" is a human invented concept. Why are some people doubting certain human invented concepts? What is not a human invented concept? The reality of reality? Time? Matter? Is there a single thing in this Universe that can with 100% certainty be said to exist apart from our human concepts in the way we perceive it?. If we trust the assumption that we have free will, that there is an outside physical world, that randomness exists, that human logic is a tool that is correctly describing reality/what exists, etc. what is it that makes some people doubt the human concept of Why(which is the same as reason and cause when applied to the beginning of the universe)?





Because very often one can see atheist beliefs being announced as if they were truths. "There is no why, why is a human made concept" is just one of many. One cannot logically conclude from what we know from fields of science that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause. And while one can choose to believe this, it is by far not the only available explanation of reality, nor is it the most convincing one. Such a conclusion is an assumption to suit pre-conceived beliefs. While i am not against people's beliefs, i find it arrogant when people talk definitively about the origins of the universe and reality from a particular faith-based point of view. I'd be equally opposed to someone pushing a religious agenda as the Truth(i.e. someone claiming - the Why is because god said "I am what i am" interpreted to mean in whatever way fanatics twist the scripture)

OK, so people believe what they believe. When they talk about it, their stance is, by default, that their belief is true. I'm not really sure what more you're saying than that you object to this. Would you have everyone start their beliefs with "This is only my personal belief but..."? That goes without saying.

 

[Pupil]

Science does not in any way imply if the universe was created or not. It's just an atheist assumption to suit a preconceived agenda. I find this approach pure Propaganda to brain-wash people into believing what atheists believe in.

Fine, I guess I'll be the atheist to call BS since no one else will...No respectable atheist believes the universe was created or believes the opposite. We use that thing called 'reasoning ability' and say we don't know, and usually http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html" . I pretty much have that link memorized because so many Christian apologists like whipping out the tiresome Kalam cosmological argument that relies on the premise that the universe began to exist. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Why is this thread still alive 9 pages later? The OP has a simple question with a simple answer: no. How many children does the number 5 have? What color is Newton's second law? How long is a square circle? Why does the universe exist? They're all meaningless questions. Just because a question looks syntactically proper doesn't keep it from being a stupid question.

 

[robertm]

that somehow science implies that there is no Why(or cause/reason) for the existence of the universe. Moreover, science doesn't have a collection of Truths on which we can base single possible logical deductions about the beginning and existence of the universe and conclude that "Why" is a human invented concept. Why are some people doubting certain human invented concepts? What is not a human invented concept? The reality of reality? Time? Matter? Is there a single thing in this Universe that can with 100% certainty be said to exist apart from our human concepts in the way we perceive it?. If we trust the assumption that we have free will, that there is an outside physical world, that randomness exists, that human logic is a tool that is correctly describing reality/what exists, etc. what is it that makes some people doubt the human concept of Why(which is the same as reason and cause when applied to the beginning of the universe)?





Because very often one can see atheist beliefs being announced as if they were truths. "There is no why, why is a human made concept" is just one of many. One cannot logically conclude from what we know from fields of science that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause. And while one can choose to believe this, it is by far not the only available explanation of reality, nor is it the most convincing one. Such a conclusion is an assumption to suit pre-conceived beliefs. While i am not against people's beliefs, i find it arrogant when people talk definitively about the origins of the universe and reality from a particular faith-based point of view. I'd be equally opposed to someone pushing a religious agenda as the Truth(i.e. someone claiming - the Why is because god said "I am what i am" interpreted to mean in whatever way fanatics twist the scripture)

I find it arrogant when people suggest that they know the mind, or have some special secrete knowledge of the supposed all powerful creater of the universe. No competent man of science claims to know even if origin is the right word to use to describe what we have observed regarding the big bang event.

The whole point of language is so that we are able to map our concepts onto events outside our brains, or maybe vice versa. Just because our perception and imagination is limited by the way we process information does not mean that we can not discuss seemingly strange phenomenon with some degree of certainty as to their existence.

Our current understanding of the evolution of life on earth, including us and our brains, immediately relegates emotion and abstraction to an arbitrary process in the three pound mass of jelly of a particular primate species. 'Meaning' is a human concept which losses all importance outside of the reference frame of the one 'doing the meaning'. Which is exactly why so many of us can feel and mean so many different and conflicting things, and that those feelings of emotion have no effect on the outcome of any physical effect outside of human affairs.

