ChatterBank0 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.
-- answer removed --
The question is one without a solid beginning or ending. Besides the likelihood intelligent life far outweighs the chance we are unique, everything itself besides us is most probably not aware of itself (some disagree) so the planets and stars are just there and nothing would be different whether we were there to see it or not as they aren't aware either way.
A totally different view is that awareness is the highest level of being, so as all we are is awareness (not a theory, looking right ahead with no mirror what are you?) then the nature of humanity is awareness, a body following that awareness wherever it goes (unless you can have out of body experiences) and what runs through that awareness is constantly changing and neither inside or outside the awareness as again, if you look directly, can you really assess which sensations are from within and outside? Is a sound in you or outside for instance? Is it only heard when it goes in your brain, or was it outside and inside at the same time? The answer is it is in awareness, you can't actually answer that question as it is just a sound. Then extend that for all the other things you are aware of (including thoughts) and you have a field of empty awareness peopled by a variety of sensations and thoughts which are never static but constantly changing.
There isn't even you there when you forget. No person with a history, that goes away until you are reminded of it. After a few moments of absorption (natural meditation) you are what you are aware of, you have gone and only comes back when something reminds you of it.
I hope that adds another dimension to the question anyway.
A totally different view is that awareness is the highest level of being, so as all we are is awareness (not a theory, looking right ahead with no mirror what are you?) then the nature of humanity is awareness, a body following that awareness wherever it goes (unless you can have out of body experiences) and what runs through that awareness is constantly changing and neither inside or outside the awareness as again, if you look directly, can you really assess which sensations are from within and outside? Is a sound in you or outside for instance? Is it only heard when it goes in your brain, or was it outside and inside at the same time? The answer is it is in awareness, you can't actually answer that question as it is just a sound. Then extend that for all the other things you are aware of (including thoughts) and you have a field of empty awareness peopled by a variety of sensations and thoughts which are never static but constantly changing.
There isn't even you there when you forget. No person with a history, that goes away until you are reminded of it. After a few moments of absorption (natural meditation) you are what you are aware of, you have gone and only comes back when something reminds you of it.
I hope that adds another dimension to the question anyway.
Clanad, // to which all you have to say is "'nuff said"... //
Ooo…low blow … because that really isn’t true at all, is it. Naughty! I read your post and replied that Hawking cautions against the Anthropic Principle and isn’t absolutely sure that life with some chemical basis other than carbon may not have arisen - but that you are. The thing is, if Hawking is willing to consider the possibility of the existence of different forms of life, who are you to say he’s wrong? – but that, in effect, is what you’re saying. I understand that the concept of life as you would like it to be would fit in very nicely with your creationist theory, which is clearly your agenda here, but the fact is we simply don’t know, and therefore I see no point in wasting time constructing lengthy responses to someone who refuses to consider possibilities beyond the realm of his own pre-conceived conclusions. Let’s face it - you can hardly say ‘been there, dunnit, and got the T-Shirt’ can you?’
It’s ironic really. Atheists are consistently accused of thinking they know it all, but that charge sits far more appropriately with the religious because they really do think they know it all.
Ooo…low blow … because that really isn’t true at all, is it. Naughty! I read your post and replied that Hawking cautions against the Anthropic Principle and isn’t absolutely sure that life with some chemical basis other than carbon may not have arisen - but that you are. The thing is, if Hawking is willing to consider the possibility of the existence of different forms of life, who are you to say he’s wrong? – but that, in effect, is what you’re saying. I understand that the concept of life as you would like it to be would fit in very nicely with your creationist theory, which is clearly your agenda here, but the fact is we simply don’t know, and therefore I see no point in wasting time constructing lengthy responses to someone who refuses to consider possibilities beyond the realm of his own pre-conceived conclusions. Let’s face it - you can hardly say ‘been there, dunnit, and got the T-Shirt’ can you?’
It’s ironic really. Atheists are consistently accused of thinking they know it all, but that charge sits far more appropriately with the religious because they really do think they know it all.
Birdie . ////Keyplus - “... And how exactly would you describe “Hard Evidence”?...”
Hard evidence would be evidence that is empirical (ie. a record of direct observation that can be quantitatively or qualitatively analysed) and can be documented.////
Would that also include something a scientist says (after going through all of the above YOUR description of tests) that you & Co may not agree with?
Hard evidence would be evidence that is empirical (ie. a record of direct observation that can be quantitatively or qualitatively analysed) and can be documented.////
Would that also include something a scientist says (after going through all of the above YOUR description of tests) that you & Co may not agree with?
Keyplus - If thats a serious question, then you clearly don't understand science. If all of the conditions are met, then it is no longer a theory, it is fact.
you cannot argue against fact, well not if your rational. Outside of that you are in the realm of theoretical probability and as such every scientist will welcome input, with the proviso that the person may disagree.
As an example scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider think there is a possibility that they found a particle that travels faster than light but they didn't say they had. They keep examining the evidence ( Thats something that may or not point to the truth) and we still await the final answer.
