Why are we here?

[David123]

Let's examine your quote in the surrounding context then:

Whether you believe that some "random noise" caused something to be created from nothing (I believe Stephen Hawking has the math on this) or that there was some "divine" influence (ie. God or gods), this fundamental question begs for an answer as not only does it talk about where we came from, but also where we might be going. I see a possible answer to the fundamental question that is both religious and scientific, but I'm not going to reveal it yet (that sounds like I'm making myself out to be special, but its not my intent). I'd rather see if others have a useful answer to the fundamental question that maybe I didn't think of or if others come to the same conclusion I have.

In that post you are actually stating that they are the same question, so the two possible answers you supplied would apply to both interpretations. You seem to be winging it at this point, but maybe you can put the problem to rest by revealing your super secret answer to the two questions that are one, but somehow have different sets of answers.

Okay, you caught me. The answer that I'm heading towards for "why are we here?" is "to create God". Not so special as that's a fairly obvious answer, but it fits quite well. In the case of "random noise" (ie. something from nothing and evolution takes over), this would be the natural end of evolution. In the case of an all-powerful, all-seeing God, this would be the answer to how God came to be (he created himself *OR* he's creating a companion). It provides a much more satisfying answer than "divine plan". This may take a *VERY* long time to happen, but it might happen faster than we expect (Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns). And, of course, there's no reason to believe that we will evolve directly into God. More like the amoeba into human -- there's very little relationship between the two.

Wow. Is it stupid ideas week here or something?

Really, some arguments are so mind-bogglingly dumb that there is no point in pointing out the flaws; the idea that our reason for existence is to create God is one such idea.

It is pretty much ALL flaws, so there is nothing specific to point out. If you can't immediately see that it is unbelievably stupid, then arguing against it is futile.

The idea that our purpose is to create God is fractally wrong; at every point, and at every scale, it is fatally flawed.

It is an idea with no merit whatsoever; a stupid, pointless, and moronic attempt to find an answer where none exists. It is the antithesis of a good idea, and may even be reasonably described as the antithesis of an idea.

It has zero merit, it is a bad, bad, bad idea.

As ideas go, this is one of the worst in history. I am astounded to have seen such a large number of truly awful ideas as have been presented on this board in the last few days, and this is the icing on the cake.

In short, it is a dumb idea.









In the interests of protecting the environment, parts of this post have been recycled from an earlier response to an equally dumb idea.

I'm willing to accept it's stupid, but give me one good reason to point out why.

 

[David123]

Why are we are here? It's because our species is good at existing in the prevailing conditions. And we are quite adaptable too, which helps, and even more, we increasingly able to adapt the environment to suit ourselves.

Let's ask another question - why were the dinosaurs or vendian biota here, then vanished? They were able to thrive in the existing conditions, and then suddenly it all changed, a bit like certain businesses and industries go "pop" when a recession hits.

Part of evolution

 

[rousseau]

So your answer to the question of "why are we here?" is that it is as a result of random noise?

"I don't know, and neither does anyone else"

No mention of 'random noise' there.

You don't know; I don't know; Nobody knows.

It's really that simple.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Yes, this.

And with the awareness that we don't know, we need to focus on what we do know:

1) That we need to create and follow laws
2) That most aspects of the world can be understood via knowledge we've gained through science, or at least that's a very good way of understanding them

Forget about the things we're not sure about, figure out what we are sure about and live your life based on those things.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's ask another question - why were the dinosaurs or vendian biota here, then vanished?

Part of evolution

Not much of a 'why' answer.
I mean, that's WHAT happened. Dinosaurs evolved and then failed to evolve. How do you know there is a WHY to evolution?

 

[David123]

Part of evolution

Not much of a 'why' answer.
I mean, that's WHAT happened. Dinosaurs evolved and then failed to evolve. How do you know there is a WHY to evolution?

Should be fairly obvious - the why is that it's part of the process leading to an end. The end is the evolution of God.

 

[bilby]

Not much of a 'why' answer.
I mean, that's WHAT happened. Dinosaurs evolved and then failed to evolve. How do you know there is a WHY to evolution?