I'm not really sure who it is that you are up in arms against... Are there scientists who are claiming knowledge they do not yet have? Are popular figures in the recent cultural movement speaking out against supernatural beliefs claiming a complete and/or coherent view of the development of the universe? Or is it lay-men, who happen to be atheists, that are shouting a distorted and confusing view of science?

Specifically, I would like to know who it is that makes this claim:

One cannot logically conclude from what we know from fields of science that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause.

By the way, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence. This has nothing to do with what you may feel about the 'meaning' of your life or the universe; by all means you can clearly feel that it 'means' whatever you like.

 

[WaveJumper]

I find it arrogant when people suggest that they know the mind, or have some special secrete knowledge of the supposed all powerful creater of the universe.

Where did i imply certainty about creator? It's the domain of religions and atheism that have all the answers. I don't subscribe to any of these extremes.

'Meaning' is a human concept which losses all importance outside of the reference frame of the one 'doing the meaning'.

Meaning is not the same as Why. You are changing the subject. Why is the reason/cause the universe exists in the way it does.

Which is exactly why so many of us can feel and mean so many different and conflicting things, and that those feelings of emotion have no effect on the outcome of any physical effect outside of human affairs.

What emotions? I was talking about a cause for the appearance of the universe. Stick to what i said and not to what you are comfortable to discuss.

I'm not really sure who it is that you are up in arms against... Are there scientists who are claiming knowledge they do not yet have? Are popular figures in the recent cultural movement speaking out against supernatural beliefs claiming a complete and/or coherent view of the development of the universe? Or is it lay-men, who happen to be atheists, that are shouting a distorted and confusing view of science?

I specifically said that i was opposed to people wo "know" definitively that there is no why to the question "why does the universe exist?". I know you understand that statement but i don't see why you are trying to steer the discussion in other directions - about cultural movements, supernatural events, etc.

Specifically, I would like to know who it is that makes this claim:

One cannot logically conclude from what we know from fields of science that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause.

The same ones who claim to know that there is no Why because Why's are a human concept(as if there existed something that was not). It's a kind of religion by itself.

By the way, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence. This has nothing to do with what you may feel about the 'meaning' of your life or the universe; by all means you can clearly feel that it 'means' whatever you like.

You don't know what supernatural means. You've made a definition that suits your beliefs and that excludes anything that you deem unacceptable. It's a kind of religious shelter from frightening concepts, is it not?

Is what is still unknown supernatural?

 

[WaveJumper]

Why is this thread still alive 9 pages later? The OP has a simple question with a simple answer: no.

Simple question? Hahahahahahahaha - grasping for air - hahahahahhahahaha...

If this is a simple question, what would constitute a difficult question for atheism? Or is there no such thing for the infinite explanatory powers of atheism?

How many children does the number 5 have? What color is Newton's second law? How long is a square circle? Why does the universe exist? They're all meaningless questions. Just because a question looks syntactically proper doesn't keep it from being a stupid question.

Oh you have figured it all out, great! Amazing work really, i rest my case now.

BTW, the above statement was a good example why Atheism is not just a mere disbelief in deities, but more of a dogmatic path to "truths".

 

[Pupil]

If this is a simple question, what would constitute a difficult question for atheism?

2 + 2 = ?

Or is there no such thing for the infinite explanatory powers of atheism?

I don't understand this question. It is too difficult.

Oh you have figured it all out, great! Amazing work really, i rest my case now.

Indeed! Exactly what I was saying!

BTW, the above statement was a good example why Atheism is not just a mere disbelief in deities, but more of a dogmatic path to "truths".

By George what a discovery! Brilliant! Webster has it all wrong. It's much more likely all atheists are a bunch of dogmatic louts with a brainwashing propaganda agenda!

Hats off, gentlemen.

 

[DaveC426913]

BTW, the above statement was a good example why Atheism is not just a mere disbelief in deities, but more of a dogmatic path to "truths".

Yeah, I think you're going to have to just step back from some of your claims. You may have preconceptions and generalizations about atheism invloing dogma and truth, but really it is just about not believing in a God or gods.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am against pushing the atheist agenda(as Truth) that somehow science implies that there is no Why(or cause/reason) for the existence of the universe.

Who here is pushing that agenda?

By the way, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence.

Except, of course, when atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural entity.

 

[Pupil]

Who here is pushing that agenda?

