Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[disarray]

Yes, I am, for similar reasons, very skeptical about any talk about UFOs. Personally, I think the whole mission vision of spending billions of dollars to get a moon rock, to find a speck of life on Mars, to search for extra terrestrial life is a waste of money. (Sure, there have been lots of spin-off discoveries in the process, but we could have made lots of other discoveries/inventions had we spend all that money seeking to find ways, for example, to develop food sources from the sea.)

 

I guess the only point I have left is that the main monotheistic religions today would have to adjust their thinking, given that they are based on the idea that God only created intelligent life forms on earth and no where else. This suggests that many people in the world are quite happy thinking that they are, in a sense, God's only children....as if they were Chosen or special. Again, finding life on other planets, for many, would make them feel less special. Indeed, it would encourage even more people to give up the idea that the world was created by some personal God, as outlined in Genesis, for example, and give more credence to scientific explanations for the existence of life in the universe. Again, not speaking about how you would feel...but just talking about the ramifications of finding life forms, especially intelligent ones, elsewhere in our galaxy.

[tar]

disarray,

 

OK. I got that point...or I get it now, but from my personal philosophical viewpoint, it is already a given that we are just specks of life in an immense place that has been around for a long long time and will be around for a long time after.

,

It is difficult to look at one's 83 year lifespan and consider there was a time when one did not exist, and a time that one will not exist later. But, the only choice left, is to consider that you are somehow part of what came before and what will come after. A chain of life. From your parents to your children. From the primordial sludge to the colonization of the planets of other solar systems...or whatever we, as the human species becomes or does or reaches whatever level of consciousness it will reach. You and I are still special. It is still our universe...we have no other to call our own. We are still examples of matter and energy that have combined in such a way as we have a pattern all our own. A human pattern, different than a spider pattern. And even related to the spider, a bit more than we are related to a snowflake...but even there the crystal growth is not completely foreign to our own arrival on the scene.

 

I do not believe we were created by a creator, because then the question would be who created the creator...and if one can live with the thought of the creator being infinite...then its just as good to live with the thought, that existence is infinite.

 

But with or without a mind, like the mind of god, that can witness all there is, all at once, there is still the consideration that all that exists exists at once, and we just can't see the whole thing at once, except in the manner we do, when we peer into the sky and into our electron microscopes, and interpolate the whole thing's existence.

 

So yes. Finding other life would require a rewrite of Genesis...but we already know the story is a story. Figurative...or in great need of taking things way different than literally...like a day is worth 4000 years or 4 billion years...or whatever.

 

There is still the possibility that this universe is all we have...but like I said before... it is still special, to us, and it is still way more than we will ever require.

 

Regards,TAR

Edited May 9, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar

I am not sure who you mean when you say that "we already know the story [of Genesis] is a story"...and this story is a "figurative" or non-literal story.

But 37% of Americans believe that God created the World (i..e., the Universe) in six 24-hour days (as per a literal interpretation of Genesis). *

 

I see you take my point that a significant thread in religious thought is that humans are special in the eyes of one or more Gods in terms, usually, of being "his" only offspring.

 

Indeed, your thoughts, I suspect, seem to echo the need to feel special, in some grand sense, that is ubiquitously found in the scriptures of various religions. You state, for example, that "You and I are still special." (You also mention that our universe is special to us.) You then seem to point out that, though we may be 'related' to spiders (via evolution), we (e.g., our DNA) is distinctly different from that of a spider's, and therefore humans are unique and special. By the same token, though, a spider's DNA, etc., is unique and special as well, when compared with other living things. (Moreover, there is minor genotypical variation between various humans as well as major phenotypical variations). Humans, as a species, are not dramatically distinct from other life forms, even on this planet...particularly, as you say, if we keep in mind that living creatures are all "related," despite their apparent uniqueness and specialness.

 

So again, for me, the focus of the discussion becomes not so much a question as to whether we are alone, but rather the question becomes what might be the religious, cultural, scientific, and philosophical ramifications were we to find out that we are not alone? I suspect that many people wish to feel that they are special, whether it be as individuals, as members of a particular nation (and sometimes "race" or at least ethnic group), as a species, and as a being in their universe. Indeed, one notes the similarity between the words "species" and "special."

