Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on January 14, 2002 05:14:37 UTC

I'm not sure what you mean when you suspect a cosmic order exists.

Silly me. All this time I've been saying I agree that it exists and I haven't even bothered to define it.

Cosmic Order: A mathematical process or principle that encompasses all systems and patterns in existence, and contains all axioms within it.

If there is a cosmic order that requires order in the universe, then this order appears to require very specific order. It is odd indeed that this specific order happens to allow at least the staging ground for biological evolution given the many things that we wouldn't normally expect to be the case. It is so unexpected that we are still at a loss after 400 years on explaining a good deal of this order.

Are you totally sure that if a few details were tweaked than life could never have happened? Earthlife, perhaps, but we know so little of life and consciousness that saying "no life could have occured" seems to be making a big assumption.

Anyway, bear in mind that only in a universe capable of supporting life could life develop and claim the cosmos was devoted to its existence. There could be an infinite number of dead universes "out there" that never develop life of any kind.

Also, I'm willing to bet that life is only one of billions of things in our universe that could not exist if a few things were tweaked. Why claim that life is the goal of existence, and not, for example, black holes? They are far more interesting than any human. :)

By the way, why should God care about life? Living things seem to be at the forefront of God's mind in almost every belief system. Why? I've never totally grasped that. Isn't it a little selfish? We make up about .00000-[insert ten quintillion zeros here]-000001% of the Cosmos, why apply more significance than that to ourselves?

the holistic order does not allow other possibilities other than the one that achieves the holistic purpose. This necessarily limits the world toward design in a manner which appears as a supreme mind. However, because it is only trying to meet a minimum goal of achieving the end result, it takes what we see as a natural process. A natural process is merely a minimum path. In a sense, God takes the minimum path but achieves the maximum result.

In that case, if the "sentient" divine order IS natural processes, then what good is prayer? :) If it's already been mapped out, it's too late, right?

Anyway, I again see assumption-making taking place here. I still do not see how sentience is required. You're still putting sentience behind predictable natural events where they are not needed. In the end, you're making the watchmaker argument from a different perspective: once the universe was set into motion, God lost the ability to change any of it.

This, I think, is too anthropomorphic. Rather, I think God is simply 'aware', simply 'intelligent', simply 'existing', in a manner which all things work out for good.

This is a bit anthropomorphic, too. What is "good?" Especially to God. Good is something we define for ourselves, similar to death. Death has no meaning to a star, because it doesn't die: it just changes. Same goes for good. It's a matter of convention, defined entirely by humans. Why would God's "good" mirror our own? Especially if it encompasses all natural processes. I would expect it to be so cold and alien relative to us that almost no identification with it could take place.

What is this ultimate goal of creation? What is God aiming for? Maybe he just wanted to make a really big firecracker and see what happens. :)

Too bad he didn't become a physicist. It seems the best presenters of science have the best humor. You wonder how much interest in science a comedian/physicist could muster.

What I love about Carlin is he sounds incredibly bitter and hateful, but feels incredibly heartbroken and desperate. He's probably one of the most twistedly lucid people in entertainment.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins