Why have anything exist at all?

What is the point in anything existing at all, the universe or indeed anything else beyond it. Life is fleeting and their is a chance before and after life there is nothing at all. Why have life at all, why have the universe, what purpose could it possibly achieve?

Does the universe exist only because its impossible for nothing to exist? I know a lot of people will say God created the universe and created us. But why have a god in the first place what is gods purpose for the universe. Why create man, put them on earth and then judge them after the fact.

What I am saying is if nothing existed at all nothing would be any different, so it is my conclusion that it is impossible to have nothing at all, we are here because we can be and thats that.

The Universe exists. It does not need a reason, nor does it need a reason comprehensible by you.

a reply to: LeeMich83


Try this on and see what you think. It is about a 5 minute read. I would say it is quite accurate, but you can judge.

Why There is Mankind (How Humankind Came to Be)


Falun Dafa Hao.

EVERYTHING has a point.

No. a reply to: LeeMich83

There is Time, Space, and Material universe in order for change to occur.
No need to trouble yourself with such trivial matters.

a reply to: LeeMich83
Those of us who can and will blab forever about God will tell you that any endeavor on God's route IS the point.
You know, to be creative. "There is a design, there must be a Designer."
Seriously. There's a whole lot of subatomic art for there to be no artist.

Also, the others are right, you don't have to have a point to have a point. Maybe a hobby. Definitely and adventure.

Go for it.

There once was a complaint filed why there was nothing at all.

a reply to: LeeMich83

Don't you find it hilarious that we project the Human construct, of things needing to have a point, or meaning :
to a God that is perhaps beyond Human constructs, concepts, points, needs, or meanings ?

a reply to: Nothin

There are no gaps, for everything there's a reason, nothing is purposeless.

originally posted by: LeeMich83


Does the universe exist only because its impossible for nothing to exist? I know a lot of people will say God created the universe and created us. But why have a god in the first place what is gods purpose for the universe. Why create man, put them on earth and then judge them after the fact.

There's a fine line between philosophical questions and being dissatisfied because you do nothing all day.

originally posted by: Untun

originally posted by: LeeMich83


Does the universe exist only because its impossible for nothing to exist? I know a lot of people will say God created the universe and created us. But why have a god in the first place what is gods purpose for the universe. Why create man, put them on earth and then judge them after the fact.

There's a fine line between philosophical questions and being dissatisfied because you do nothing all day.

You can interpret the question however you like but it does not mean your interpretation is the meaning of my question. I am not asking the question because I do nothing, I am asking philosophically in respect to anything I or mankind does actually makes no difference to anything at all. Us being here and not being here either way in the grand scheme of things changes absolutely nothing. The only thing we do is affect each other whilst we are here but our lives mean nothing, everything means nothing over a long enough time period. One day the Universe will be cold and dead and nobody will be there to remember what we did or didn't do in the miniscule fraction of time that we were in this universe.

originally posted by: Untun
a reply to: Nothin

There are no gaps, for everything there's a reason, nothing is purposeless.

If there is a reason, what is it, I would love to know, genuinely?

If you do not know the reason, then how can you be so sure there is one?

If I gave you $1.000.000, would you take it?

Ok.

If I gave you $10.000.000 but you wouldn't wake up tomorrow, would you take it?

In case you answered 'no' you just stated waking up in the morning is worth more than $10.000.000 to you.

The reason we give ourselves for being here is being here itself. Things eventually came to be what they are and to that we adapted. We need food and shelter and comfort so taking care for ourselves is the reason we give this existence.

They say God lives inside us so the reason for God creating us is for living within us and I guess he likes us to take care of ourselves cause He wanted to live in us in the first place.

Seriously. There's a whole lot of subatomic art for there to be no artist.

This is the best case I've heard for the existence of a creator. Doesn't change things, but its a dang fine thought. Nature is amazing, regardless how it got here.

Genesis 1:26-28 explains why God created mankind and by extension, the earth as well (in the manner that He did, i.e. "why he did it that way"). This is from my opening comment of my thread "Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created":

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Gen 1:26-28)

That's one aspect of why he did it that way. Of course, there's a little more to it, which is explained in the rest of the Bible. Where it is also explained that his purpose for the earth and us on it filling it, has not changed one bit. I think there's enough evidence to conclude that He's going to get what he wants. No matter what we think about it or [what we think about] how it all happened. ["it" = ]Our origins and that of the universe and earth and everything else in it.

