Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
what would be the point of almost everything?
90 Answers
We are pretty sure that there is no intelligent, if any, life in our solar system.
I'm not saying that there is or isn't other life out there, but what I am
wondering is what would be the point of our solar system and everything
in it if we weren't here to realise it?
I'm not saying that there is or isn't other life out there, but what I am
wondering is what would be the point of our solar system and everything
in it if we weren't here to realise it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, sorry, but it is supposition. How much of the universe have we actually investigated closely and with any amount of accuracy? Incredibly little. Because it’s thought that the planet you’re talking about is incapable of sustaining life (and remember, that’s life as we know it), it doesn’t follow that some of the many billions of others will necessarily follow suit, or indeed be devoid of some other form of life quite unknown to us at present. The fact is, we simply don’t know. I know that’s difficult for people who want to believe in creationism to accept, but if they‘re honest, I think they must. As I said, where knowledge of the universe is concerned, we’re mere infants, but we’re learning continually, and in years to come – if we haven’t blown ourselves to smithereens first – I suspect we can expect a lot of surprises.
Flob, // What would be the point of lifeless planets, with lifeless moons, in lifeless solar systems, in lifeless galaxies, in lifeless universes, in lifeless minds?//
It’s very difficult for the human mind to imagine anything outside that it is accustomed to, or that which it chooses to believe, and therefore, since curiosity is inherent in man, he continually seeks answers. Some content themselves with the explanation that an unseen, unknown, unproven supernatural entity is responsible, but if you don’t believe that – and there’s no rational reason you should - then you must accept that what you are witnessing is simply constantly evolving nature at its most magnificent. Hence, since nature doesn’t think but is determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, etc, there is no point.
Flob, // What would be the point of lifeless planets, with lifeless moons, in lifeless solar systems, in lifeless galaxies, in lifeless universes, in lifeless minds?//
It’s very difficult for the human mind to imagine anything outside that it is accustomed to, or that which it chooses to believe, and therefore, since curiosity is inherent in man, he continually seeks answers. Some content themselves with the explanation that an unseen, unknown, unproven supernatural entity is responsible, but if you don’t believe that – and there’s no rational reason you should - then you must accept that what you are witnessing is simply constantly evolving nature at its most magnificent. Hence, since nature doesn’t think but is determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, etc, there is no point.
Flob, as I said in my previous reply, what do you mean by 'point'. If you mean 'why would the universe have been put here if there was no one to appreciate it'? then all I can say is that that presupposes that it was put here by some kind of 'god' which adds an additional layer of compexity to understanding the problem. If on the other hand you meant how did it become the way it is then as Naomi said it is just the laws of physics working on a lot of matter and energy and probably some other stuff of which we are currently unaware. You could equally well ask what is the 'point' of a god? it is really a pointless (or meaningless) question as there can never be an answer.
Naomi - ////Keyplus, evidence indeed that you're too easily satisfied. ;o)///
I thought you believed in reasoning Naomi. And as far as I know the main objective of the reasoning is to look, find, analyse and if makes sense then accept. That acceptance brings you satisfaction, also known as peace of mind. In scientific language it is called proven fact. Unless you are willing to go round and round in circles (which I am sure you do) then a stage comes when you have to agree and be satisfied or disagree and keep looking. For me criterion for satisfaction in my last post took me over three years and after analysing your posts during this time I came to the conclusion and satisfied myself that if you oppose me then I am saying something right when it comes to religious matters. Otherwise your first post to Flob ( Your question makes you sound quite religious flob) tells a tale.
Jomifl - ////Keyplus, Are you going to tell us what the question to the answers is?///
I would and I am going to. But I am sure my answer would not be accepted by so called rational people who like using logic. But I do feel sorry for their logic when they believe that everything in this world has an objective or “point”. Every single cell in their own body has a reason or “point” but body itself has no point. I personally believe that to understand the reason or “point” of anything including our planet etc is to understand the reason or “point” of our own existence. But to be honest so called logical people believe that there is no point because believing otherwise makes them sound like religious and they do not want to be known as such. And few people (like naomi’s fist post I referred to) would not be able to digest that someone from among you can think like religious.
