A thread on why we're here

[darkswordsman17]

True, but that isn't what I'm trying to support. It is highlighting the fact that at least considering the possibility isn't as crazy as many people will try to say it is.

As to your 2nd point of "inserting a creator", it depends on what you consider evidence. Seeing the plastic shovel would indicate to me someone made it, although I couldn't prove to you it was, or who did it, yet you would likely without fuss agree with me someone created it.

The difference is we can see the process at work with the shovel. We have no conclusive evidence as to how things came to existence on the other hand, rather only how things evolved over time.

Your lack of knowledge should not be used as reasoning for why you should be allowed to explain things in such a manner. Its one thing if this were 4000 years ago, but you live in a time when you can in fact quite easily expand your knowledge and understanding of a great many things without having to go, hmm, I don't know, so that's got to be because of this invisible cloud guy that other people made up and for some odd reason looks like the people that made him up. But its ok, because they explained that in the book they made up. That definitely seems like the more plausible explanation.

There's a ton of stuff that I'm sure you think we don't have conclusive evidence of that we in fact do. But of course the next step is that you'll have to learn why its conclusive evidence, and frankly I would guess that's a wasted effort on you.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Oh, and, my name is Leroy, and I'm here because penis, penis, penis, ha, ha, ha.

 

[Tweak155]

Your lack of knowledge should not be used as reasoning for why you should be allowed to explain things in such a manner. Its one thing if this were 4000 years ago, but you live in a time when you can in fact quite easily expand your knowledge and understanding of a great many things without having to go, hmm, I don't know, so that's got to be because of this invisible cloud guy that other people made up and for some odd reason looks like the people that made him up. But its ok, because they explained that in the book they made up. That definitely seems like the more plausible explanation.

There's a ton of stuff that I'm sure you think we don't have conclusive evidence of that we in fact do. But of course the next step is that you'll have to learn why its conclusive evidence, and frankly I would guess that's a wasted effort on you.

Lol, do you even understand my argument? Where did I state that I think there is a creator? I'm stating (very plainly I might add) it isn't ridiculous to consider it a possibility. I agree you cannot prove it with any concrete scientific evidence.

 

[Binarycow]

Is this from a book, did you make this up to troll, or are you clearly mad?

Statistics is my area and that is my extrapolation as why we are here. It is
IMHO infinitely more likely to be the actual scenerio than many of the theories proposed so far.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Lol, you're seeing the point

What would something look like that did not have a creator?

 

[surfsatwerk]

Oh, and, my name is Leroy, and I'm here because penis, penis, penis, ha, ha, ha.

OMG he SAID PeNiS!@#!@#!@#

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

True, but that isn't what I'm trying to support. It is highlighting the fact that at least considering the possibility isn't as crazy as many people will try to say it is.

As to your 2nd point of "inserting a creator", it depends on what you consider evidence. Seeing the plastic shovel would indicate to me someone made it, although I couldn't prove to you it was, or who did it, yet you would likely without fuss agree with me someone created it.

The difference is we can see the process at work with the shovel. We have no conclusive evidence as to how things came to existence on the other hand, rather only how things evolved over time.

Was the shovel really "made," or was it simply reconfigured from things that already existed?

 

[Tweak155]

What would something look like that did not have a creator?

Good question. It also stands to reason that something less complex than a creator is more likely to appear prior to the more complex existence of said creator, rather than the other way around.

 

[Tweak155]

Was the shovel really "made," or was it simply reconfigured from things that already existed?

I suppose it could be better worded, but it stands to reason one would not argue the shovel landed on the beach without human intervention.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I suppose it could be better worded, but it stands to reason one would not argue the shovel landed on the beach without human intervention.

That's fine, but it invalidates your inference that the totality of things required any intervention in order to begin existing.

Also, what evidence do you have that the totality of things began to exist at all?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Good question.

It is the most important question. If you do not know what an "undesigned" or "uncreated" object would look like, then you have no basis to determine objectively that anything is "created" or "designed."

It also stands to reason that something less complex than a creator is more likely to appear prior to the more complex existence of said creator, rather than the other way around.

Why do you think that's the case?

 

[Tweak155]

That's fine, but it invalidates your inference that the totality of things required any intervention in order to begin existing.

Also, what evidence do you have that the totality of things began to exist at all?

It has nothing to do with "requiring" it. It is your interpretation of the events, and whether or not you feel only one of the two solutions is a possibility.

I have no evidence that things began to exist. The unfortunate infinite loop here is we can't prove how either everything came to be, or simply existed. The movement of the objects in the universe gives indication there was a starting point (I.E Big Bang) which leans towards a starting point from our limited understanding, but it isn't conclusive evidence.

 

[Tweak155]

It is the most important question. If you do not know what an "undesigned" or "uncreated" object would look like, then you have no basis to determine objectively that anything is "created" or "designed."