If you want a summary of the arguments and conclusions concerning a Creator like that, ..., you can have another look at the usual playlist I share on this forum, which covers all the evidence and accompanying arguments and possible conclusions in this manner:

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

...

I had to make a few adjustments in between brackets for additional clarity.

As mentioned above in the phrase, "there's a little more to it", the Bible has a lot more to say about the meaning or purpose of life.

What Is the Purpose of Life?

What Is the Meaning of Life?

A more detailed brochure can be found here:

What Is the Purpose of Life? How Can You Find It?

The first section discusses the question: Is There a Purpose to Life?

I somewhat suspect it will fall on deaf ears though*, since you clearly have been heavily affected by the people quoted near the start of the article below (I'll link the audio/video version, it's after 1:11), concerning there supposedly being no purpose or meaning according to their (often circular) argumentation and worldview (adhering to philosophical naturalism; *: or in other words and tying in my thread title before, it somewhat appears you are not "willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created", there are some clues in your commentary regarding your or that attitude towards that possibility, again influenced by the propaganda of the type of philosophical naturalists quoted below, which is also a popular view and attitude promoted by the entertainment media and basically this entire "system of things", Romans 12:2; also see the article linked in my signature for further details):


In context (the same playlist linked before):

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2

originally posted by: LeeMich83

What I am saying is if nothing existed at all nothing would be any different, so it is my conclusion that it is impossible to have nothing at all, we are here because we can be and thats that.

"And that's all there is to it", right? Note the circular reasoning discussed in part 2 above (the 2nd video, it starts right away, but the first mention of the term "circular" is used to describe the 2nd way of reasoning discussed there, the quotation I just used concerns the 1st "counter-argument", it's actually the title of that subsection in the article). Ah well, I've come this far, might as well spell it out now, the article in question and the parts I've been referring to so far (skipping the rest, but I highly recommend to watch the videos to see the rest, or to read it in the link provided):

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?

...

The Logical Consequences of Darwinism

Belief in Darwin’s theory has led many sincere people to conclude that their existence is devoid of real purpose. If the cosmos and everything in it are the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang, then there can be no real purpose to life. The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”

By no means do all scientists agree with that outlook. And for very good reasons.

Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?

... [whereislogic: this is the section one really should be reading to better understand the next section, since they are referring to something explained here, and some details are important to understand.]

‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Human Consciousness

...

Another Explanation?

Science, indeed, has told us much about how the cosmos, the world, and living organisms work. For some people, the more science tells us, “the more improbable our existence seems.” Improbable, that is, if our being here were merely a product of evolution. However, to use the words of science writer John Horgan, “reality seems awfully designed and, in some ways, too good to be here through pure chance.” Physicist Freeman Dyson similarly commented: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

In view of the evidence​—complexity in nature, fine-tuning, apparent design, and human consciousness—​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator? A very good reason for doing so is that a Creator should be able to tell us how life appeared and whether life has a purpose​—questions that science is incapable of answering.

These questions are addressed by the writings called the Bible, or the Holy Scriptures, whose writers claimed to be inspired by the Creator. Why not consider what the Bible says on these matters?

...

Source:Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

And then we can get to the subject of Why Are We Here? Which is the next page.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Source:Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

And then we can get to the subject of Why Are We Here? Which is the next page.

So maybe I should have found a way to turn my comment around, and start with the first page of that article first (before addressing the question why we are here, i.e. the purpose and meaning of life). Anyway, too late now.

originally posted by: didntasktobeborned
... Nature is amazing, regardless how it got here.

Maybe it becomes even more amazing to you, when you are willing to seriously consider the real reason "how it got here".

Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (book)

Just keep in mind that the so-called "hypothesis of abiogenesis" has also been referred to (by its proponents) as "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane & Oparin). For those who have been lied to by those saying that 'evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life' (and then they quickly switch to biological evolution and ignore the claims and philosophies concerning chemical evolution, that also adhere to philosophical naturalism, i.e. 'nature did it', by chance, by accident, spontaneously). From that book:

Chapter 1: Life—How Did It Start?