I thought you believed in reasoning Naomi. And as far as I know the main objective of the reasoning is to look, find, analyse and if makes sense then accept. That acceptance brings you satisfaction, also known as peace of mind. In scientific language it is called proven fact. Unless you are willing to go round and round in circles (which I am sure you do) then a stage comes when you have to agree and be satisfied or disagree and keep looking. For me criterion for satisfaction in my last post took me over three years and after analysing your posts during this time I came to the conclusion and satisfied myself that if you oppose me then I am saying something right when it comes to religious matters. Otherwise your first post to Flob ( Your question makes you sound quite religious flob) tells a tale.
Jomifl - ////Keyplus, Are you going to tell us what the question to the answers is?///
I would and I am going to. But I am sure my answer would not be accepted by so called rational people who like using logic. But I do feel sorry for their logic when they believe that everything in this world has an objective or “point”. Every single cell in their own body has a reason or “point” but body itself has no point. I personally believe that to understand the reason or “point” of anything including our planet etc is to understand the reason or “point” of our own existence. But to be honest so called logical people believe that there is no point because believing otherwise makes them sound like religious and they do not want to be known as such. And few people (like naomi’s fist post I referred to) would not be able to digest that someone from among you can think like religious.
Keyplus, Thanks for your considered reply, I think that you have missed a point, which is that most rational people who subscribe to the scientific approach do not think that there is a 'point' to the physical universe and don't care if something that they say could be viewed as religious by some.
The idea of a 'point' implies that there is a reason or objective towards which we are all striving. There only point towards which we are heading is oblivion followed by recycling until entropy dominates everything.,
The idea of a 'point' implies that there is a reason or objective towards which we are all striving. There only point towards which we are heading is oblivion followed by recycling until entropy dominates everything.,
It is pointless protesting that yours is not a religious question or a discussion about a creator. To assume a point assumes an intent which in turn assumes an intelligence with that intent. It is a religious question you pose, or at the very least a spiritual/philosophical one. If you deny that then your question becomes meaningless and con not be reasonably answered.
Keyplus, //That acceptance brings you satisfaction, also known as peace of mind. In scientific language it is called proven fact.//
No, that is not what science calls proven fact. Science requires hard evidence, not laziness, or personal opinion, or airy fairy magical religious notions that encourage people to stop looking.
//For me criterion for satisfaction in my last post took me over three years and after analysing your posts during this time I came to the conclusion and satisfied myself that if you oppose me then I am saying something right when it comes to religious matters.//
Coming from a grown man, that’s actually very sad, because it very clearly demonstrates your inability to consider any option other than that which Islam allows you to accept. If after all the discussions here, you still consider that an analysis of Islamic teachings results in completely rational findings, then I can only conclude that you prefer to lie to yourself rather than acknowledge the undeniable truth – that your book is demonstrably wrong.
//Otherwise your first post to Flob ( Your question makes you sound quite religious flob) tells a tale.//
What tale would that be?
No, that is not what science calls proven fact. Science requires hard evidence, not laziness, or personal opinion, or airy fairy magical religious notions that encourage people to stop looking.
//For me criterion for satisfaction in my last post took me over three years and after analysing your posts during this time I came to the conclusion and satisfied myself that if you oppose me then I am saying something right when it comes to religious matters.//
Coming from a grown man, that’s actually very sad, because it very clearly demonstrates your inability to consider any option other than that which Islam allows you to accept. If after all the discussions here, you still consider that an analysis of Islamic teachings results in completely rational findings, then I can only conclude that you prefer to lie to yourself rather than acknowledge the undeniable truth – that your book is demonstrably wrong.
//Otherwise your first post to Flob ( Your question makes you sound quite religious flob) tells a tale.//
What tale would that be?
Creationsim aside, Naomi, there are certain universal truths based on mathmatics, gravitational forces, star and galaxy development to name only a few, that are believed by scientists of many persuasions (with good reason) to be just as realiable in our own galaxy as they are in other known galaxies but having no relation to their propinquity and certainly not stochastic in nature.
For example, other than carbon based life, only two other elements can be considered as being alternatives as the basis of all life... boron and silicon ... "Boron has a strong tendency to form covalent molecular compounds. However, it has one less valence electron than the number of valence orbitals, which makes its chemistry noticeably different from that of carbon and more importantly it is very scarce throughout the universe." (The scarceness is on the order of 3 ppm). (Source: Life in the Universe).
