There is no real reason that can be proven beyond any doubt, I think. No E=MC² or even F=MA. It makes an interesting religious point, though, since what you'll probably hear is "because God wanted it that way" which then gets complicated with arbitrary "rules to live by or you rot in hell" etc. In my view there is no "good" answer. Even the one I subscribe to still leaves a big hole since my version of the question is "why is there something instead of nothing?" So since we are doomed for existence, we can always kill ourselves (not recommended) or try to make the existence interesting and meaningful even if it does not include any organized religion's way. I once read in an atheist's USENET newsgroups before the times of the Web, the 1st question in the FAQ which was something like (and this is from memory): "Doesn't the atheist then deprives himself of a belief that could help him cope in times of distress?" to which the FAQ replied something like: Yes, but the atheist rather believe in the truth and recognize that he will have to cope by himself instead of voluntarily believing in something that has not been proven and which then may qualify as an untruth. To the atheist the truth is more important than inventing devices just to feel better in bad times. Another question was about the meaning of life and the atheist said he was happy with the knowledge that there was no meaning to life but since we were already here, we might as well enjoy it. An atheist doesn't have to be selfish as some may have you think. For example the joy of giving to the less fortunate can make an atheist happy (if he's got the means of course). My $0.02 US
Ravish - that's the anthropic cosmological principle. As I pointed out to you last time (see midway through page two.)
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
R K Singh
Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Originally posted by Jim Yingst: Ravish - that's the anthropic cosmological principle. As I pointed out to you last time (see midway through page two.)
Yes I did remember that I posted it somewhere here in MD, but it was worth repeating (as per me ) Will the science ultimately take us back to relegion
Joined: Jan 30, 2000
If you mean A religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism with all their tenets, I doubt it very much. If by religion you mean the existence of an Intelligent Source of All That Is, maybe. But even that depends of how we define intelligence. One thing though: You are not going to Hell Neither is anyone else...
Joined: Jan 30, 2000
And about the Anthropic Principle that Jim mentioned, it really doesn't answer your original question, IMHO. If I interpret it correctly, the Cosmological Anthropic Principle (of which there are two flavors: Strong and Weak), tries to explain why is there a self-observing Universe. That is a Universe where its matter has organized so highly that it produced human beings who are able to look back at the Universe and understand how it is made and how it works (ever more so) etc. For me there are two explanations: 1) There are an infinite (or very very high) number of Universes and as such there would be one, just by chance, to have the appropriate combination of laws and physical constants conducive to conscious life which would be able to observe the Universe the way we do. Maybe this can be compared to a country in which there is a lottery. Suppose ALL the possible number combinations are sold. Then, it is guaranteed that at least one individual will hit the big prize. 2) There is only one universe and the Creator decided what the exact values for all physical constants should be such that life and then intelligent life would evolve. Even if the last case is the true one (we cannot find out for sure) the question still remains, why is there something instead of nothing?
I don't see anything wrong with people registering names like Charles Darwin as long as they don't use them in other forums (unless it is their real name). Of course, I wonder why anyone would want to use the name of a racist who fully supported Spencer's writings on "social Darwininsm."
Originally posted by Thomas Paul: I don't see anything wrong with people registering names like Charles Darwin as long as they don't use them in other forums (unless it is their real name). Of course, I wonder why anyone would want to use the name of a racist who fully supported Spencer's writings on "social Darwininsm."
Thomas I think you got your information wrong Darwin did not support Spencer..remember a whole bunch of Drawin supporters attributed his writings to other stuff that he did not support but was to intrverted or weak to voice an opinion on..
It makes an interesting religious point, though, since what you'll probably hear is "because God wanted it that way"
We see the Universe the way it is because we are here to see it.
can we make a good conclusion to the topic?. the humen brain is like a multithreaded system. many threads are running on it.some threads make us thinking on these kind of issues and some threads(thoughts)tries to make us something another.where these threads get initialised?.or started?.if u r focussing on this issue,u can find that there is something called 'destiny' or a predefined path.i 'll prove it by one questien. why bill gates had a thought of computers in his early years?. answer is, bill gates had the thought because of 'genetical urge + situation' 'genetical urge' is purely not related to a person's intelligence and control.situation is also not related to a person's intelligence and control. so dont kick off the 'predefined path' that all religions says. one thing is quite funny..we all dont know why we are living in this world.haha discuss ..discussion reveal the truth. basha
Once upon a time Buddha was wondering through the towns and villages along with his followers. One day a man came to buddha and told him that he is a firm beleiver in god and asked him a question "Does god exist ?" Buddha said "No". Another day he was visiting another village a man came to him and said "I do not beleive in god what do you think does god exist ?" He said "Yes". One night Buddha was doing his regular concentration then a man visited hi,m and told him that he is confused whether the god exist or not buddha didnt answer he kept silence after asking him several time he was annoyed so left that place. One of his follower was keeping eye on this incidence he came to buddha and asked him why he has given three different answers to the same question. Buddha said those answers was not for you, but still I will tell you. The first person was a firm beleiver in god so he has put a full stop in his life and has stopped wondering abpout life. Therefore I said god does not exist so he should again start exploring himself, similar situation was also with the second person he does not beleive in god so told him that god exist so he also start exploring himself and in the third case that person was already exploring his life so there was no need to give answer to him. So my dear life is to explore yourself and this Universe.
Joined: Jan 18, 2002
dear sameer, we all are exploring the world.but how to explore?.where to explore?.that's the questien. an anology like 'we have to explore thyself only and discover the truth ' could'nt make any sense.look an example.. why we are in front of computer?. because our ancestors made a lot of work to invent it and by the result of their work we got a chance to work in it. everything is like this.we have books which was made by thought of generations.so we'll get assistance..we'll get a platform.there is no requirement for thinking from the scratch.we can analize the thoughts which took hundreads of years to develop.analising the thoughts require only a few hours. that's were budha went wrong to the first questenair.budha should show all his findings to him and then he can say to explore again. anyone who reading the story will get confusion on budha's findings..if budha is also an explorer...what's the deference between budha and the questenair?.if there is no deference,why u wrote budha's story rather than anyone else?. basha