A newer version (not that much has changed, the same problems for their 'nature did it' storyline remain and have not been solved, nor has any serious attempt been made to solve these, cause people are already buying into this storyline in spite of all these problems proving all sorts of steps within this particular storyline, to be impossibilities. Impossibilties are no deterrent for the belief in philosophical naturalism and the chemical evolution of life):

The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking (brochure)
QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin?

Coming back to my remark about the same problems for their storyline remaining (in the article below they are referred to as "pitfalls"):

Can Life Arise by Chance? (1978)

If there is no Creator, life must have started of itself. Many think that it did. But does increasing knowledge support this view?

ANCIENT Egyptians saw scarab beetles suddenly appear out of the ground, and believed them to be self-produced. The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Tremendous numbers of scarabs were often found on the surface of the mudbanks along the Nile River, and this supported the belief in spontaneous generation.” (Vol. 24, p. 336, 1977 edition) But what really happened? Female beetles rolled up a ball of dung, laid eggs in it, and buried it. The eggs hatched, the larvae fed on the dung, and later emerged as beetles. There was no spontaneous generation after all.

The Greek philosophers taught spontaneous generation of life. In the fifth century B.C.E. both Anaxagoras and Empedocles believed in it. A century later Aristotle thought that worms and snails were products of putrefaction. As late as the 17th century C.E., men of science, such as Francis Bacon and William Harvey, taught spontaneous generation.

However, in that same century Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered, and they were hailed as proof of spontaneous generation, until in the 18th century Spallanzani showed that they came from spores. A century later Pasteur settled matters. He proved that life comes only from life. Men of science now accept that view but many insist that life arose spontaneously some two or three thousand million years ago.

CHEMICAL EVOLUTION, THE LATEST SPECULATION

Many scientists believe that a primitive atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water vapor, carbon dioxide and a few other gases was bombarded by ultraviolet rays, thus breaking the molecules into atoms, which recombined to form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These and other organic compounds, we are told, agglomerated in water, acquired a membrane and became a living cell; this derived its energy perhaps first from methane, later from fermentation. Still later, it is said, the cell had to “invent” the process of photosynthesis. But could a simple cell really produce and sustain itself in this way? Why, even the finest scientists will admit humbly that they cannot understand photosynthesis completely, much less duplicate it!

SOME PITFALLS

Many scientists have theorized that the cell evolved spontaneously in this way. But the pitfalls for their theory are many, and very, very deep!

First pitfall: It is a bold assumption that earth’s primitive atmosphere contained the necessary gases in the right proportions to start the chain of reactions. There is no evidence to support this.

Second pitfall: If such an atmosphere did exist, and if the amino acids were produced, they would be destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and ammonia and water vapor. Amino acids are very complex molecules; therefore they are less stable and more easily destroyed​—just as it is easier to topple a stack of 10 bricks than a stack of three. Formed high in the atmosphere, such amino acids could hardly survive to reach water on earth, and, if they did, they would not endure here long enough to become concentrated into the “soup” of the evolutionary theory. The following excerpts from an article by Dr. D. E. Hull in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature confirm this:

“These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. . . . The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.”

In an experiment, when scientists subjected a carefully prepared gas mixture to a electrical discharge, a few of the simplest amino acids did accumulate, but only because they were quickly removed from the area. If these amino acids had been left exposed to the discharge, the situation could be compared to what would happen if one man is making bricks and another is hitting them with a hammer as soon as they are formed. It takes several hundred amino acids linked together in correct sequence in a chain to make an average protein, and it takes several hundred different proteins to make the simplest of organisms. So in our analogy of the man making bricks: he must cement together hundreds of bricks in a string, and accumulate hundreds of these strings of hundreds​—and do all of this while the other man is wildly swinging his hammer! This is still grossly oversimplified, for it takes much more than a chain of amino acids to make a living organism.

MORE PITFALLS

Third pitfall: When amino acids are formed at random they come in two forms that are chemically the same but one is a “right-handed” molecule and the other a “left-handed” molecule. They are all mixed together, in about equal numbers of each kind. But in living organisms only “left-handed” amino acids are used. So returning to our illustration, the man making bricks makes two kinds, red and blue, and accumulates a pile containing millions of bricks, reds and blues mixed together. (Of course, we must assume that the hammer swinger has been eliminated, just as evolutionists assume that the destructive ultraviolet rays have been removed from the action.) Now a monstrous shovel gouges into the pile of millions of red and blue bricks and scoops out several hundred thousand bricks, and, by chance, every one of them is a red brick! In the same way, by chance, every one of the hundreds of thousands of amino acids, and sometimes millions, forming a one-celled living organism must be “left-handed,” even though taken from a mixture containing millions of others that are “right-handed.”

