The Greatest Miracle of All

[Guest]

Yes, I'm a Christian and a believer in the strong anthropic principle but for me the biggest miracle was not the feeding of the 5 000 or turning water into wine BUT THIS:

 

Existence

 

The most probable state of the universe would be for it not to exist, for it to have never existed and never to exist in future. Really there should be absolutely nothing: no us, no stars, no space and no time.

[Perkil8r]

Difficult and very contentious subject there Phil, but a valid subject non the less. 

 

Please feel free to discuss this, but please respect everybody's views no matter what your feelings on religion.

 

Now, back to your point.....

 

It is undoubtedly the single most biggest question any being in the Universe can ask, "why are we here?" I think this is mostly summed up with a quote from a rather unusual source, the film Jurassic Park: "Life will always find a way".

 

 

[Tweedledee]

Anthropic principles are rather deep for a Monday afternoon, Phil.

Trying to contemplate absolutely nothing is worse than the immovable object thread

I'm certainly very glad there is something.

Cheers.

Edited April 8, 2013 by petersull

[T A WOW]

Well, I'm not personally in the slightest bit religious and untill just now was ignorant of what the anthropic principle was.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's certainly a difficult thing to comprehend. Is just the universe evolving to a point where is can contemplate itself? Do different people interpret it differently or is it an absolute?

I'm not sure if it has any religious meaning or connections, (from how I interpret it it doesn't to me) it's certainly not proof of any higher power or devine being (again from my understanding)

I shall certainly read about it more, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Craig]

I highly recommend a book by Lawrence Kraus called "A Universe From Nothing". It's a very engaging read and poses some questions about the creation of the universe, addressing the need for a prerequisite creator. This is not a surprise as Lawrence is outwardly atheist, as am I, and he attempts to demonstrate that something can be created from nothing. (in this case, "nothing" is something in the physical sense)

 

Please feel free to discuss this, but please respect everybody's views no matter what your feelings on religion.

 

Well said Mike.

[+RonC]

As a born again Christian my thoughts are already written down BUT I have no problem with the scientific principles of creation (from nothing). Just one question remains, what (or who) instigated the big bang??

[Tibbz2]

I was bought up as a Christian while I was young, but since then I have not been religious. 

 

I respect religious views as long as they're able to respect mine. My grandad is a very strict christian but he came round in January and we had a good chat about creation and the universe, and he was even watching Stargazing Live and was interested in the ideas even though he didn't believe in them (Big Bang etc.).

[Perkil8r]

I get awfully confused feelings over the subject. A number of years ago now I considered I too was "born again" and until recently although not outwardly religious I had a firm belief that there was an omnipotent creator. Now I have learned more about what goes on out in the Universe, how stars, planets, galaxies and the such are created, and delving into the beginning of the Universe too, I find myself challenging those beliefs.

 

There is one solution which offers me some comfort, and that would be that the Universe it's self was the work of some omnipotent being, the rest though is thus far proven to be a combination of evolutions of various parts which have by chance(?)* come together to enable the evolution of mankind.

 

I think the main issue here is that in both scenarios there are big gaps where neither can explain 100% with any hard evidence that the other is or is not possible. 

 

*or maybe it's by design?

[+RonC]

It's good to challenge your beliefs I think, It does challenge me and I'm glad of it otherwise it would be like a religious robot!! Good debate!! 

[Sheila]

I get awfully confused feelings over the subject. A number of years ago now I considered I too was "born again" and until recently although not outwardly religious I had a firm belief that there was an omnipotent creator. Now I have learned more about what goes on out in the Universe, how stars, planets, galaxies and the such are created, and delving into the beginning of the Universe too, I find myself challenging those beliefs.

 

There is one solution which offers me some comfort, and that would be that the Universe it's self was the work of some omnipotent being, the rest though is thus far proven to be a combination of evolutions of various parts which have by chance(?)* come together to enable the evolution of mankind.

 

I think the main issue here is that in both scenarios there are big gaps where neither can explain 100% with any hard evidence that the other is or is not possible. 

 

*or maybe it's by design?

I am a little contrary to you Mike, the more I find out the more it confirms my beliefs that there is a creator out there.  This has to be my conclusion from

the scientific ideas and theories advanced at the moment.  I must admit though as you know, that I to am a christian

 

Sheila

[Guest]

I certainly respect everybody's beliefs. I'm not a "religious nut" and, indeed, spent much of my life fighting against the idea of a god. Perhaps the reasons why the universe is like it is has more to do with religion and philosophy than science.

 

But for me, the main point is that logic suggests that there should be nothing: no universe, no time, no space, no life and no god.

[Guest devil74]

Yes this is a really difficult subject. I am a firm believer in evolution but life by chance is still difficult to comprehend. As for the "beginning" the more I have learnt the more I have leaned towards scientific thought....that said when you think that the building blocks of life have been shown to exist in space you start questioning where it all came from.

For me personally I think that if we don't know it doesn't necessarily mean there must be a divine creator.

A very interesting topic and one that deserves much more educational syllabus (even without answers).

[Perkil8r]

I've been trying to find an article I read a couple of months back which discussed the findings that there are some types of particles that can and do appear from nothing then disappear back to nothing. I can't find that, but have found this one which discusses a similar hypothesis.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light

 

The issue is that we probably will never know with absolute certainty what happened when the was truly no Universe as we know it. Part of the reason being we cannot experiment anything with absolutely nothing. A vacuum is not completely void of everything, even deep space is not completely empty, so we may never know for sure what would or can happen in an absolute void.

