Which universe would you choose?

[Linusthe2nd]

The first universe can be summerized by Dr. Sean Carroll, noted physicist and author of the " Particle at the End of the Universe, " in his own words as follows :
We have two options to believe in a universe that has no meaning, except what we choose to give it, where there is no life after death, no transcendent but personal God,
Or we can choose to believe in a universe created by a loving, personal but transcendent God who has created us out of the overflow of his love and goodness to know, love, and serve him in this life and to spend eternity with him after death. And who has created the physical universe for man himself, thus giving a transcendent purpose to everything.

"There are actually three points I try to hit here. The first is that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. There is an enormous amount that we don’t know about how the world works, but we actually do know the basic rules underlying atoms and their interactions — enough to rule out telekinesis, life after death, and so on. The second point is that those laws are dysteleological — they describe a universe without intrinsic meaning or purpose, just one that moves from moment to moment.

The third point — the important one, and the most subtle — is that the absence of meaning “out there in the universe” does not mean that people can’t live meaningful lives. Far from it. It simply means that whatever meaning our lives might have must be created by us, not given to us by the natural or supernatural world. There is one world that exists, but many ways to talk about; many stories we can imagine telling about that world and our place within it, without succumbing to the temptation to ignore the laws of nature. That’s the hard part of living life in a natural world, and we need to summon the courage to face up to the challenge. " Quoted from Discover Magazine, Sean Carroll in " From Particle to People: The Laws of Nature and the Meaning of Life "

Personally, no matter how Dr. Carroll describes his form of reality, it seems pretty dark and lonely to me, more like a pit of despair, a joyless, hopeless place for the vast majority of the world. I do not see how even the well healed and celebrated can take much comfort in that kind of reality.

 

[atheistgirl]

"There are actually three points I try to hit here. The first is that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. There is an enormous amount that we don’t know about how the world works, but we actually do know the basic rules underlying atoms and their interactions — enough to rule out telekinesis, life after death, and so on. The second point is that those laws are dysteleological — they describe a universe without intrinsic meaning or purpose, just one that moves from moment to moment.

Agreed.

The third point — the important one, and the most subtle — is that the absence of meaning “out there in the universe” does not mean that people can’t live meaningful lives. Far from it. It simply means that whatever meaning our lives might have must be created by us, not given to us by the natural or supernatural world. There is one world that exists, but many ways to talk about; many stories we can imagine telling about that world and our place within it, without succumbing to the temptation to ignore the laws of nature.

Agreed

That’s the hard part of living life in a natural world, and we need to summon the courage to face up to the challenge. "

I’ve never needed to summon courage to face the hard stark truth of reality. I’ve always found it beautiful, desirable, comforting and reassuring.

Personally, no matter how Dr. Carroll describes his form of reality, it seems pretty dark and lonely to me, more like a pit of despair, a joyless, hopeless place for the vast majority of the world. I do not see how even the well healed and celebrated can take much comfort in that kind of reality.

We disagree here. I find life and nature, of which death is a part of both, a thing of great beauty and awe. Far from a ‘‘pit of despair’’ my life, and that of those around me, and those I know and love, is full of hope and joy.

Sarah x

 

[ricmat]

"There are actually three points I try to hit here. The first is that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. There is an enormous amount that we don’t know about how the world works, but we actually do know the basic rules underlying atoms and their interactions — enough to rule out telekinesis, life after death, and so on.

I would make 2 points about this:

1. The laws of everyday life are not completely understood. The laws are models of reality which are useful for e.g. making predictions. But the reality may be many levels beyond anything we can currently (or ever) comprehend. If we completely understood them, they wouldn’t need refining. We could just do away with scientific research and save a lot of money (sort of like the guy who suggested eliminating the patent office in the late 1800’s because everything had already been invented).
2. There is a self contradiction when it is stated that “we don’t know everything” but “we know enough to rule out telekinesis and life after death”.

The second point is that those laws are dysteleological — they describe a universe without intrinsic meaning or purpose, just one that moves from moment to moment.

Not really. Why don’t the laws change from moment to moment? Is there a law that says they must stay the same (answer = no). Is there a law that says the universe must continue to exist, again the answer is no. Is there a law that says the universe must come into being? No.

Is a bowling ball hurling toward the pins devoid of meaning because the collision(s) all follow the laws of physics?

The third point — the important one, and the most subtle — is that the absence of meaning “out there in the universe” does not mean that people can’t live meaningful lives. Far from it. It simply means that whatever meaning our lives might have must be created by us, not given to us by the natural or supernatural world.