Should be fairly obvious - the why is that it's part of the process leading to an end. The end is the evolution of God.

Evolution doesn't have ends, and is not a process that 'leads to' things.

As you would know if you had a clue about evolution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not much of a 'why' answer.
I mean, that's WHAT happened. Dinosaurs evolved and then failed to evolve. How do you know there is a WHY to evolution?

Should be fairly obvious - the why is that it's part of the process leading to an end.

It's not obvious that evolution is leading anywhere... Can you explain this 'obvious' observation?

The end is the evolution of God.

Exactly how would a god evolve?
What sort of natural selection would cause a natural process like evolution to produce a supernatural result? And how in the world did you determine this 'obvious' conclusion?

Don't be shy.

Show your work.

 

[David123]

Should be fairly obvious - the why is that it's part of the process leading to an end.

It's not obvious that evolution is leading anywhere... Can you explain this 'obvious' observation?

The end is the evolution of God.

Exactly how would a god evolve?
What sort of natural selection would cause a natural process like evolution to produce a supernatural result? And how in the world did you determine this 'obvious' conclusion?

Don't be shy.

Show your work.

First, you are presupposing that God is supernatural. That may be an incorrect assumption. God may simply be the end of all natural development and, thus, where evolution is leading.

Second, given that, there is no need to look for a process that moves something from natural to supernatural.

Third, to make this conclusion, there is no need for me to say exactly how a god would evolve. We may find that out in due time (perhaps a few billion years of time). Assuming this reality survives to that point and the evolutionary process is not interrupted. If you believe the first answer to "how we came to be?" (random noise), then this assumption should make sense as part of the natural process. On the other hand, if you believe the second answer (God creation), then you can feel comfortable that this reality will get to that point as it has already happened (recursion).

 

[bilby]

It's not obvious that evolution is leading anywhere... Can you explain this 'obvious' observation?

The end is the evolution of God.

Exactly how would a god evolve?
What sort of natural selection would cause a natural process like evolution to produce a supernatural result? And how in the world did you determine this 'obvious' conclusion?

Don't be shy.

Show your work.

First, you are presupposing that God is supernatural. That may be an incorrect assumption. God may simply be the end of all natural development and, thus, where evolution is leading.

Second, given that, there is no need to look for a process that moves something from natural to supernatural.

Third, to make this conclusion, there is no need for me to say exactly how a god would evolve. We may find that out in due time (perhaps a few billion years of time). Assuming this reality survives to that point and the evolutionary process is not interrupted. If you believe the first answer to "how we came to be?" (random noise), then this assumption should make sense as part of the natural process. On the other hand, if you believe the second answer (God creation), then you can feel comfortable that this reality will get to that point as it has already happened (recursion).

Supernaturality is the very definition of a God.

A naturally occurring entity is not a God.

If you define the word 'God' in such a way as to exclude the requirement for supernatural abilities, then you can simply declare any currently extant object to be a God, and be done with it.

My dog is a God. He has no supernatural powers, he is just a dog. But he is very good at being a dog, so why not?

If the only way to allow for the existence of God it to redefine the word God to encompass the mundane, then that hasn't generated a God in any real sense - it has just destroyed the value of the word 'God', by reducing it to a synonym for something else - something that we already have a less misleading name for.

I must confess, I have been too hasty in my judgement of your argument; I honestly thought that your idea that our purpose for existing was to create God was the dumbest idea I would ever hear; But you have surpassed it with your idea of a non-supernatural God.

A non-supernatural God is like a married bachelor, or a non-feline cat, or a non-catholic pope - it is just as oxymoronic as these things, but perhaps without as much 'oxy'.

 

[David123]

Supernaturality is the very definition of a God.

A naturally occurring entity is not a God.

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke -- any sufficiently advanced natural capability is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

 

[none]

Supernaturality is the very definition of a God.

A naturally occurring entity is not a God.

