Are we really that important or are we just arrogant?

[Creeyayshun]

I'm new to this forum and to debating these subjects in general. I do not intend to offend anyone and I am genuinely curious, as an atheist, as to what religious people think of this.

I'm just wondering for those of you who do believe that the everything that exists was created by god, why did he make so much? If humans and life on earth was the only life he created, then why did he make things millions of light years away? They don't effect us at all so in essence they have no meaning other than to look at them.
Please look at this just to get a visual scale of how small we really are:



Now, that stops at stars... just stars. There are billions of stars which make galaxies. There are billions of galaxies that make up our universe which continues to expand. Compared to all of this to say we are merely a spec of dust is an understatement. So basically what I am asking:

1. why do religious people think we are so important and that an entity is watching us and only us (supposedly being the only living things in the universe) all the time with no other life if our universe is this big. It just seems arrogant to me.

2. Why would he make all of those galaxies so far away?

3. If you believe the bible in saying the earth is 6000 years old then how do we see stars millions of light years away (the light wouldn't have reached us yet)

[Assent]

I don't get it. If there is such a thing as a soul, then it must be subject to scientific inquiry.

If there was such a thing as a physically existant soul, then it would be subject to scientific inquiry. If a soul does not exist physically, then it is subject only to philosophy, much like free will, existentialism, and theories about god, all of which do not and by definition would not provide physical evidence.

There are more things in heaven and earth then are drempt of by your science, Horatio.

[McCulloch]

If there was such a thing as a physically existent soul, then it would be subject to scientific inquiry. If a soul does not exist physically, then it is subject only to philosophy, much like free will, existentialism, and theories about god, all of which do not and by definition would not provide physical evidence.

There are more things in heaven and earth then are dreamt of by your science, Horatio.

If human souls do not physically exist and are simply the domain of philosophy, like the ideas of free will, justice or mercy, then no one is justified in saying that a soul will exist after the human dies, or that the soul will be with God in heaven or be without God in torment, eternally.

Christians, or at least the Christians I know, make more substantial claims about human souls (or spirits) than that they are philosophical ideas.

[QED]

Entropy is S=KlogW. It counts the number of ways consistent with the laws of physics, in which any given physical system can be realized. High entropy means there are many ways. Low means there are fewer. It measures the amount of disorder in a physical system. In a physical system with many constituents there is a natural evolution towards higher disorder. I learned this in Physics 101. What I am trying to figure out is how it is applicable to the human body.

alexiarose, I don't know if you're aware of the short essay What is Life written by Erwin Schrodinger in 1944, but I'm sure you'd find it interesting. In it he asks "How can the events in space and time which take place within the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?". You may not agree with all of his conclusions, but the insights he brings from the world of Quantum Mechanics present some of the most reliable constraints (ones that are still valid sixty-years later) we know of.

[QED]

There are more things in heaven and earth then are drempt of by your science, Horatio.

Earth, sure. But why are those things and places that are by definition off-limits to us until we die to be expected at all? Of course they're attractive ideasbut that's no good reason to believe that they're more than the product of our imaginations.

[Assent]

Earth, sure. But why are those things and places that are by definition off-limits to us until we die to be expected at all? Of course they're attractive ideasbut that's no good reason to believe that they're more than the product of our imaginations.

Now what makes you so certain that they are explained at all? Maybe all we can do is try to figure them out while we are still alive.

There's no reason to avoid believing any more than believing in anything. Everything is a product of our imaginations; stories, histories, self identity, even science needs creativity to build conclusions. The lack of belief is still a belief, just as making no decision is still a choice. When answers do not come, neither a positive nor a negative response to the question carry any distinction. Neither your negative response nor my positive response carry any sort of inherent value when compared to the other; you chose your response because you preferred it, as I with mine.

For example, there is either free will, determinism, or some combination thereof. Both ideas only exist in our imaginations, but that doesn't prevent one or the other or both from being correct. Hypothetically, you may believe in free will, and I in determinism, but that does not make one of us wrong.

[QED]

Earth, sure. But why are those things and places that are by definition off-limits to us until we die to be expected at all? Of course they're attractive ideasbut that's no good reason to believe that they're more than the product of our imaginations.

Now what makes you so certain that they are explained at all? Maybe all we can do is try to figure them out while we are still alive.