And how do we know that the meanings we ourselves assign to our lives are vaild? Who is the judge? We judge ourselves? How convenient! We define our lives to be meaningful, yup, that sure make me feel good inside!! Just like the guys who do the exact opposite of me. They get to define their own lives as meaningful and fruitful too. Everybody wins!! Hurrah!!

There is one world that exists, but many ways to talk about; many stories we can imagine telling about that world and our place within it, without succumbing to the temptation to ignore the laws of nature. That’s the hard part of living life in a natural world, and we need to summon the courage to face up to the challenge. " Quoted from Discover Magazine, Sean Carroll in " From Particle to People: The Laws of Nature and the Meaning of Life "

It’s very interesting that Dr. Carroll speaks of “succumbing to the temptation to ignore the laws of nature.” This reminds me of Adam and Eve and the temptation to ignore the law of God. It’s almost as if Dr. Carroll sees the laws of nature as his god - one that we should not challenge. And the stories we tell must not vary from the “laws of nature (that we don’t totally understand”) handbook. Those crazy theists! There they go coming up with stories, when they could just find explanations in “the laws of nature” if they only tried.

Personally, no matter how Dr. Carroll describes his form of reality, it seems pretty dark and lonely to me, more like a pit of despair, a joyless, hopeless place for the vast majority of the world. I do not see how even the well healed and celebrated can take much comfort in that kind of reality.

Agreed. Unless there is something beyond us and greater than ourselves, we live in a meaningless existence.

We are “wired” to desire the infinite. When we deny God as the target of that desire, the desire expresses itself in disordered desires of earthly things - greed, glory, gluttony, narcissism. We desire a “meaningful” existence so much that we need to create it for ourselves. This is sad.

 

[ManRay]

Wow - what a loaded, and twisted poll - it also begs the question…and why is the first sentence in italics?..Awesome!!

 

[manofart]

We can nuance the universe of choice all day long; but our ultimate reality, universes aside, will be our transition from this life of quezzy earthly knowledge to the true reality of being in the life to come with the present discussion of universes will be made mute as we will see the universe for what it really is, was and forever to be.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Wow - what a loaded, and twisted poll - it also begs the question…and why is the first sentence in italics?..Awesome!!

How is the poll loaded?

Which sentence did you think was in italics because no sentence is in italics?

 

[sophion]

oh i wish there is a god who can grant my wishes! who doesnt?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I chose the first option. On the question of meaning in a universe created by an omnipotent being, I guess its value would depend on that being. If we take the god of the bible there are good parts of that (such as to love one another); but more than that meaning is centered around constant fear and adoration of that being. That no matter what we do that being has total control of our circumstances and our fate.

“All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players”
– William Shakespeare

But there is more to the question of choosing a universe than meaning. The first option can be anarchy where one must make of it what he or she can – perhaps forging something grander from it. The section option, depending on the god one has for that universe, can be a dictatorship. There have been benelovent dictators, but there have been many others less kind. Again, if we take the god of the bible, my opinion is he is far more the latter than the former.

 

[ricmat]

oh i wish there is a god who can grant my wishes! who doesnt?

You’re in luck! There is a God who can grant all your wishes. So long as your wishes conform to his wishes. It’s the second part that hangs up a lot of people.

 

[ricmat]

I chose the first option. On the question of meaning in a universe created by an omnipotent being, I guess its value would depend on that being. If we take the god of the bible there are good parts of that (such as to love one another); but more than that meaning is centered around constant fear and adoration of that being. That no matter what we do that being has total control of our circumstances and our fate.

The word fear can mean “afraid of”. It can also mean “have respect for.” God created the universe from nothing. I respect that, therefore, I fear God. His power is beyond my imagination, so I fear that too. His love is beyond our imagination - and we won’t really know it in its fullness until we face God after death. I fear that moment too because I’ll know that I disappointed God, disobeyed God many times, despite his constant love.

God can certainly have total control, but he grants us - as his children - the power to act contrary to our given natures (which is an image of his nature). We are the only beings in the universe which have this power of free will. All else does act in accordance with their natures. He allows us the capability of NOT choosing him, so that the act of actually choosing him has meaning. Our fates are in our own hands.

But there is more to the question of choosing a universe than meaning. The first option can be anarchy where one must make of it what he or she can – perhaps forging something grander from it. The section option, depending on the god one has for that universe, can be a dictatorship. There have been benelovent dictators, but there have been many others less kind. Again, if we take the god of the bible, my opinion is he is far more the latter than the former.