Why do you think that's the case?

Perhaps you could argue using the word design is a fallacy in and of itself, as is the entire english language is of a creation due to our existence. However that argument goes both ways. If you can show me something that is designed, I therefor could still use that object as a reference of design. And if that resembles things that I cannot prove were designed, it would not be unreasonable to also come to the conclusion that it was possibly designed.

As to why I think that is the case - if I'm going to argue it is reasonable to consider a creator, the basis of that assumption is due to the perceived complexity of things we can observe. If that in and of itself is to be used as an argument, I would also have to concede that the creator itself could not have been created, which goes against my very own argument.

If something complex HAS to come from something more complex, we're in an infinite loop.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I believe it was michio kaku who calculated the statistics behind us being a random event, and concluded it was statistically similar to a tornado hitting a junkyard and leaving behind a fully-fueled 747 ready for takeoff.

Pretty much this tells me we aren't here because of chance.
Things become more disorderly on their own. Not into intelligent beings. Entropy, I believe its called.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't care how old you are, HHGTTG is basically required reading here.

I saw the movie; does that count?

 

[SMOGZINN]

If you had to come up with some reason, what would it be?

I'm starting to feel like if you stand back and look at things, it's obvious that we are the reason. Perhaps to allow for vessels to house souls, I don't know, but something this impressive isn't here 'just because'.

I think that is is pretty obvious that is all just happens by chance. People come and go in this life quickly and often brutally, with no more reason then the statistical chance of being the victim of a drunk driver or a elevator with a person with Hepatitis. Most people never do anything useful at all and seem to have no purpose, some of them live for a long time, while children die by being struck by lightning. Life has no purpose other then that we assign to it.

Pretty much this tells me we aren't here because of chance.
Things become more disorderly on their own. Not into intelligent beings. Entropy, I believe its called.

This is a misunderstanding of the basic laws of physics so large that it can only be purposeful considering that you see examples of higher order entropy forming into ordered sets spontaneously every day.

Consider this, what is more ordered free flowing water or ice crystals. But given enough time those water crystals (that are well ordered) will decay. It just takes something like 10^32 years.

Entropy occurs only on large scale over large amount of time, and only in closed systems with no external power source. The universe itself might be trending towards entropy, earth is not.

 

[sdifox]

I saw the movie; does that count?

nope.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I think that is is pretty obvious that is all just happens by chance. People come and go in this life quickly and often brutally, with no more reason then the statistical chance of being the victim of a drunk driver or a elevator with a person with Hepatitis. Most people never do anything useful at all and seem to have no purpose, some of them live for a long time, while children die by being struck by lightning. Life has no purpose other then that we assign to it.



This is a misunderstanding of the basic laws of physics so large that it can only be purposeful considering that you see examples of higher order entropy forming into ordered sets spontaneously every day.

Consider this, what is more ordered free flowing water or ice crystals. But given enough time those water crystals (that are well ordered) will decay. It just takes something like 10^32 years.

Entropy occurs only on large scale over large amount of time, and only in closed systems with no external power source. The universe itself might be trending towards entropy, earth is not.

Take about 10 steps back.. I'm not intending this thread to be on any personal level, it's not why am I here, I am clearly not special.

The question to be asked, is why are WE here. Not even just us humans or even bacteria.


The universe certainly seems to have some point to it, and when you stand back and look, life itself seems to be the only answer.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The universe certainly seems to have some point to it, and when you stand back and look, life itself seems to be the only answer.

Why do you think the Universe has some purpose to it? Existence doesn't require purpose. It's impossible for you to stand back and look at the Universe objectively and conclude that life is the purpose. First, you can't leave the Universe, second, you can't stop being alive and still remain conscious enough to render an opinion on the purpose of things. You're too biased to render an objective opinion. What if Hydrogen atoms are the ultimate purpose of the Universe, and everything else is just an accident?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Why do you think the Universe has some purpose to it? Existence doesn't require purpose. It's impossible for you to stand back and look at the Universe objectively and conclude that life is the purpose. First, you can't leave the Universe, second, you can't stop being alive and still remain conscious enough to render an opinion on the purpose of things. You're too biased to render an objective opinion. What if Hydrogen atoms are the ultimate purpose of the Universe, and everything else is just an accident?

When you look at any system of items, and there is some bright beacon gleaming out, that is usually the purpose.

Think of it as an outsider, even more than human or whatever. If you looked in on our "known" universe, would you really not think that this amazing place is not the purpose (or at least, some sort of factor in the 'equation'?)

My main point is that many seem to feel as though we are here for no reason, which as I've gotten older I find is incredibly naive. The more we discover about our universe, the more earth itself stands out like a sore thumb.