I don't understand what you're saying here. There's this little fellow called the sea-squirt who finds himself cropping up in many a philosophical argument. The reason for all the interest is the fact that his primitive brain is digested once he's found a suitable spot to spend the rest of his life (I say "he" because I'm sure no female would be so short-sighted as to do this ). This leads to the reasonably sounding conclusion that the brain is an adaptation for navigating around a 3D world and that plants, being rooted to a particular spot, are in no need of an organ of sentience. Bearing this in mind, and the general lack of expectation for plants to have souls (or whatever it is that is thought to outlive the material body), why should 3D navigators get to enjoy the special treat of sentience extending beyond their physical demise?

There's no reason to avoid believing any more than believing in anything. Everything is a product of our imaginations; stories, histories, self identity, even science needs creativity to build conclusions.

There are many good arguments against solipsism. While I agree that human beliefs can be plastic, I also see overwhelming evidence that there is a great deal of solid reality against which our beliefs may be tested. You seem to be defending a class of beliefs that have been defined to be independent of that external reality and I think that makes them inadmissible for the basis of any kind of practical belief. I say this because I value the solid reality against which ideas can be tested as the only common currency as, when beliefs influence our actions, we need a common currency for safe trading.

The lack of belief is still a belief, just as making no decision is still a choice. When answers do not come, neither a positive nor a negative response to the question carry any distinction. Neither your negative response nor my positive response carry any sort of inherent value when compared to the other; you chose your response because you preferred it, as I with mine.

Fortunately we come to no harm because of our inability to trade with that common currency here. But solipsism isn't they way the world is. Others can reach into our experience in ways that distress us. Your ideas seem dangerous to me.

For example, there is either free will, determinism, or some combination thereof. Both ideas only exist in our imaginations, but that doesn't prevent one or the other or both from being correct. Hypothetically, you may believe in free will, and I in determinism, but that does not make one of us wrong.

It can do if we a hermetic intellectual existence. Bell's theorem is considered to rule out determinism.

[alexiarose]

Entropy is S=KlogW. It counts the number of ways consistent with the laws of physics, in which any given physical system can be realized. High entropy means there are many ways. Low means there are fewer. It measures the amount of disorder in a physical system. In a physical system with many constituents there is a natural evolution towards higher disorder. I learned this in Physics 101. What I am trying to figure out is how it is applicable to the human body.

alexiarose, I don't know if you're aware of the short essay What is Life written by Erwin Schrodinger in 1944, but I'm sure you'd find it interesting. In it he asks "How can the events in space and time which take place within the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?". You may not agree with all of his conclusions, but the insights he brings from the world of Quantum Mechanics present some of the most reliable constraints (ones that are still valid sixty-years later) we know of.

I have a date tonight, but will print this out and read it Saturday. I have heard of him, but nothing specific. I don't know that I will grasp it, but it can't be worse than your Pinkerton guy.

[Assent]

I don't understand what you're saying here...why should 3D navigators get to enjoy the special treat of sentience extending beyond their physical demise?

I am not trying to answer that question. I am asking you, "Can you think of a scenario in which the questions of existence are not answered one way or another after death?" A complete ending to existence does count as an answer. Also, be aware that I have thought of a scenario in which exactly this can occur, so understand that there is at least one answer to my question.

There are many good arguments against solipsism. While I agree that human beliefs can be plastic, I also see overwhelming evidence that there is a great deal of solid reality against which our beliefs may be tested. You seem to be defending a class of beliefs that have been defined to be independent of that external reality and I think that makes them inadmissible for the basis of any kind of practical belief. I say this because I value the solid reality against which ideas can be tested as the only common currency as, when beliefs influence our actions, we need a common currency for safe trading.

Fortunately we come to no harm because of our inability to trade with that common currency here. But solipsism isn't they way the world is. Others can reach into our experience in ways that distress us. Your ideas seem dangerous to me.

Like most ideas I have only borrowed partly from solipsism. What I am saying is not that physical reality is created in our minds, but that the sum total of human knowledge is. Our ability to understand reality is a creation, not the reality itself. Thus, for a question without an answer and without any indication one way or the other (such as for a basic question like, "Does something which can be defined as god exist? Yes/No"), all answers are equally valid.

