Origin of the universe: god versus no god

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by vetrad

... I have a fairly basic question which is hard to answer with certainty, but I appreciate any input. ... The concept of life on earth seems almost intentional when you consider our atmosphere, magnetic field, rate of core cooling, distance from the sun, etc. ...Basically, I am searching for meaning to my life. I am looking for proof that I am a mass of material that occurred by randomness.

vetrad,
you're right in that the question (actually a request) you have laid before us is not easy to answer. There are three ways to answer it.

1. You can answer it from the God side. You start by assuming that there is a god and the Earth is just a "stage" for some holy experiment, and then you follow the logic. What kind of "person" would this god be? Why would this god "need" all this saccherine worship? Why did this god require a 13 BYear old universe? How come "murdering" your "son" buys forgiveness? And so forth... You do this until you realize the whole concept of god is so full of holes that it is silly.

2. You can answer it from the Science side. You start by assuming that there is no god and that the Earth is a natural product of whatever laws and happenstance may be out there, and then you follow the logic. How does evolution have to work? How does physics create suns and planets? What probabilities are involved? Is there any inherent meaning to Life (globally) or even to my life (locally), and if not, what does THAT mean? You do this until you realize that reality doesn't need a concept of god to explain what we see.

3. You can answer it from inside yourself. You start by assuming that your life has whatever meaning that you want to create, and that you are "big enough" to tackle, and that the Earth and the universe is yours for the understanding, and then you follow the logic. What if there is a god--or isn't? Does this change love, or honesty, or justice? Does this change the laws of physics? Would it change the way the Earth looks, or the beauty you feel when you see a butterfly, a baby, a rainbow? If "meaning" is up to you, shouldn't you get started?

[Kharakov]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

1. You can answer it from the God side. You start by assuming that there is a god and the Earth is just a "stage" for some holy experiment, and then you follow the logic. What kind of "person" would this god be? Why would this god "need" all this saccherine worship? Why did this god require a 13 BYear old universe? How come "murdering" your "son" buys forgiveness? And so forth... You do this until you realize the whole concept of god is so full of holes that it is silly.

Primitive concepts of God can be as invalid as primitive concepts of Nature.

It's not reasonable to question the validity of science by citing primitive (incorrect/invalid) scientific concepts, neither is it reasonable to judge whether or not God exists based upon primitive theological concepts.


In fact, the best thing to do is to not start with an assumption, but rather simple observation of yourself and your experiences.

Think about how different (and perhaps more calm) your reactions are at this stage in your life compared to when you were 6 years old. Imagine being billions, perhaps trillions of years old (or eternal), perhaps having had many leaps in intellectual ability in your existence.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Kharakov

It's not reasonable to question the validity of science by citing primitive (incorrect/invalid) scientific concepts, neither is it reasonable to judge whether or not God exists based upon primitive theological concepts.

I guess I missed it. Where was judgment passed in regards to "primitive theological concepts"?

[Pyrotex]

Hello Kharakov,
welcome to the party.

So, what "primitive" theological concepts did I mention?
How about that "murdering" one's "son" buys forgiveness for everyone else?
That's not primitive.
It's at the very heart of the most modern forms of christianity today.
Yeah, it's based on older concepts, such as animal sacrifice to pay for sins.
But this is the modern version--you don't kill an animal, you kill the most righteous human in history.
That's like going from horse and buggy to the 1966 Ford Mustang in one step.

Actually, the validity of Science is demonstrated by citing the historical series of scientific concepts, from the primitive to the sophisticated. Each generation builds upon what the previous generations learned.

[Kharakov]

Hi Pyrotex,

That version of God-belief is promoted by the same group that promoted (and I use the term loosely) the geocentric model of the universe (and as far as I know, it hasn't really changed its primitive concepts for a long period of time, which is why they remain primitive: what is good enough for someone who doesn't bathe isn't necessarily good enough for a modern man).

[Kharakov]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I guess I missed it. Where was judgment passed in regards to "primitive theological concepts"?

Check the quote above my comment.

[vetrad]

Hello again and thank you for your replies. I really appreciate the different perspectives you guys can offer in response to my 'question/statement'. The logic and understanding of the physical world here is impressive. Many of the concepts are abstract to my thinking, but do make sense in concept.

There were a few references to jesus. At this point in my questions, I am looking for more fundimental logic through how god (a creater) can exist - specifically applying this the Christianity is a jump for me so I would like to lay jesus to rest for now (although it may rise again .

I had a few commments/observations that I think about sometimes, I was hoping some members here can offer their opinion or comments on these.