Me! (evil sounding) Muahahaha! The secretive Atheist Alliance wants everyone to be liberal, atheist, homosexuals who support socialism! Buahaha!

Except, of course, when atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural entity.

Well disbelief *is* a lack of belief (a subset of lack of belief). So as long as you get to "I don't know," (agnostic) you don't have a belief in a deity and are thus atheist. A lot of people don't like the stigma attached to the label, though, and choose to call themselves agnostic rather than agnostic atheist. Whatever floats one's boat I guess.

 

[baywax]

It would be interesting to actually find the purpose for the universe.

It could be that its an engine of some sort, powering a mosquito zapper.

In a case like that, we'd all have enormously bad karma. And it would be impossible to shake. In the Indian language, karma means motion. Were the purpose of our universe to be that of an engine designed to assist in killing living (very large) mosquitos, our motion... or karma... would be a-kilter... or out of balance. And this universe's 13.7 billion to 27.35 billion years of age might be a short life in comparison (to other universes).

 

[Hurkyl]

Well disbelief *is* a lack of belief (a subset of lack of belief).

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing. (If you merely lack belief, why identify yourself with a term that has been used to refer to disbelieve? I have seen this new usage lead to nothing but confusion)

 

[robertm]

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing. (If you merely lack belief, why identify yourself with a term that has been used to refer to disbelieve? I have seen this new usage lead to nothing but confusion)

Why is belief in supernatural entities considered the default position? Can one be considered to be 'disbelieving' a claim that was never believed in the first place? Should we say that we 'disbelieve' in Poseidon? Is this just semantics? WaveJumper:

Where did i imply certainty about creator? It's the domain of religions and atheism that have all the answers. I don't subscribe to any of these extremes.

I was making a general statement, the section you quoted was part of a larger sentence.

Meaning is not the same as Why. You are changing the subject.

My apologies, I was not aware of what definition of the word 'why' you were evoking.

Why is the reason/cause the universe exists in the way it does.

Is this not exactly what science is in the process of working out?

What emotions? I was talking about a cause for the appearance of the universe. Stick to what i said and not to what you are comfortable to discuss.

Beliefs about the universe are inseparable from emotional response in most people. Apart from a serious discussion of data, feelings about what constitutes a good or not so good idea as to the nature of the universe is nothing more than arbitrary emotional response.

You still have yet to say who it is that states as fact: "that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause."

Could it be that you are under a misconception about the current state of cosmological theory?

You don't know what supernatural means. You've made a definition that suits your beliefs and that excludes anything that you deem unacceptable. It's a kind of religious shelter from frightening concepts, is it not?

I do not fear any concepts, thank you.

Supernatural literally means outside of nature, which means that any phenomenon caused by a supernatural event are, by definition, no longer supernatural.

In practice, believers in common supernatural entities claim either that the entity is truly super natural which of course begs the question of how they came to know this; or they claim that the being is an active participant in nature which, by definition, means it is not supernatural.

So, the word is used to describe something which can not be observed/measured and has no effect and thus does not exist, or that a being is manipulating the universe in a manner which has so far eluded our best efforts to observe, much less quantify.

Is what is still unknown supernatural?

I did not suggest this in any way. We do, however, already know a great many things about what we see around us, and conclusions based on that knowledge can be made with as high a degree of certainty as one is ever capable of honestly stating, given the circumstances.

I would like to here any response you may have to the other points I made in my previous post, such as these perhaps:

No competent man of science claims to know even if origin is the right word to use to describe what we have observed regarding the big bang event.

The whole point of language is so that we are able to map our concepts onto events outside our brains, or maybe vice versa.

Our current understanding of the evolution of life on earth, including us and our brains, immediately relegates emotion and abstraction to an arbitrary process in the three pound mass of jelly of a particular primate species.

 

[Pupil]

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing. (If you merely lack belief, why identify yourself with a term that has been used to refer to disbelieve? I have seen this new usage lead to nothing but confusion)

No, disbelief is a subset of lack of belief. Not holding a positive belief in something and denying something are both lacking positive belief. Another way to put it is disbelief = lack of belief + assertion of the negative. You can't think something is false and not have a lack of belief in the that something.

Atheism has changed usage somewhat in the last 10 years because there definitely isn't a God requires absolute certainty -- something no empirical claim has. The same is true for the definition of theism. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm" .