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting to feel unique and special, but who can say whether the desire to feel special is entirely an exalted philosophical and spiritual one. Certainly an evolutionary psychologist might claim that the desire to feel special is just another example of our survival instinct.... in the sense that our need to feel special is, for example, an aspect of the process of individuation, a process that helps us to develop a sense of self-identity and thus to understand our place in the world and to deserve to be treated by our partners and close friends as someone who is different from others, etc. It is by virtue of 'specialness' that tribal cohesion develops, that an animal identifies its prey, and that mothers identify their own.

 

As for religion, I would suggest that a belief in a Creator also seems to increase the likelihood that humans are special, as I mentioned before.

 

Ultimately, given that we have so little evidence one way or another to answer the question as to whether there are other intelligent beings in this or other universes, it seems more fruitful, as often is the case in philosophical discussions, to examine the question itself about whether we are alone, by asking such things as:

• Why do we ask whether we are alone?
• Why do humans tend to assume that they and their universe were created (and, typically,by some supernatural being, and one that is similar to themselves)?
• How would the discovery of intelligent beings on other planets (especially ones with a DNA very, very similar to our own) affect our sense of specialness and uniqueness?....There is no particular reason to think that extraterrestrial creatures and their intelligence would be significantly different from ours.....after all, humans share, according to a common estimate, 98.8 % of their DNA with chimps? (No doubt this discovery would have a huge impact, much like the evolutionary claim that we were related to apes in one way or another was a huge blow to thousands of people, as exemplified by the Scopes trial.)
• In what different ways can we explain the virtually universal human need to feel special in one way or another?
• To what extent have and are various religions an expression of some innate human desire to feel special?
• How would the discovery of intelligent beings on other planets (in our own universe, if not other universes) affect contemporary debates between science and religion re such things as the existence of God (a Creator), the claims of literal Creationists (vs. evolutionists), etc.?

I am not suggesting that we, and/or other posters tackle the related questions in my bulleted list.

Rather, i"m just attempting to address the main question of this thread as to whether we were created alone by using lateral thinking...tackling it from the side, and not head on.

 

*http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

Edited May 9, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

I am not sure the need to feel special, is the way to frame it. I think people actually do feel special. And it is not without evidence. We are pretty capable, compared to a rock, for instance. That there are others like us, does no depreciate the capability of the one. Just makes the family more special to have a handful, and the extended family and friends and college buds and highschool friends, and people met while traveling and so on, a special collection of folks that you in particular know.

 

I am thinking it has to do with our unique ability to internalize the external world. To recognize a face as different than another, and to know that THAT person knows you and has internalized you in their model of the world. I have a side theory, that god is short hand for objective reality. And objective reality is real. That disarray has an image of TAR in his or her brain, somehow modeling TAR from synapses and brain cell connections and analogies and memories and such, is a real, verifiable scientific fact. You are a piece of my objective reality, yet you subjectively know of me. You substanstiate my existence by noticing me, and remembering me, and vice a versa. This is pretty much contained on the Earth, and our existence is not quickly announced to the rest of the universe...but we can interpolate, the theory of mind, our recognition of each other, and figure at least in that, the universe is aware of us.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Tar

Well at this point, it's just a matter of emphasis with regards to the best way to frame the role of "specialness." .. Clearly from the point of view of history, the need to feel special and superior has raised its ugly head time and time again, e.g., the dozens of major issues and points in time where religion has clashed with science (e.g., forcing Newton to recant re his theory of heliocentrism), largely with regards to humankind's need to feel special in the eyes of God. Similarly, there are thousands of violent examples of societies clashing with each other, in large part, over issues of religious and national identity based largely on the need to feel special, unique, and superior.

 

Terry Eagleton sums this up neatly when he states in "Reason, Faith, and Revolution," that "Civilizations kill to protect their matierial interests, whereas cultures kill to protect their identity" (p. 156)

 

But if you choose to focus on the mundane, rather Sartrean, role that the Other (person) has in bestowing upon oneself a sense of identity, that is fine with me...But, it doesn't discount the role that the search for identity and the need to feel special (e.g., ethnocentrism) has played throughout history, often with violent consequences.