Certainly one can get that perception when reading parts of the bible. But overall, the bible tells the story of a constant love of God for us. Sometimes we need chastised or punished, just like the toddler that won’t stop playing with matches.

As children of God, we inherit heaven. As random collections of dust totally driven by the laws of physics, we inherit nothing. Heaven sounds good to me

 

[ReapReason]

You’re in luck! There is a God who can grant all your wishes.

You’re in Luck! There is a peter pan that can take you to never never land!!!

 

[ReapReason]

The word fear can mean “afraid of”. It can also mean “have respect for.” God created the universe from nothing.

Out of absolutly nothing comes nothing. I have no respect or fear for a being that can do metaphysical contradictions. Such a being, no matter what you want to call it, does not exist.

 

[ReapReason]

If we take the god of the bible there are good parts of that (such as to love one another); but more than that meaning is centered around constant fear and adoration of that being. That no matter what we do that being has total control of our circumstances and our fate.

The Bible, more than anything else, seems to document the development of the Judaic understanding of God. It is a development of theology and morality centering around the concept of God; thus it would be natural that distortions will arise concerning what the nature and word of God implies. I think the bible, the old testament in particular, makes a lot more sense in that respect if we assume that there is a theological and moral arch or development in each of the biblical authors understanding of Gods nature and how that extrapolates to how we should behave in regards to that being.

As for the fear of God, people distort what that actually means. In reality fearing God is no different from fearing the wrath of justice.

For example, you like the protection of the army, but you would certainly fear being on the wrong side of their weapons and military goals (assuming that we are talking about a truly good military force). In fact it would be “wise” to fear being on the wrong side; and there would be nothing wrong with that because you know that you ought to live a good life and stand for justice.

People who have no fear of consequences tend to do spiteful or evil things.

The fear of doing wrong. Fear of God, is the fear of being at war with the wrath of Gods justice. This is precisely what is meant by fearing God. Its not because he is a powerful tyrant; but rather fear should arise because we know that we do not measure up to a true expression of Love, and that makes us enemies of Gods Love. Therefore it would be wise of us to fear Gods justice; and there is nothing wrong with that because you know that you ought to live a good life and stand for justice. If you live for what is right and just; then there is nothing to fear. Only a sinner ought to fear God; and it is that fear that drives us to be close to what is righteous and moral.

There is nothing wrong with that. If we had no fear of doing wrong, we would almost certainly destroy our selves. But nobody is actually asking you to fear and worship a being that you know to be immoral. Fear of God as spoken about in the bible, especially in the new testament, presupposes that God has the moral upper hand.

To worship God, is to worship Love; these are synonymous terms in a Christian context. It has nothing to do with the idea of worshiping a being more powerful than you.

 

[ricmat]

You’re in Luck! There is a peter pan that can take you to never never land!!!

ReapReason, it seems that you’re not here to learn, but to evangelize.

What drives me (and others) to convince you that God exists is love for you, hoping that you listen and eventually enjoy the benefits of heaven.

So what is it that drives you to convince us that God does not exist? If we end up believing you, how does that benefit us? And even more importantly, what difference does it make, to you, that we agree with you or not?

 

[ReapReason]

ReapReason, it seems that you’re not here to learn, but to evangelize.

What drives me (and others) to convince you that God exists is love for you, hoping that you listen and eventually enjoy the benefits of heaven.

So what is it that drives you to convince us that God does not exist? If we end up believing you, how does that benefit us? And even more importantly, what difference does it make, to you, that we agree with you or not?

I never said that God does not exist. I said that it is metaphysically impossible to get something out of nothing; therefore any rational thinking person that enjoys learning and is not suffering from cognitive dissonance is not going to believe in a God that can create something out of absolutely nothing. Nobody is going to be evangelized by asserting that there is a being that will grant you wishes, unless they are incredibly gullible.

 

[ReapReason]

What drives me (and others) to convince you that God exists is love for you, hoping that you listen and eventually enjoy the benefits of heaven.

I understand this, and i respect it. I do believe in God, otherwise i would not label myself as a theist.

However: When it comes to metaphysics and logic, there is a rational reason why philosophies such as pantheism and panentheism exist. It is because you cannot get something out of that which is the antithesis of existence or being real. Thus, while their philosophies maybe erroneous, they recognize the necessity of explaining Gods creation of the universe in a manner that does not require them to say that at some point the universe came out of absolutely nothing.

I respect your desire for me to go to heaven. However, in a society where a rational conception of God is of most importance, faith is not enough.