1) There is the observation that nearly all human communities through the past seem to have developed a kind of religion to explain where they came from. I assume animals do not ponder this. Do you think this evolutionary jump simply comes from our higher intelligence or could this desire to find a god/creator/origin or other explaination to our lives be self-engrained and perhaps purposeful?

2) When I sit back and admire the beauty of the night sky (perhaps after a few beers , it is hard to not feel some connection with the universe. I look at my body and the stars and know they came from the same material. I have a hard time grasping the jump to what actually initiated life (nucleic acids and amno acids spontaneously becoming organized). If this is truly a sponataneous product, then it would seem life is inevitable, given enough time and appropriate conditions on earth (or other planets). So to accept life here as spontaneous, and the universe as vast, I assume you have to believe there are other alien civilizations (past, present or future)?

3) There is a tendency to feel what is right or wrong. For example, I hope all of us here would agree to the statement that 'killing babies is wrong'. In the godless world, there is no moral consequence to this action. How do you rationalize knowing some behavior is wrong, when there really is no right or wrong? Fear of consequences or behavior conditioning?

4) There seems to be some driving force behind our development/evolution. As I stand back and (from a laymans perspective) look over evolutionary charts, it seems to mimick commercial product devlopments. There is trial and error which leads to breakthroughs. Breakthroughs lead to improvements which are exploited in future models. It seems there is a driving force BEHIND life which is pushing it, rather than all the biological breakthroughs occurring because there is evolutionary force working AGAINST it?

5) My last thought goes back to life seeming inevitable, given the right conditions. Could it be that "god" is everywhere in the universe simultaneously at the particle/wave level making it so travel in the universe is not necesary. And he (or she!) was created upon shis demise. Shis demise may have caused the big bang and it's consequences. It would follow, it is inevitable for a planet hospitable to life to form. It would be inevitable life would evolve. It would be inevitable for us (or other civilization) to evolve toward a higher purpose and, in a day in the distant future, evolve to 'gods' ourselves? Upon which we would experience our own collapse, then big bang, and it starts all over again?

I really appreciate if you take the time to reply to my thoughts on these matters. My logic may be flawed but I am hoping you can iron it out for me. I apologize if these questions were answered in previous posts. Many of the replies were fairly abstract and I may need to reread - please direct me back to them as needed. Thanks again, -David

[freeztar]

vetrad,

You ask a lot of questions that need their own thread to answer. Some of these have been addressed here and I recommend doing a search for those threads. None of the questions you ask are directly related to astronomy or cosmology (well, one of them kind of is). Please ask your questions in the appropriate threads.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Kharakov

...That version of God-belief is promoted by the same group that promoted ...the geocentric model of the universe ....

Okay.
I'll give you that one. In fact, the biggest problem with most religions is that they remain too attached to their primitive beliefs for too long.
Science is not to be judged by its primitive beliefs except in the context of the pervaling ignorance of the times. That's why we still honor Isaac Newton so much, and always will.
Science is to be judged on its willingness to "let go" the primitive beliefs as more accurate information and better understanding becomes available.
[sigh] If only religions were as mature.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Kharakov

That version of God-belief is promoted by the same group that promoted (and I use the term loosely) the geocentric model of the universe (and as far as I know, it hasn't really changed its primitive concepts for a long period of time, which is why they remain primitive: what is good enough for someone who doesn't bathe isn't necessarily good enough for a modern man).

It is/was this strict adherence to Geocentricism or a variation of the Anthropic Principle that I felt was the limitation to those Religion that adhered to it. This is especially true to
the Christian faiths that arose from Catholicism. Born and Raised a Roman Catholic myself, I
can personally attest this from their Catecism classes. My innate curiosity had me early on
latch on to Logic and all the Sciences that went with them. I don't know that I ever became
truly an Atheist, maybe strongly Agnostic until High School when I got eagerly interested in
Astronomy, watching the majesty of the nightly heavens.

Then an into college, I started reading comparatively on different religions, contrasting
those beliefs from each other. I noticed a strong similarity with each faith having a slightly
different dialect. It was like looking into a gemstone from different angles. Each saw a
facet of the light reflected yet diffracted differently.

In the last 10 or so years, I have become more sympathetic to Gnosticism (those were
the Heretics that Catholic Church burned through the Ages). Gnostics did not Deify Jesus.
Constantine and the Council of Nicae did.

Science can prevail because self consistency rules over dogma. In Religions, Dogma prevails
over all. Those that dissent are dealt with in the most brutal fashion. Look at History.
So, during the time Newton and his peers was a truly clarifying time for Science. Without
the threat of being burned at the stake with the likes of Gordono Bruno, for one.

maddog