Let me give you an example. Let's say there are two individuals who are arguing about the acceleration constant of Earth's gravity. One guesses high, the other guesses low. While the reality exists and disagrees with both, until they happen upon the answer, or until someone comes along and corrects them, then in that microcosm, both answers are valid.

It can do if we a hermetic intellectual existence. Bell's theorem is considered to rule out determinism.

Maybe it's because my eyes glaze over when I see that much physics in one place, or maybe it's because I cannot for the life of me decipher the grammar of your first sentence, but I don't really understand what a quantum mechanics theory with several exceptions has to do with fate.

[QED]

I don't understand what you're saying here...why should 3D navigators get to enjoy the special treat of sentience extending beyond their physical demise?

I am not trying to answer that question. I am asking you, "Can you think of a scenario in which the questions of existence are not answered one way or another after death?" A complete ending to existence does count as an answer. Also, be aware that I have thought of a scenario in which exactly this can occur, so understand that there is at least one answer to my question.

Can I think of a scenario where the question of life-after-death is not answered after death? Yes, based on my understanding of life, I happen to think that we will never come to know that there is life-after-death.

But you said "A complete ending to existence does count as an answer." (my bold). How can it? This sounds like that Joe who responded (not atypically) to a psychology questionnaire about existential beliefs by answering; "yeah, sure he knows he's dead"

There are many good arguments against solipsism. While I agree that human beliefs can be plastic, I also see overwhelming evidence that there is a great deal of solid reality against which our beliefs may be tested. You seem to be defending a class of beliefs that have been defined to be independent of that external reality and I think that makes them inadmissible for the basis of any kind of practical belief. I say this because I value the solid reality against which ideas can be tested as the only common currency as, when beliefs influence our actions, we need a common currency for safe trading.

Fortunately we come to no harm because of our inability to trade with that common currency here. But solipsism isn't they way the world is. Others can reach into our experience in ways that distress us. Your ideas seem dangerous to me.

Like most ideas I have only borrowed partly from solipsism. What I am saying is not that physical reality is created in our minds, but that the sum total of human knowledge is. Our ability to understand reality is a creation, not the reality itself. Thus, for a question without an answer and without any indication one way or the other (such as for a basic question like, "Does something which can be defined as god exist? Yes/No"), all answers are equally valid.

Let me give you an example. Let's say there are two individuals who are arguing about the acceleration constant of Earth's gravity. One guesses high, the other guesses low. While the reality exists and disagrees with both, until they happen upon the answer, or until someone comes along and corrects them, then in that microcosm, both answers are valid.

But that isn't applicable to "question without answers". Are you suggesting that there is no "yes/no" answer to questions like "does God exist?" or "does life-after-death exist?"

It can do if we a hermetic intellectual existence. Bell's theorem is considered to rule out determinism.

Maybe it's because my eyes glaze over when I see that much physics in one place, or maybe it's because I cannot for the life of me decipher the grammar of your first sentence, but I don't really understand what a quantum mechanics theory with several exceptions has to do with fate.

Bell's theorem rules out hidden variables such that Quantum Indeterminacy is an intrinsic property of the world. Fate can therefore hinge on events that are genuinely random.

[Assent]

Can I think of a scenario where the question of life-after-death is not answered after death? Yes, based on my understanding of life, I happen to think that we will never come to know that there is life-after-death.

But you said "A complete ending to existence does count as an answer." (my bold). How can it? This sounds like that Joe who responded (not atypically) to a psychology questionnaire about existential beliefs by answering; "yeah, sure he knows he's dead"

My point is, that you still expect a positive response to your assumption after your death. I have thought of at least one scenario in which answers are not given at all, so even the idea that "death answers/obsoletes questions" is not a guarantee.

But that isn't applicable to "question without answers". Are you suggesting that there is no "yes/no" answer to questions like "does God exist?" or "does life-after-death exist?"

I am suggesting that the "questions without answers" do have a reality-based answer, and if or until someone produces this true answer, then no answer held by humans has any inherent merit over any other answer.

Bell's theorem rules out hidden variables such that Quantum Indeterminacy is an intrinsic property of the world. Fate can therefore hinge on events that are genuinely random.

I'm sorry, but linking to even more quantum physics doesn't exactly help my eyes-glazing-over problem. You're going to have to explain this in layman's terms, but I'll at least help by clearly stating my question: What does quantum mechanics have to do with metaphisical theories about macroscopic fate?