Fourth pitfall: It is not enough to get the right kind in sufficient quantity. Each of the 20 different kinds of amino acids must link up in the protein chain in the correct sequence. If one amino acid is out of place, the organism may be crippled or killed. So the huge shovel must, not only scoop up all red bricks, but also drop each one of them into its proper place!

Fifth pitfall: The cell membrane is formed from membranous tissue. Evolutionists theorize that a film of water around a glob of proteins became a membrane, or that fatty globules enveloped proteins and became a cell membrane. The membrane is extremely complex, made up of sugar, protein and fatty molecules, and governs what substances can or cannot enter and leave the cell. Not all of its intricacies are understood. Bernal says, in The Origin of Life: ‘What we lack still, as mentioned earlier, is a plausible model for the origin of fats.” (Page 145) Without the fats there could be no membrane; without the membrane, no living organisms.

IMPOSSIBILITIES NO DETERRENT

There are literally thousands of pitfalls for the evolutionary theory, en route from a primitive atmosphere, bombarded by lightning or radiation, to a one-celled living organism able to reproduce itself. Every competent scientist knows this. He knows that the many speculations advanced to evade these pitfalls are inadequate. Laws governing energy and matter declare impossible the spontaneous generation of life. Mathematical laws of probability doom its chances.

The simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of Mycoplasma) has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. However, some contend that, theoretically, one might get by with 124 such proteins. What are the chances of one of these proteins of 400 “left-handed” amino acids forming from a mixture of both “right-” and “left-handed” ones? One chance in 10^120 (1 followed by 120 zeros).

However, for this nonexistent cell 124 proteins are needed. What are the chances of spontaneously forming that many, all from “left-handed” molecules? One chance in 10^14,880. But these amino acids cannot be tied together just indiscriminately; they must be in the right sequence. To get these 124 proteins, averaging 400 “left-handed” amino acids each, with the acids in the correct sequence, the chances are 1 in 10^79,360. If we wrote out this last number in full (1 followed by 79,360 zeros), it would take about 20 pages of this magazine to do it! Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed. And that number could be written in less than two of these lines.

Prominent evolutionists know the problems. Some try to push them into outer space. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said that ‘existing terrestrial theories of the origin of life are highly unsatisfactory for sound chemical reasons,’ and that ‘life did not originate on earth itself but, rather, on comets.’ Others grit their teeth and believe in spite of the lack of evidence. Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald stated: “One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are​—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation.” On his own admission, he believes in the impossible. [whereislogic: sound familiar? Have a look at my previous commentary concerning circular reasoning.] This kind of reasoning is comparable to that of an earlier biologist, D. H. Watson, who said that evolution was “universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

ARE YOU GULLIBLE OR LOGICAL?

Having no other foundation, writers on evolution stoop to the tyranny of authority: ‘All scientists of consequence believe it; no reputable biologist doubts it; informed persons don’t question it; all intelligent persons accept it; only those with religious prejudice reject it; it has been proved many times over; no further proof is needed now.’ So, on and on go the pressuring and the brainwashing.

You, however, should investigate it for yourself. Then, decide for yourself. Your life could depend on your decision. And consider this: You could jump off a 20-story building. Just before you hit the street a sudden, terrific gust of wind catches you and whisks you back up onto the top of the building. Is that likely? It is very unlikely. Do not count on it. But it is far more likely than that a living organism would form spontaneously! Do not count on that either!

The Bible says at Psalm 36:9: “With you [God] is the source of life.” It is gullible to believe that life arose by chance. It is logical to believe that it was created by an intelligent God, as the following article shows.

Next page: “Perceived by the Things Made” (this is what the song at the start of this comment is all about). Here's another example:

More details regarding the problems/pitfalls (which also demonstrates the ones mentioned in the 1978 article have not been solved or addressed):

Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 1 (by James Tour)
Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 02

In particular, this part (or that's my favorite part of the first James Tour series):

a reply to: didntasktobeborned

I've made more commentary (using some of the same articles linked in my previous response, so pardon some redundancy) on this subject in the thread "Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?" On the origins & creationism forum. In particular my commentary on page 5 and page 8.