 

I don't understand why you continue to use the word "interpolate" however, instead of "extrapolate," as, judging from the context in which you are using the word, the former does not seem to make sense to me.

 

I do follow the reasoning in your last post, up until the point where you back track and suggest that the fact that our identity is confirmed or substantiated in some way in the minds of others somehow (as if in some figurative, Hegelian leap from the individual to the universal) provides evidence that "the universe is aware of us." It is total speculation on your part that objective reality (aka the World or the Universe) is somehow synonymous with God because it is aware us.

 

It is at this point that you seem to leave the realm of science (or even basic logic) and venture off into speculative metaphysics. That's fine if you want to do that, but keep in mind that, unlike multiverse theories, there is no evidence (idle speculation doesn't count) that the universe is aware of us simply on the basis that other human beings are. I don't see that as a reasonable extrapolation. Sure, people are perhaps a product of the universe and they are in the universe, but suggesting that therefore the entire universe must or is probably aware of us (as if it were a god) makes no sense to me. But again, if you are trying to say that other people are "godlike" in that they seem to give you a sense of identity and therefore existence, that is a nice metaphorical analogy. But in no way can I see that you have shown that our awareness of each other provides any evidence or reasoning whatsoever that therefore the universe is aware of us. In short, your use of the word "god" in describing the universe is, imho, rather misleading, even if you acknowledge that you are just making a figurative claim.

Edited May 10, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

A anthropomorphic god is a reflection of our own consciousness back upon the universe. We understand our own comprehension of space and time, and imagine someone being able to have the same thing, but from everywhere at once. Know the whole thing at once. In the Einstein sense of observers, imagining that there is an instant mindlink between all the observers, that are stationed at all locations.

 

This consideration is allowed in understanding space and time, and relativity, but pooh poohed when the idea of "the mind of god" is forwarded.

 

To me, the two considerations are similar. And in both cases the understanding of all at once, is not possible. It means nothing. All at once, with no distinctions, would be pretty much a singularity, which our existence denies.

 

Regards, TAR

 

So observer and judge, creator, and genesis, beginning and end are all things we see when we look at our parents and peers, children and all others. If you feel ashamed of doing something, or proud, it is because it matters to somebody else.

 

One of my main observations about myself and reality and science and religion, is that we all look for a consciousness bigger than ourselves. A reality that contains us, to which we are subject. I stress the distance, and unknowability of stuff on the other side of the galaxy to point out the fact that "science" has no better view of "all of the universe" than a guru on a mountain top. We see the world from one point of view, and extrapolate. None of us can experience the world differently. This is how us humans do it.

Edited May 10, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar

Einstein did not believe in any sort of personal God, e.g., a God that saw everything from all directions at once. Nor did he put forth any quasi-religious argument that it might be possible for there to be some sort of Mind link between all possible observers or observational points in the universe. I do recall reading that he mused that seeing things from one perspective (which is all we ever seem able to do) is always incomplete.... but, like the Cubists, he did wonder just what it might be like to see everything from every every possible perspective....something which he found to be so counter-intuitive that he admitted that he could not picture in his mind what that would be like (though picturing things in his mind, by his own words, was his forte). But he thought that being able to see everything from all perspectives would put us more in tune with Reality, than seeing things from one perspective.

 

But how, he pondered, could Reality ever be fully known (completely and accurately understood) unless it could be seen from multiple perspectives at once....and indeed, how can Reality even exist unless it exists in a state in which there is one all-inclusive Absolute "perspective" (or perhaps it is more accurate to say 'non-perspective') but only relative perspectives???.....He simply concluded that something very strange was going on. Similarly, quantum theory in general, tends to suggest that the Reality beyond our senses (e.g., the position or state of an electron) is in some sort of rarefied ontological state of limbo...having no perspective at all....at least not until 'concretized' by some sort of observation (or to be more precise, some sort of 'measurement'). And as Bohr said, in so many words,....anyone who thinks he understand this state of affairs is delusional.