 

I prefer to believe Stephen Hawkin's explanation of a multiverse where we imagine universes to be like the skin of bubbles. Where two or more touch they can produce another or destroy each other and so on. Abandon all hope all ye whom enter here for here begins string theory and M theory

 

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing

Edited April 9, 2013 by Perkil8r

[Craig]

It's interesting that science creates these divides in belief. I for one have (and require) no belief in a divine being, a creator, yet others do hold such beliefs.

 

For me, there is no direct evidence of a divine being and the question of "what came before" does not immediately introduce the requirement of a creator. Throughout history the requirement of a creator has been pushed back as scientific boundaries advanced and new facts came to light. I have no doubt this will be the case again, as we begin to unravel the origins of the universe. As one of my favourite authors once put it, God fills the cracks in our scientific understanding. Those cracks sometimes get smaller, as we advance our knowledge, sometimes they get bigger as an advancement reveals a deeper underlying mystery.

 

What I really value is our ability as human beings to hold our beliefs and respect our rights to hold them. It's very sad when these differences result in some of the hatred, intolerance and wars that we see in the modern world. As a species we are doomed if we cannot put them aside.

[Perkil8r]

It's interesting that science creates these divides in belief. I for one have (and require) no belief in a divine being, a creator, yet others do hold such beliefs.

 

For me, there is no direct evidence of a divine being and the question of "what came before" does not immediately introduce the requirement of a creator. Throughout history the requirement of a creator has been pushed back as scientific boundaries advanced and new facts came to light. I have no doubt this will be the case again, as we begin to unravel the origins of the universe. As one of my favourite authors once put it, God fills the cracks in our scientific understanding. Those cracks sometimes get smaller, as we advance our knowledge, sometimes they get bigger as an advancement reveals a deeper underlying mystery.

 

What I really value is our ability as human beings to hold our beliefs and respect our rights to hold them. It's very sad when these differences result in some of the hatred, intolerance and wars that we see in the modern world. As a species we are doomed if we cannot put them aside.

 

Well said. I have now found myself in a similar position, bar the fact I still require the belief that there may still be room for an omnipotent being in the fabric of the Universe. There are plenty who believe it is true, and without evidence to prove either way I have to consider it a possibility. It certainly would answer a lot of questions, but at the same time open a whole new book of questions, who or what created the creator? and so on etc.

 

As for intolerance etc, amen to that, live and let live I say.

[Craig]

That's where I am quite stringent in my views of the world. I simply won't accept something that isn't testable.

 

A cracking debate though, and rather polite considering how these things normally end up!

[Sheila]

thats cos we are all polite and reasonable members  

 

Sheila

[Perkil8r]

That's where I am quite stringent in my views of the world. I simply won't accept something that isn't testable.

 

A cracking debate though, and rather polite considering how these things normally end up!

 

The same could be argued about the creation of the Universe from nothing. It is at that point at which we get to nothing that we run out of answers or explanations, it is at that point that we end up with theories. Theories are not proof, they are but ideas waiting to be backed up with some form of evidence which puts it at the same point as those whom believe that a superior being created everything.

 

Both theories have holes which the other can fill partially if we allow ourselves to.

[Craig]

True enough.

 

thats cos we are all polite and reasonable members  

 

Sheila

 

True too!

[tuckstar]

So god existed above the clouds, we went there, he wasn't home. He must be above the atmosphere, we went there and he still wasn't there.

Where can we say he is next???

Guess what he won't be there either!!!

Can't see how religion, and I stress religion not Christianity or Hindus or Buddhist or muslems, but ingeneral all religions can be on here for discussion in a world where so much has been proved and disproved using the scientific method. A world where wars and hardship have been caused in the name of a god, often the same god spouted about on both sides. Most religions preach about love and oneness and forgiving but in reality give false hope and refuse to accept people who do not hold there views or are blinded by there faith. Often refusing to acknowledge scientific data, ie creationists insist that carbon dating is wrong. That the grand canyon was created in a day.!!!

Sorry I do respect peoples beliefs and faith, but respect mine and don't preach.

This discussion could go forever as everyone will have a differing view.

Sorry if i have offended but religions get me wound up.

[Doc]

Andy this is a cracking debate where so far, we all have different views on this subject, and that what makes us all different in our own way. A discussion like this should be encouraged as we can all learn from it.

[Guest devil74]

So here's another twist to the tale...where do we go when we die. Do we go to another dimension and I wonder if this dimension could answer any of our questions that we as humans pose about ourselves and our existence. Questions of this topic are as mind boggling as the universe itself. For me I have no belief in God at all and yet I find myself totally believing in 'the other side' and I firmly believe, and i dont know why, that this other dimension is inextricably linked to our place on earth and the universe itself.

 

I know this is totally contradictory but this shows how our beliefs are not fixed on one path..ie Athiest etc...you can believe half of this theory and half of another.

When i studied psychology what i found really interesting was how an individual can change his/her attitudes and beliefs over time. The beliefs on this thread alone are so diverse...loving this debate.

[Tibbz2]

What happens after we die is something that is actually really interesting to discuss ^

 

There are so many possibilities....

[Perkil8r]

The only thing we can be certain of is that the elements were are made up of return to the cosmos.

[Guest devil74]

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm