Debate on the accidental universe

[Argonavis]

At the risk of being beaten senseless by the moderators, I found an interesting series of debates on Youtube that looks at the universe through religion, both pro and con.

The redeming features for this board is that it is addressed to a scientifically literate audience and uses the arguements of science. It raises matters that are often on the minds of astronomers as they contemplate the universe. I have heard more thoughtful amateurs to express some of the views contained in the attached links. It revolves around the issues of whether the universe and life is an "accident" or part of some master plan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxzGA-OQOk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhZBYdheOMk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yurRiYbyVH0&feature=related

what do you think?

[AJames]

God, I think, has placed a very dark place for those who ask such questions!
(And I'm probably going there after this!)

In my opinion, questions of religion and science are very incompatible, as they are based on very different realities. I.e. physics (physical universe) versus metaphysics (invisible universe). As religion is based on faith - and assumes holism (that parts are greater than the whole) while science based on reductionism (observing the physical World and breaking it into its components, to makes some conclusion.)
Also religion assumes that the components of life have two separate components - the physical body and the additional soul - the latter which cannot be proven at all by science. As some assume that only human kind have souls, then the definition of intelligent life discards microbes to plants to chimpanzees. (life-forms without souls) As such, whether life was an accident or not is therefore irrelevant to the purposes of religion (broadly saving human souls). Therefore, believing that any life was an accident or purposefully designed is irrelevant to religion - other than enforcing the held personal beliefs - even through they are often quite incontestable (by reductionism) dogma.
So regardless of other life being found in the universe or not, the basis of religious dogma will be unchanging and held firmly (or shakily) on their own-held faith.
To be honest, much of the "master plan" is about either making humans as the ultimate "master race" (at least under their own god's eyes) or the next attack in tactics of the establishment of dreaded ID Intelligent Design (better known as Unintelligible Design by most of its scientific critics). The latter of these persistent "do-gooders", is to keep their views in the public arena - even if it is - IMO - very misguided and mischievous.

...but the more specific question I think should be asked
- is there really intelligent life on Earth!

COMMENT : Considering the way the some religions behave, who state all their caring for one another and there declared "sanctity for life", sure act pretty badly to those who disagree with their individual views. I think some actually hold emphatically true ; "As you have observed, human life as cheap" (as Major Strasser says in the 1942 movie Casablanca and are prepared to kill, maim and murder to sustain their often strange religious dogma.
If there was ever a Christmas wish - it would be this - stop using religion to perpetrate such evils on the fellow humans throughout the world. :prey: :prey: While respecting someone's own views is one thing - imposing them others is clearly not acceptable. For this we can only hope that some day humankind will discard these now antiquated notions so that humanity can embrace the true meaning of living and in having real concept of "life".

Andrew

Note: Perhaps you should read the 1979 Pulitzer Prize-winning book; "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter, which is a . He attempts; "...to show how to perceive reality outside the normal confines of their own experience and embrace such paradoxical questions by rejecting the premise." Knowledge of such views are certainly necessary to resolve such recursive questions before you can obtain any meaningful answers.

[Argonavis]

A lot of science types think this dualistic way. It helps reconcile science and religion. Religious fundamentalists are smarter - they know that the more complete the naturalistic explanations for the universe and how it came to be, the less there is a requirement for a diety. If fact, a supernatural diety becomes optional.




recently saw the movie "The Good German". It is almost "son of Casablanca", same time era, same ending at the airplane, same problem of evil and the self preserving human response, accomodation or death.

[xelasnave]

A finite Universe suggests a plan and the possibility of some entity making the plan..an infinite Universe needs no plan but is beyond our comprehension of how such could be so.

I can see no explanation other than a infinite Universe... this means there was no start, it always was and has been... humans can not entertain this because it is beyond explanation. Our belief in our sophistication will prevent us from admitting we can not know.

The popularity of the Big Bang is simply that humans can quantify the Universe and say that it started at a point... however once the point of this start has been established the question is raised what was there before..no one wishes to go there because it demands more than we can know.

I think the theory comforts believers because it reaches such a point.. a point where they can say ..well it was God who set the stage..it comforts scientists because it lets them labour upon the mistaken belief that they can work it out... irrespective of their sums and observations it remains an educated guess.

However a big bang suits humans because it makes them feel as if they have solved the issue..they have not... big bangers leave the probem of the start by commenting upon only a few milli seconds after their "start" and of course such a result is no knowlege at all .

Without a better understanding of how things work how can we speculate and say we are certain...the standard model for particle structure is the best we have yet it is hoplessly inadequate in explaining many of the things we can comprehend.

We can not deal with gravity or dark energy and although these are such important issues they are put on the back burner.

Without a comprehensive understanding on how gravity works (which involves understanding dark energy) and more importantly why it behaves in the way it does we know nothing...the main machine of the Universe is gravity yet we can not fit it into the forces we think we have wired..we know relatively nothing....we know relatively nothing..who can accept that..not the believers.. not the scientists.. but that is the possition clearly...we can of course specualte upon what we would like the Universe to be or specualte upon the way we think it could work but it is folly to turn the speculation into a belief we know something when really we do not...

Humans want to believe they have answers but really they have none be they believers or non believers they simply do not know..

However there can be no accidents irrespective of which way you approach the matter..things happen because they are the result of a set of rules as to how matter or energy interacts..we may not know the rules but that does not mean there are no rules..any interaction is predetermined and although we may have no idea of the rules we can say there was no accident as all is the result of conditions that determine a variety a results... even a random selection has a basis upon which it rests.

Speculation in these areas can only remain specualtion for we have no way of proving any theory we present..big bang included.

We can only ever be satisfied that we can speculate but there can be no escape from events being the result of pre existing conditions that determine a variety of results will be available.

How can we comment when we do not understand the rules.
alex

[astroron]

I have been following this thread with interest, and yesterday I was reading an article titled Where Did The Universe Come From in the December 2006 U S version of SKY&TELESCOPE page 36.
In the article it directed me to an article in the May 2006 S&T page 25 which, I thought it was something bearing on this discussion.;)
I hope you all have a Happy New Year
Ron