View Single Post
Old 09-27-2010, 02:32 PM
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah's Avatar
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah Offline
Amateur Trainer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 61
Default Re: Origin of the universe?

In my opinion, the universe doesn't have to have a creator.
Well to even ask a question like "Does the Universe have to have a Creator?" brings about complexity. It should be phrased as such: If the Universe didnt have a Creator, would such and such (possibly negative) things have happened? Like us not having any reason to live? Or, it could be phrased this way: Does the Universe have to have a Creator in order for it to exist? In other words, Does a Creator exist or not? So you see a lot of connotations can be attached to it.

As it's already been said (or not), God is what humans thought up to give to their life meaning and feel they has a purpose to accomplish.
That might be your personal assessment, but not necessarily the truth. Right off the bat you have refused to give any Ideology that promotes the concept of God any benefit of Doubt, and this caused you to reach this conclusion. That of course is flawed, to arrive at a conclusion we need to give benefit of doubt to every ideology related to it.

But the sheer fact that life appeared out of dead matter
Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.
and that it requires very specific and rare conditions in order to be maintained is something amazing, from a scientific point of view. We don't need a reason to live, because the fact that we live is a reason itself. We have the ability to think of why we are here. Isn't that awesome? Of course it is, considering that less than 0,00001% (or maybe even more) of the total matter in the universe participated in the creation of, and now is part of, living creatures.
This phenomenon you speak of can be interpreted in a number of ways. Your interpretation is that Life in and of itself is a reason and a brilliant miracle and we should try our hardest to preserve it. However the interpretation of a theist would be that since this Universe has been Designed specifically to accommodate for human existence, therefore it actually shows that God gave us a purpose to live (Im a proponent of this particular opinion since it appears to be more sensible that anything that serves so intricate a purpose needs to be borne of Design). What is that purpose? Like I said in my previous posts, that is open to debate. This decision should be based on whether the religion caliming to have the truth is pragmatic or not.

Our goal, thus, is to preserve the miracle of life, because it may be so rare (we don't even know if there's life beyond Earth).
As I said, thats personal interpretation, second, like I said in my previous post, that is ignoring the big picture of the purpose of life. "Sustaining Life" is fragment of the Big Picture of "Purpose of Life". Maginifying this considerably small picture and trying to substitute the Big question of our Life's purpose with it would be demotivational, and even irrational.

However, we insist on killing the planet and , egoistically, extend our species's territory. So, isn't it hypocritical asking whether there's a meaning in life when we simply destroy it?
I agree with the Rhetoricism present in this question, but this is kind of beside the issue, as you yourself might admit.
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal
Reply With Quote