 

In any case, given your emphasis that we should not rule out or rule in the existence of things to which we do not have direct sensory access to, I don't see how you can categorically state that it is impossible for some Being, such as God, to see all things from all directions and perspectives....Indeed, such an idea is pretty much what Divine omniscience might be said to entail. My point is not that such omniscience is possible or is not. Nor is it my point that there is or is not such a God that has such omniscience. My point is that you can not, given your own criteria as to what is knowable, make any claims about it one way or another yourself...unless you want to switch tack and sail off into some glassy-eyed guru's sea of faith or intuition, which apparently you do not.

 

As for such questions as to how the universe began, or what is on the other side of the observable universe or any other area that is beyond the scope of our immediate senses, I will side with the scientists rather than the seers when it comes to the question as to whom has the better description. As Terry Eagleton points out, science does have its own assumptions, regardless of how objective it claims to be. In particular, he points out, science tends to exclude things that are not "natural." By natural, Eagleton means that science tends to only ac-knowledge those things that seem to fit in to the present paradigms that seem to best unite the sensory data that has been accumulated and systematized throughout history (e.g.,, empiricism + scientific theories) in an attempt to deal with Nature.

 

If science comes across something that doesn't fit the present paradigms, it will immediately set about, like a goat, to try to consume and assimilate what it can from the apparently worthless and haphazard things it sees....whether it be something as irrational as the first awareness of a Black Hole or some giant Jack in the Bean Stalk striding amongst the galaxies.

 

But I am willing to dispense with further discussion about your claim that science is never any better than any other way of viewing the more abstruse aspects of reality that one might mention (those aspects that are not readily at hand or visible to the naked eye), by simply saying that, as is sometimes said of the conflict between faith and reason, it is a matter of apples and oranges...so lets not compare the two.

 

As a Parthian shot, however,I would note that I would give greater credence to the scientific description of an apple as something that exists because of a natural tendency for living things to find means to spread their seed (in this case, being eaten by animals), rather than as something a Creator made to test the loyalty of his "children." But, as you say, a scientist's opinion about things that we moderns weren't around to see is never any better than anyone elses opinion.

Edited May 11, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

Science is better than faith, when determining how the world fits together.

 

But "science" is sort of a collective consciousness we have together formulated over the last 4000 years. No model, existing in a single mind, is a more superior fit to reality, than reality on its own provides.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Tar

Um, people such as Hawking and Penrose probably have more advanced scientific knowledge in their brains a 1000 average high school students combined. So not sure what the point is when you suggest that no model in a single mind (as opposed to the collective knowledge of many minds) is superior "fit" to reality than reality on its own provides..I don't see that the number of minds supporting a particular model or thesis has a great deal to do with its validity. (By validity, I refer to such things as systematically assimilating data and predicting events)?)

 

I'm glad you are acknowledging that not all version of reality are equally valid....to think that this is the case represents pragmatism (whatever works must be true) gone overboard. So, no, not everyone's opinion about whether it is likely that there are other universes or other planets that sustain life are equally supported by sound thinking, or likely to be 'realistic'.

 

Unified theories, based upon experiments, is the best process humankind has come up with when it comes to accumulating knowledge, imho. But the sensory information (on itself) that you seem to say is our only valid contact with reality is misleading, For example, the size of the moon appears to our senses to vary depending upon just where and when it is near the horizon (moon illusion), not to mention that the earth seems flat.

 

The line between sensory-based empirical data and theoretical information that precedes and follows from it is not as clear-cut as many claim. For example, the picture that we have in our minds of the night sky full of stars is a sort of sensory model of reality....many of the stars we can see in the sky tonight actually would have been burnt out thousands of years ago...so in this respect, our sensory models can often be misleading or just plain wrong....as many a criminal lawyer will attest from examining eye witnesses.

 

Truth be told, everything we know, including sensory data, is just a model of an "alleged" Reality (aka noumena) that supposedly exists in some way independent of our models. But what exactly this means is up for grabs....hence, Bohr and Einstein disagreed as to whether the moon exists when we are not looking at it...back to philosophy.. The consensus seems to be that there is a sound in the forest and there is a moon, though sounds and images as we experience them do not exist "out there" in some Reality external to our minds....e.g., there is no such things as the color "pink" in the natural world (our minds just create that color to fill in the gap between other colors).

 

But to get back to the topic of this thread, I don't think that the question (apart from the misleading assumption that Reality was "created") of this thread is a waste of time on the basis, supposedly, that scientists have no better clue than anyone else does whether we are "alone." Indeed, I think that the growing consensus (based at this point on theoretical extrapolation) among scientists, is that it is probable that life (and probably some intelligent life) exists on planets elsewhere, at least in this universe, if not others. Also, the question is not an empty one because, as I have outlined before, the confirmation of life on other planets would have a huge impact on the religious and philosophical outlook of millions of people....or should I say, earthlings.

 

Of course, if you, as an individual don't think that it matters to you for various reasons, that is fine. Indeed, I would agree that, even if there were intelligent life on some planet on some distant star, the likelihood of their visiting earth (aka as UFOs) is so unlikely as to be logically dismissed as....well, silly. But again, there are a few people around who think that it is certain that they do exist and do routinely visit. Shucks, one famous boxer in the throes of late-life dementia used to smear mayonnaise on windows in order to prevent the FBI and/or extraterrestrial beings from checking up on him. Indeed, feeling that UFOs are following one or reading ones mind is a common symptom of a psychosis derived from paranoid schizophrenia....but hey, everyone's opinion is as good as anyone elses, it is said, when it comes to what is possible just around the corner in this, sometimes strange, universe of ours.

Edited May 13, 2016 by disarray

[Moontanman]

The question is actually easily answered through logical reasoning alone.

 

The universe is by definition all that exists. -> Creation requires a creator. -> If a Creator exists, the Creator cannot create the universe because the universe already exists through the Creator's existence itself. -> The universe cannot have been created.

 

Another way towards that conclusion:

 

Creation requires causality (i.e., cause and effect). -> Causality requires the existence of time. -> Time is a property of the universe. -> The creation of the universe requires the universe to already exist. This is a paradox! -> The universe cannot have been created.

 

 

Interesting question: Was the observable universe created?

 

 

I agree, creation does indeed require a creator, I think the creator is a brobdingnagian creature that feeds on dark matter and excretes universes... and doesn't know it's own shit..

Edited May 12, 2016 by Moontanman

[tar]

disarray,

 

Well there seems to be two questions here. Is the universe created alone...and were humans created alone in the universe.

 

The unusefulness of other universes is my main point to you.

 

The possibility of life on other planets is completely a different situation. I would think it very possible, almost a sure thing, that we are not the only life in the galaxy. However it seems that people are trying to find other life like ours out there, which does not have to be the case. Other life could be very much smaller than our scale, or very much larger. Like Moontanman suggests, the strings of galaxies could be the mucous in the eye of a creature immense beyond our comprehension. Our time scale and our size scale may or may not be the only viable scale life works on.

 

Besides, if a race of beings landed on the whitehouse lawn, we would all just accept it as reality, and move on from there. Include them in "us" the same way as we include the sulfur based tubes at the bottom of the sea. And it is not outside the realm of possibility that we have been visited and the other life forms just can't be bothered to stop and chat. Like we rarely strike up conversations with the tadpoles in the ponds we pass.

 

When I was 18, we witnessed some lights hovering over a power line in rural PA. A collection of us gathered and watched and felt it was alien in nature. Then one by one they started off and accelerated away in a way not consistent with any Earthly technology. We figured they were just fueling up, and had no interest in us, one way or the other, other than using our "food". Much as we would take honey from a beehive.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 13, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar,

Well experts in what is physically likely, e.g., Lawrence Krauss, tend to dismiss out of hand the likelihood of UFOs and the like, though putting a high probability on the notion of life on other planets.

 

Sure, from the point of view of a philosopher's armchair or an alcoholic's bar stool, we can speculate that galaxies could be the mucous in the eye of a creature....Anything is possible, at least in terms of what can be said....even Hume said we cannot technically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. But hey, let's keep things "real,".....there's a reason that science (not to mention our legal system) makes judgments based on various set of evidential criteria. Saying anything could happen, so anyone's guess is as good as another is not, imho, a serious approach to a discussion. And sorry, I don't find stories about curious or hungry, visiting aliens very convincing.

 

As far as what difference it makes, I have repeatedly noted that evidence for other universes, like evidence for life on other planets (and perhaps intelligent life) would make a huge difference as to the way millions of people think with regards to the monumental questions at stake...e.g., where did we come from, what is the origin of life, is there a creator, etc. Indeed, quite a lot of thinking is being done now by scientists to determine just how the universe might arise from nothing on its own....Krauss concludes that there is really not that much difference between nothing and something, so that something could easily arise on its own from nothing. Indeed, the solidness of objects around us is an illusion, and the protons, electrons, quarks, etc. that make up these supposedly solid things are quite rarefied and ethereal...to the point where some physicists say there are only abstract, rather mathematical-like "qualities" in the universe.

 

My point in this post is that it does matter whether we are alone...my example this time is that Lawrence Krauss's ideas that the universe created itself (and that no God is needed to explain the origins of the universe) are hugely controversial. Again, scientific evidence and arguments for a Godless and/or purposeless universe tend to be incendiary, and, as I mentioned before, reminiscent of the Scopes trial decades ago. Evidence for life on other planets, for example, would be a blow to mainstream Creationist claims, and the conflict between Creationism/Intelligent Design crusaders and evolutionists has been a hot topic for decades now.... in terms of politics, our school system, the court system, ethical viewpoints, the so-called Culture wars, the legislature, etc. So yeh, the question as to whether we are alone or not is a big deal.

 

The million dollar question in this regard is whether it is inevitable that this universe (if not others) will produce intelligent life forms. If we can ever answer this one way or another, it would be as paradigm-shifting an achievement as the related ideas set forth by Copernicus, Darwin or Freud.

Edited May 13, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

I somehow am missing your point. Is it inevitable that this universe will produce intelligent life forms? Really? That is your question? Is it not sort of obvious what the answer to that is?

 

We have no other universe with which to compare ourselves, and coming up with a hypothetical universe that would not, or could not produce intelligent life, would be useless. We already have a universe that has done it.

 

Regards, TAR

disarray,

 

Things emerge that have characteristics that are not the characteristics of any of the components of the thing that emerges with the "new" characteristics.

 

I think you would have a hard time in a thought experiment to take some air and water vapor, shine some light on it and show that a hurricane must follow.

 

Regards, TAR

disarray,

 

I am thinking you are conflating the idea of unique with the idea of alone.

 

There is a difference between the two thoughts at least in this. You can not be unique unless there are others to compare with. You can't be alone...unless there are no others.

 

Regards, TAR

Lawrence Krauss has no clue what the universe will look like from here in 600 billion years. One, it has not happened yet, and two he does not know what will constitute an eye or a beholder, in 600 billion years.

He speculates that the expansion of the universe will have stretched the wavelengths of incoming light way past the visible. I would argue that if this is going to be the case, life would by that time have developed a way to sense really long wavelengths.

Edited May 13, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar

No, it is not at all a given that it is inevitable that the universe inevitably produces (intelligent life). Much evidence and many 'arguments' have been made for and against this anthropic principle. Many books are available on Amazon, for example, re this debate. Again, given the lack of the sensory data that you seem to put so much stake on, I am surprised that you find it so easy to answer this question one way or the other in a single sentence!

 

I am aware of emergent theories....I am not aware of why you think this relates to the topic.