Your intransigence in thought about your religion does little to enhance your obvious intellect and indeed is detrimental to both you and your religion.
you cannot argue against fact, well not if your rational. Outside of that you are in the realm of theoretical probability and as such every scientist will welcome input, with the proviso that the person may disagree.
As an example scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider think there is a possibility that they found a particle that travels faster than light but they didn't say they had. They keep examining the evidence ( Thats something that may or not point to the truth) and we still await the final answer.
Your intransigence in thought about your religion does little to enhance your obvious intellect and indeed is detrimental to both you and your religion.
Keyplus, ‘ & Co’ speaking here. Come on - don’t beat about the bush. Say what you want to say – but please not Keith Moore again. That poor man’s embarrassing episode has been done to death. Just a guess, but maybe you’re intending to pull Professor E Marshall Johnson out of the hat? Or perhaps you have something else in mind?
Dave – Thanks for teaching me a bit of science. Much appreciated. At last I do know now the difference between theory and a fact. I guess you are happy now.
Jomifl – After Naomi’s post above, I do not need to clarify to you what I (or others) leant from Quran. As Naomi suggested the name of someone well known in his field but she did not and never will agree with his findings only because that is what I was trying to ask birdie. Thanks Naomi for proving my point.
Jomifl – After Naomi’s post above, I do not need to clarify to you what I (or others) leant from Quran. As Naomi suggested the name of someone well known in his field but she did not and never will agree with his findings only because that is what I was trying to ask birdie. Thanks Naomi for proving my point.
Clanad, I’ve gained the impression that you hold creationist views from many of your previous posts. If I’m mistaken, then I apologise unreservedly.
//Seems you're the only one that raised the subject of Creationism, no?//
Actually, no. In my opinion the original question raised the subject of creationism.
//Seems you're the only one that raised the subject of Creationism, no?//
Actually, no. In my opinion the original question raised the subject of creationism.
In my opinion (it's probably been said in the 70 plus posts somewhere) is that everything was here way before we were here to realise it and if everything was not here in the way it was, we would not be here to realise it.
For example take the bee, what is the point of that? The point of the bee is that roughly a third of our food would not exist without the bee pollinating the flowers. What the bee does is immensely important to our nutrition and a healthy human life.
What about the micro-organisms and the rest of the bio-diversity of this planet? All species from organisms to plants, no matter how small they are play an important part in creating the conditions in which our survival depends.
You don't have to realise all the species in the world, the ecosystem and how it works but we are here because of it.
For example take the bee, what is the point of that? The point of the bee is that roughly a third of our food would not exist without the bee pollinating the flowers. What the bee does is immensely important to our nutrition and a healthy human life.
What about the micro-organisms and the rest of the bio-diversity of this planet? All species from organisms to plants, no matter how small they are play an important part in creating the conditions in which our survival depends.
You don't have to realise all the species in the world, the ecosystem and how it works but we are here because of it.
Keyplus, //I do not need to clarify to you what I (or others) leant from Quran.//
I presume then that you were talking about Professor E Marshall Johnson, and this is what he said:
‘I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place... so I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write..."
Yes, indeed, Mohammed had to be developing his information from some place, and I suspect the professor knows where, just as I know where. I have no idea of the circumstances in which his video was made, and I can’t find it posted by any non-Islamic source, but if they were similar to those in which Keith Moore made his video, when self-preservation would clearly have been paramount, then what he said is entirely understandable. Like Professor Moore, he doesn’t seem to have repeated it since. I wonder why?
It seems I’ve proven my point rather than yours, Keyplus.
I presume then that you were talking about Professor E Marshall Johnson, and this is what he said:
‘I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place... so I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write..."
Yes, indeed, Mohammed had to be developing his information from some place, and I suspect the professor knows where, just as I know where. I have no idea of the circumstances in which his video was made, and I can’t find it posted by any non-Islamic source, but if they were similar to those in which Keith Moore made his video, when self-preservation would clearly have been paramount, then what he said is entirely understandable. Like Professor Moore, he doesn’t seem to have repeated it since. I wonder why?
It seems I’ve proven my point rather than yours, Keyplus.
as far as the universe is concerned we are nothing more than the equivalent of germs on a spot.
we are not important to it, it does not need us or require our understanding ...and the universe is not 'ours' to 'realise its point'
if we disappeared out of existence tomorrow the universe would not suffer one iota... or even indeed notice.
i am quite surprised anyone would think they in some matter to the universe...as though we are the centre of it, or the 'point' of its existence...
we are not important to it, it does not need us or require our understanding ...and the universe is not 'ours' to 'realise its point'
if we disappeared out of existence tomorrow the universe would not suffer one iota... or even indeed notice.
i am quite surprised anyone would think they in some matter to the universe...as though we are the centre of it, or the 'point' of its existence...
I'm not liking all this creationism insinuation. I was simply pointing out that IF humans were not here and IF no other self aware life was out there, it would be pretty strange having loads of planets, galaxies and the like just floating around space.
This thread is a bit like said planets actually, going round in circles.
This thread is a bit like said planets actually, going round in circles.
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Society & Culture5 mins ago
Other Sports7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