Silica based life isn't feasible (despite it's abundance and being closely related to carbon on the periodic table of elements) because of it's affinity for oxygen. Additionally, when silicon is carefully nurtured in a lab to form enzymes the required chirality is not present, making it impossible to be a basis for life.
Additionally, one source states: "The absence of silicon-based biology, or even silicon-based prebiotic chemicals, is also suggested by astronomical evidence. Wherever astronomers have looked – in meteorites, in comets, in the atmospheres of the giant planets, in the interstellar medium, and in the outer layers of cool stars – they have found molecules of oxidized silicon (silicon dioxide and silicates) but no substances such as silanes or silicones which might be the precursors of a silicon biochemistry". (Source: "The Encyclopedeia of Science").
This doesn't begin to scratch the surface of how, when and where stars form and how the billions of years required for the various Types of stars that contributed the necessary elements for life that would have to be uniformly spread throughout the (U)niverse for life to be ubiquitous.
Nothing I've offered here has anything directly to do with Creationism, so, unless you really don't want to have a meaningful exchange of information, that charge simply won't hold up. Perhaps it's you that meanders through fanciful "what if's"?
For example, other than carbon based life, only two other elements can be considered as being alternatives as the basis of all life... boron and silicon ... "Boron has a strong tendency to form covalent molecular compounds. However, it has one less valence electron than the number of valence orbitals, which makes its chemistry noticeably different from that of carbon and more importantly it is very scarce throughout the universe." (The scarceness is on the order of 3 ppm). (Source: Life in the Universe).
Silica based life isn't feasible (despite it's abundance and being closely related to carbon on the periodic table of elements) because of it's affinity for oxygen. Additionally, when silicon is carefully nurtured in a lab to form enzymes the required chirality is not present, making it impossible to be a basis for life.
Additionally, one source states: "The absence of silicon-based biology, or even silicon-based prebiotic chemicals, is also suggested by astronomical evidence. Wherever astronomers have looked – in meteorites, in comets, in the atmospheres of the giant planets, in the interstellar medium, and in the outer layers of cool stars – they have found molecules of oxidized silicon (silicon dioxide and silicates) but no substances such as silanes or silicones which might be the precursors of a silicon biochemistry". (Source: "The Encyclopedeia of Science").
This doesn't begin to scratch the surface of how, when and where stars form and how the billions of years required for the various Types of stars that contributed the necessary elements for life that would have to be uniformly spread throughout the (U)niverse for life to be ubiquitous.
Nothing I've offered here has anything directly to do with Creationism, so, unless you really don't want to have a meaningful exchange of information, that charge simply won't hold up. Perhaps it's you that meanders through fanciful "what if's"?
Clanad, //Perhaps it's you that meanders through fanciful "what if's"? //
No 'perhaps' about it. Most definitely guilty as charged - but then I’m acutely aware that science doesn’t know it all – and I’m not so arrogant as to suppose that I know it all either.
To quote a truly great mind …… ‘The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge’. Stephen Hawking
Keyplus, I’m sure you’ve heard that bit before too…but you might bear the above quote in mind.
No 'perhaps' about it. Most definitely guilty as charged - but then I’m acutely aware that science doesn’t know it all – and I’m not so arrogant as to suppose that I know it all either.
To quote a truly great mind …… ‘The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge’. Stephen Hawking
Keyplus, I’m sure you’ve heard that bit before too…but you might bear the above quote in mind.
Of course Hawking also says:
"What we normally think of as life is based on chains of carbon atoms with a few other atoms such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favorable case because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all with the properties that they have requires a fine adjustment of physical constants such as the QCD scale, the electric charge and even the dimension of spacetime. If these constants had significantly different values either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race..." He goes on to describe the Anthropic Principle and cautions against it...
"What we normally think of as life is based on chains of carbon atoms with a few other atoms such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favorable case because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all with the properties that they have requires a fine adjustment of physical constants such as the QCD scale, the electric charge and even the dimension of spacetime. If these constants had significantly different values either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race..." He goes on to describe the Anthropic Principle and cautions against it...
Keyplus, since the nature of the hard evidence would depend on what it is being used to prove, your question is al ittle deficient. Give an example of something that could be proven and perhaps someone will let you know what kind of evidence might be conclusive. Proving the existence of god wouldn't be a good choice as if he existed he might fiddle the results to remain hidden as he always has been. :-)