 

[ricmat]

I never said that God does not exist. I said that it is metaphysically impossible to get something out of nothing; therefore any rational thinking person that enjoys learning and is not suffering from cognitive dissonance is not going to believe in a God that can create something out of absolutely nothing. Nobody is going to be evangelized by asserting that there is a being that will grant you wishes, unless they are incredibly gullible.

You seemed to put God on the same level as Peter Pan. A fairy tale.

And apparently you missed my main point. God will give you everything you want, assuming that you want what God wants you to want. If you align your thinking with Gods, and see as he sees, and desire what he desires, then indeed, he will give it to you. Because it’s actually good for you.

If you want something contrary to God’s “wishes”, then no, he won’t give it to you, because it’s bad for you, because he loves you.

I understand this, and i respect it. I do believe in God, otherwise i would not label myself as a theist.

However: When it comes to metaphysics and logic, there is a rational reason why philosophies such as pantheism and panentheism exist. It is because you cannot get something out of that which is the antithesis of existence or being real. Thus, while their philosophies maybe erroneous, they recognize the necessity of explaining Gods creation of the universe in a manner that does not require them to say that at some point the universe came out of absolutely nothing.

God is not the antithesis of existence or being real. It is exactly the opposite.

God told Moses that his name is “I AM”. This means that God IS existence, the foundation of all things, visible and invisible (detectable or not detectable). Without God, there is nothing. Certainly God is “something”, but exactly what that is is beyond our ability to comprehend. So far as the visible/detectable, it came from nothing pre-existing. Most non-Christian theists have this idea that their gods took existing stuff and rearranged it all into “the universe”, but the stuff was already there to work with. The message of Genesis 1, and “I AM” is that this God is fundamentally different.

I respect your desire for me to go to heaven. However, in a society where a rational conception of God is of most importance, faith is not enough.

So you let society push you around? They vote, and you must conform? It’s pretty sad when we let society dictate what we can, or can not believe. Or let society set the rules of engagement. So what are the motives of this society that restricts your belief?

 

[JDaniel]

I understand this, and i respect it. I do believe in God, otherwise i would not label myself as a theist.

However: When it comes to metaphysics and logic, there is a rational reason why philosophies such as pantheism and panentheism exist. It is because you cannot get something out of that which is the antithesis of existence or being real. Thus, while their philosophies maybe erroneous, they recognize the necessity of explaining Gods creation of the universe in a manner that does not require them to say that at some point the universe came out of absolutely nothing.

I respect your desire for me to go to heaven. However, in a society where a rational conception of God is of most importance, faith is not enough.

RR:

The problem with the dilemma you present is that it is the Church itself that contends that God created where there was absolutely nothing. (The Teaching of the Catholic Church Vol I) The Church is very careful to remind us that God does not cause there to be something out of nothing, as if ‘nothing’ was something. Nothingness is not the nothingness of the physicist. Years ago, ‘space’ was thought to be a vacuum (by many). Physicists have since taught us that it is more like a soup, an amalgamation of fundamental particles. Well, it would make sense that, out of just such a thing, something different could be formed. But, that is not Creation. That would be causation. “Causation” requires already existing matter and then, an Efficient cause plus a Formal cause. (I have written about this topic numerous times, in these fora, and quoted the primary Catholic resource.)

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

God is not the antithesis of existence or being real. It is exactly the opposite.

Before i answer anything you have said, i want you to show me where i say that God is the antithesis of existence.

 

[ReapReason]

RR:

The problem with the dilemma you present is that it is the Church itself that contends that God created where there was absolutely nothing. (The Teaching of the Catholic Church Vol I) The Church is very careful to remind us that God does not cause there to be something out of nothing, as if ‘nothing’ was something. Nothingness is not the nothingness of the physicist. Years ago, ‘space’ was thought to be a vacuum (by many). Physicists have since taught us that it is more like a soup, an amalgamation of fundamental particles. Well, it would make sense that, out of just such a thing, something different could be formed. But, that is not Creation. That would be causation. “Causation” requires already existing matter and then, an Efficient cause plus a Formal cause. (I have written about this topic numerous times, in these fora, and quoted the primary Catholic resource.)

God bless,
jd

No. The metaphysical dilemma is not forming something out of materials or things that are by themselves not the thing you intend to make. The dilemma, in a metaphysical context, is the idea of creating something despite having an absolute absence of any thing by which to make the thing in question. That is an act of getting something from nothing, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat where there was no rabbit or materials from which the rabbit was made.

This is a metaphysical impossibility.