The more that it stands out, the more it seems that we MUST be here for some reason. Not me, not you, not humans, but everything living as a whole.

 

[IronWing]

Sigh. Damn illiterate kids. Get off my lawn!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker's_guide_to_the_galaxy

Are you sure that's from the HHGG series? The quoted passage is a bit too serious for too long and lacking in digital watch references. And no mice.

 

[sdifox]

Are you sure that's from the HHGG series? The quoted passage is a bit too serious for too long and lacking in digital watch references. And no mice.

yes... the mice that commissioned the computer will show up a few pages later.

don't remember which book. Third I think.


lulz blatant copyright violation

http://hitch14.tripod.com/intro.htm

 

[IronWing]

Why do you think the Universe has some purpose to it? Existence doesn't require purpose. It's impossible for you to stand back and look at the Universe objectively and conclude that life is the purpose. First, you can't leave the Universe, second, you can't stop being alive and still remain conscious enough to render an opinion on the purpose of things. You're too biased to render an objective opinion. What if Hydrogen atoms are the ultimate purpose of the Universe, and everything else is just an accident?

Following that idea out to it's logical conclusion, our universe is possibly one giant Fe-56 foundary.

 

[Dumac]

The universe certainly seems to have some point to it, and when you stand back and look, life itself seems to be the only answer.

Your reasoning has nothing behind it. When you stand back and look, you wouldn't even notice life on Earth. I think it is self-centered of you to insinuate that this whole, gigantic universe exists for life here on Earth.

When you look at any system of items, and there is some bright beacon gleaming out, that is usually the purpose.

But it isn't a bright beacon, at all. The stars are bright beacons, if anything. Or galaxies consisting of stars. Our planet, and the life on it, is negligible in view and effect on universe.

The more we discover about our universe, the more earth itself stands out like a sore thumb.

Actually, the opposite is true. People used to believe Earth was one-of-a-kind. Now we know that it likely isn't. There are most likely other planets out there that share similar properties.

The more that it stands out, the more it seems that we MUST be here for some reason. Not me, not you, not humans, but everything living as a whole.

Again, this is baseless conjecture with no reasoning behind it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

When you look at any system of items, and there is some bright beacon gleaming out, that is usually the purpose.

Think of it as an outsider, even more than human or whatever. If you looked in on our "known" universe, would you really not think that this amazing place is not the purpose (or at least, some sort of factor in the 'equation'?)

My main point is that many seem to feel as though we are here for no reason, which as I've gotten older I find is incredibly naive. The more we discover about our universe, the more earth itself stands out like a sore thumb.

The more that it stands out, the more it seems that we MUST be here for some reason. Not me, not you, not humans, but everything living as a whole.

OK. But let's take another objective view of things. The general scientific consensus is that after the beginning of the Universe (whether you use the Big Bang or the God snapping his fingers theory for the beginning is largely irrelevant here), matter started forming in the form of hydrogen atoms. And that was pretty much it for a long, long time. Lots of hydrogen, pretty much nothing else. Eventually the hydrogen starts congealing into stars, atomic fusion starts cranking out other atoms and molecules, this starts congealing into other celestial bodies, all of which start moving together to form galaxies, star systems, yada yada yada, eventually culminating in the creation of the microwave burrito (the third best reason for existing).

Here's the thing; it all started with hydrogen. Who's to say that God didn't create all this hydrogen and think, "Damn, that is a shitload of hydrogen. That is awesome!" and leave it at that? Maybe he checked out for a few billion years, came back and thought, "What the hell happened here?" That's just as plausible as thinking that the Universe was custom made for life. In fact, if you were customizing a Universe for life, you probably wouldn't want to make it so big that interplanetary travel, even within a single star system, was virtually impossible, let alone travel on an intergalactic scale. Nor would you want to make it so that a planet needed energy from a star to support life, which limits the habitable zones that a planet could occupy. That would require more planets sharing similar orbits, and gravitation would have to be altered so that they didn't smash into each other or fly away from their orbit of said star while still keeping the inhabitants of the planets held down. If planets were self-sustaining, that problem is solved. But they aren't. That's not conducive to an increase in life throughout the Universe.

Come to think of it, if our Universe was tailor-made for life, the person responsible really didn't think things through. Why make meteors and asteroids and comets whipping through space unpredictably and occasionally smashing into things like, say, planets, which looks cool in a telescope, but has the unfortunate side effect of ending virtually all life if you happen to be on the planet that gets hit? That's not tailor-making a Universe for life unless one of the conditions of life is the insistence that there be a constant possibility that it ends in a cataclysmic fireball. Why make supernovas or black holes or quasars which can destroy entire star systems? Why make life dependant on destroying other life to maintain its own?

Why did life have to come along and ruin everything for the hydrogen atoms?