 

If one moves away from the dictionary, one can see that terms such as alone, at-one, at-man, unique, special, and chosen overlap in a cultural and religious overview of history...basic ethnocentric theory

 

Perhaps you could contact Krauss if you want to debate physics....good luck. My point, however, wasn't that he was right about everything he said, but rather that his suggestion that this universe (and perhaps other universes) could create life without the help of a divine Being (aka, a God) has been so controversial because so many people like to think that they are special, unique, or chosen in the eyes of God (e.g., according to scripture), much as there was similar controversy over, as I said, the Copernican and Darwinian 'revolutions' which, it seemed, similarly dethroned people's special place in the eyes of God as being totally different and thus unique and alone amongst all the animals in the kingdom on the basis that only humans have, among other things, a soul (one of the special benefits of being made in the image of God, I guess!).

 

I was not suggesting that history is one big controversy between religion and science, though. Both had similar origins and up until the more secular outlook of modern science, many if not most scientists often blended the two, e.g., Newton. The points of controversy arose where science suggested that humans were not created (alone) by God or that God was not even the Creator. The concept of humans being alone (in the sense of being unique) is related to the idea that humans are superior (and significantly different) from other living things anywhere else in the universe. This concept of being alone and superior is similar to the concept and drive that leads nations to think that they alone are blessed by God, while their enemies are not, or that their "race" alone is superior to all others. Seems there are no bounds to human hubris. This drive to be alone at the top of the hill is a childish game that still goes on in modern times. Shucks, the Mormons didn't even begin to recognize "Blacks" as equal (in the eyes of God, e.g., becoming priests) until 1978. Because of this ethnocentric instinct, it seems that virtually every group wants to be the chosen people, or at the top of the totem pole, or the superior race, etc. It is in this sense that I suggested that a group's desire to be alone is fairly synonymous with their desire to be chosen, special, and unique.

Edited May 14, 2016 by disarray

[Enric]

With risk of to be mundane again (sorry), I think that in order to survive in this Universe during billions of years, all life forms recognize (by nature selection) the Logic of this Universe that surrounds them. More or less. And, with the past of millions of years, we know that things usually are what they seem. In Logic. And the curiosities that I said before seem a lot (maybe not) what they seem. It seems a lot that the Universe is not created alone (if Universe were a big and heavy stone, how appears on a table? Appearing suddenly on the table or carried by something?) . It seems also that we was "included" in the chemistry in order to appear in it, inhabit it and handle it, with the correct Logic to make this possible (and cruel). Maybe not, and it has appeared alone and I'm a lot mundane, but I reivindicate 4000 milions of years of adaptation to this logic that surround us to recognize something.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Enric

[disarray]

It iis amazing that the universe creates life forms that have the sensory equipment to adapt to their various and sundry surroundings.

Similarly, it seems "wondrous" that the universe has created beings that can symbolically (using language) state that the universe has created them...as if nature is looking back on itself in some cosmic mirror (Kant, Hegel, et al.).

 

The universe may be amazing, but we need not think that, therefore, this implies that someone must have stood outside it and created it, or have a purpose in mind for it or for the life forms within it.

Perhaps life is a reflection of the natural tendency for things to maintain stability in an effort to resist universal entropy.

If so, we can thank our lucky stars that we are here, or alternatively, curse the fact that we were ever born in the first place (as Yeats said the Ancient Greek seers said we should do, having, perhaps, Sophocles Oedipus plays mind), depending upon whether we are basically optimists or pessimists.

 

OR, we can explain life in the terms of any number of religions that posit the existence of a Creator, one who usually has some purpose in mind for doing so (much as Pygmalion or Mister Geppetto had in mind when they lovingly created someone they wished would come alive and love them back).

 

In short, there are several ways that the existence of (intelligent) life can be explained.

 

But when we start expressing our intellectual and/or faith-based views as to such questions as to 'whether we are the only living (intelligent) beings in the universe' and if not, 'how these other beings came into existence', we immediately start narrowing down our options as to which view of the universe we happen to espouse. For example, the existence of life on other planets or even the existence of other universes (with or without life) are ruminations that are not compatible with many religions.

 

But the side issue is an emotional, though not unrelated one: 'Would we prefer that there is or is not life on other planets...or do we not care, or do we think that it does't matter, perhaps because we think extraterrestrial beings could never make it to our planet, or would never set out in the first place.'