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke -- any sufficiently advanced natural capability is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

that doesn't help.
typing on a keyboard is an advanced natural capability, must be supernatural then...

 

[David123]

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke -- any sufficiently advanced natural capability is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

that doesn't help.
typing on a keyboard is an advanced natural capability, must be supernatural then...

OR

The supernatural capability of typing on a keyboard is just a natural capability we haven't discovered yet.

 

[none]

that doesn't help.
typing on a keyboard is an advanced natural capability, must be supernatural then...

OR

The supernatural capability of typing on a keyboard is just a natural capability we haven't discovered yet.

you must not even think about what you type.
have you ever tried to be serious? because you aren't making any sense
not all living things take a shit, is taking a shit supernatural because it is an advanced capability?
does that make mere mortal shit takers gods?

 

[DBT]

Supernaturality is the very definition of a God.

A naturally occurring entity is not a God.

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke -- any sufficiently advanced natural capability is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

Indistinguishable in a relative sense....indistinguishable for those who do not know how it works, like modern appliances would appear magical to a Paleolithic hunter gatherer, but nonetheless working on the basis of physical principles of matter/energy.

 

[David123]

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke -- any sufficiently advanced natural capability is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

Indistinguishable in a relative sense....indistinguishable for those who do not know how it works, like modern appliances would appear magical to a Paleolithic hunter gatherer, but nonetheless working on the basis of physical principles of matter/energy.

Yes. Scale this up to the creation of this reality. The process may be natural, but not yet known.

 

[Mageth]

Supernaturality is the very definition of a God.

A naturally occurring entity is not a God.

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke -- any sufficiently advanced natural capability is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

But is not God

 

[surreptitious57]

Because there are phenomena that are not currently understood that makes them akin to being
supernatural ? And presumably that means that dark energy and dark matter and quantum gravity
for example are all supernatural because they are not currently understood ? But it is interesting how
previous phenomena that this this could have also applied to have since been proven to have a physical
explanation for them. And interesting too how there is precisely zero evidence for the supernatural anyway

 

[Mageth]

Indistinguishable in a relative sense....indistinguishable for those who do not know how it works, like modern appliances would appear magical to a Paleolithic hunter gatherer, but nonetheless working on the basis of physical principles of matter/energy.

Yes. Scale this up to the creation of this reality. The process may be natural, but not yet known.

And not God

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Because there are phenomena that are not currently understood that makes them akin to being
supernatural ? And presumably that means that dark energy and dark matter and quantum gravity
for example are all supernatural because they are not currently understood ? But it is interesting how
previous phenomena that this this could have also applied to have since been proven to have a physical
explanation for them. And interesting too how there is precisely zero evidence for the supernatural anyway

Well, I and everything that is me has already been everywhere all the time. You can't get any better than that. I'm happy being god.

 

[bilby]

Indistinguishable in a relative sense....indistinguishable for those who do not know how it works, like modern appliances would appear magical to a Paleolithic hunter gatherer, but nonetheless working on the basis of physical principles of matter/energy.

Yes. Scale this up to the creation of this reality. The process may be natural, but not yet known.

There are no more natural processes that are unknown - at least not ones that operate at scales relevant to human lives.

The trend toward unification and simplification is a major theme of modern physics. At the same time, nature has ways of surprising us, and it pays to be watchful. We know a lot about the physics of the macroscopic world, but can we be sure that we aren’t missing one of those crucial ingredients? The answer is yes: In certain well-defined cases, we can be very sure. Physicists long ago mapped the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The modern version of the search for new kinds of radiation is the search for new forces of nature. And while there may be unknown forces waiting to be discovered, we can say with great confidence that such forces must be so feeble that only a professional physicist like me would really care.

Sean Carroll - discovermagazine.com Friday, November 04, 2011

The way that the universe works is well understood, and there simply is no possibility for it to be wildly different to how we understand it to be - and by 'we' I mean those who have bothered to learn about it, not those who still live three centuries in the past, when little was certain, and anything was possible.

Reality is limited by physics. Just because you can imagine something does not mean that it is possible.