At the end of the first comment and the 2nd comment (on page 8, see link above) I discuss the "free oxygen" problem/pitfall. Which is also a doozy (for the believers in 'nature did it', by chance/accident).

It actually involves "that first step" in the origin of life (sort of, depending on how you count), the origin of amino acids (the first step as discussed by Dawkins in the first comment on page 8). For nucleotides it is even harder (or more impossible, if there was such as thing, let's say more implausible) to emerge by chance and the forces of nature exclusively (i.e. without intelligent intervention, as for example is often done in a lab, when chemists bring their intelligence to bear to force specific reactions to get specifically desired results, using foresight as well; attributes that the forces of nature do not have):

...

Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?

“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2 * [Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”]

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”4

...

2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.

a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.

3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.

4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.

Source: QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

So on the one hand we have the belief that 'nature did it' (by chance/accident), supported by saying that it's "not yet fully understood" and adherence to South Park's Agnostic Code (no actual evidence of machinery and technology emerging by chance and the forces of nature alone, and all evidence we do have from physics and chemistry proves multiple steps within this storyline to be conclusively proven impossibilities, regardless of any feigned ignorance by those saying we just don't know how this happened yet, "not yet fully understood", 'but I'm going to believe and promote it anyway under the marketingbanner "Science"').

And on the other hand we have the conclusion by induction that the machinery and technology that makes up living organisms were produced by creation (or engineering to be more specific), as is a well established cause for the emergence of machinery and technology (the effect).

Which one of these can be considered "science"? (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"; essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities, i.e. things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. All synonyms.)

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

From wiki (the page for "scientist"):

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Maybe it will all become more clear to you, including why I was talking about "the machinery and technology that makes up living organisms", if you actually see what I'm talking about and why I'm referring to it as machinery and technology (cause we all know quite well where that comes from, why else have the SETI (search for extraterrestrial inteligence)? If we can't even tell the difference anyway. We can tell the difference between that which has been produced by mindless processes and that which has been produced by purposeful engineering.):

Which is the first video in the playlist:

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: didntasktobeborned
...
So on the one hand we have the belief that 'nature did it' (by chance/accident), supported by saying that it's "not yet fully understood" and adherence to South Park's Agnostic Code (no actual evidence of machinery and technology emerging by chance and the forces of nature alone, and all evidence we do have from physics and chemistry proves multiple steps within this storyline to be conclusively proven impossibilities, regardless of any feigned ignorance by those saying we just don't know how this happened yet, "not yet fully understood", 'but I'm going to believe and promote it anyway under the marketingbanner "Science"').

Key moment at 0:34 - 0:43:


It's what I refer to as general agnosticism (applied to all subjects) along with the belief that nothing can be known (with certainty), truth can not be known or is not absolute but relative (which is connected to the philosophy of relativism, long story). It often shows its ugly head in mantras such as 'science does not deal with absolutes' (and variations).

...

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. ...

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

...

Ah never mind the rest, it's important but I've quoted it before on this subforum, not even too long ago I think.

Source: “What Is Truth?”

originally posted by: LeeMich83

originally posted by: Untun

originally posted by: LeeMich83


Does the universe exist only because its impossible for nothing to exist? I know a lot of people will say God created the universe and created us. But why have a god in the first place what is gods purpose for the universe. Why create man, put them on earth and then judge them after the fact.

There's a fine line between philosophical questions and being dissatisfied because you do nothing all day.

You can interpret the question however you like but it does not mean your interpretation is the meaning of my question. I am not asking the question because I do nothing, I am asking philosophically in respect to anything I or mankind does actually makes no difference to anything at all. Us being here and not being here either way in the grand scheme of things changes absolutely nothing. The only thing we do is affect each other whilst we are here but our lives mean nothing, everything means nothing over a long enough time period. One day the Universe will be cold and dead and nobody will be there to remember what we did or didn't do in the miniscule fraction of time that we were in this universe.

But everything you do DOES make a difference. Don't despair in unknowable things or the things you don't understand right now because the future always brings surprises including good ones and your understanding will increase in ways that you will be shocked in the future that you didn't know it before.

AND you will be glad you hung in there with your chin up.