 

So, if a stranger gives me an answer to the topic question of this thread (e.g., are we created? /are we alone?), I have a certain amount of information about that person's thinking and personality, much as I would if I had asked many other life and death questions such as "Is there life after death," "Why are we here," or information about even more "mundane" life and death questions such as whether or not the person believes in abortion, euthanasia, killing in self defense, killing in the name of religion, killing in the name of 'the survival of the fittest', etc.

 

Everything we say, perhaps, reveals who we are to some degree or another........ Just as our bodies leave carbon footprints on the earth, so too do our words leave their mark on the cultural march of humanity.

Edited May 15, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

Most important is that you understand there IS a cultural march of humanity.

 

This recognition of being a part of a greater whole, is exactly my proof that we are part of a greater whole, and therefore not alone.

 

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Tar

 

I presume that you are stating more than the truism that other people exist. Who would argue with this...except perhaps those die-hard solipsists who state that one cannot logically prove the existence of anybody elses mind....so that we truly are alone, imprisoned in our own consciousness. (Though Sartre argues that the gaze of others tells us that we exist, as if they too are in a similar predicament).

 

I am guessing that you are suggesting that you think that there is some sort of emergent quality...or state....or state of collective consciousness that somehow emerges from a group of individuals who share (as Herder suggested re nationalism) a common humanity or identity glued together with the bits and pieces that make up a common culture. Well perhaps.......... Those who are keen on keeping our national identity/culture intact (be they described as fascists or neocons or just plain good citizens) often seem worried about whether some immigrants will fail to adopt (some alleged unified) American culture along with its (allegedly unified) values (e.g., our particular brand of alleged 'democracy'), as well as our 'official' language (English), with some going so far as to suggest that they should also adopt our alleged national "official" religion (i.e., Christianity), not to mention high expectations that said immigrants adjust their attire to suit our ways (e.g., not veiling women's faces, or, at the other extreme, walking around the streets topless), show an interest in our sports (e.g., baseball) and perhaps eat good ole hot dogs right after singing the national anthem.

 

My point being that the belief that having a unified culture is a good thing is sometimes questionable, just as the belief that belonging to a similar race supposedly makes us a more unified and 'strong' nation (as, in practice, evidenced by such things as skin color). Thus, it is difficult to know just where the maxima is reached when the concept of cultural unity is taken to an extreme, so that the costs start outweighing the benefits.....e.g., as happened with Naziism, Stalinism, Maoism, and a hundred other examples. Indeed, the "vision" of many of these self-styled militant "humanitarians" was to save humanity from itself by forcing everyone to adopt the culture of the one "group whole," which just happened to be that of their own country.

 

Indeed, the very idea of how to definitively describe or proscribe a group or nation's unifying collective culture exactly is so nebulous as to be best described as just another myth, since every individual has a slightly different opinion about what the nation's culture is, whether he or she needst subscribe to it in private as much as in public, how that culture should change or whether it ever should change, etc. Similarly, the idea of a collective consciousness based upon a collective culture is also a myth...and sometimes a dangerous one at that.

 

Your last post about a "greater whole" (of which we are part of, but which is somehow also a separate entity or being that keeps us as individuals from being alone) reminds me of the sort of quasi-spiritual theories of Chardin and Verdasdky who talk of a noosphere that first started to develop when humans became aware of their own existence and that has progressed via the ubiquitous use (not to mention misuse) of such things as the World Wide Web to the point where the earth has developed a sort of spiritual cortex (that is as real as the atmosphere) that they refer to as the noosphere, aka "layer of global consciousness," composed of interwoven electrical signals laced with conscious awareness. Indeed, John Barlow summarizes Chardin's thought as claiming that "The point of all evolution up to this stage is the creation of a collective organism of Mind."

 

In any case, such emergent theories about an actual collective consciousness are hardly supported by some sort of "proof," such as the one you give, but rather considered by many as just errant theories. Thus Pope John XX III rejected Chardin's version of global collective consciousness in an official decree in 1962, much as Freud rejected Jung's theory in 1909 of an archetypal collective (un)consciousness as being without substance and "unscientific."

 

States Pope John re Chardin: "it is obvious that in philosophical and theological matters, the said works [of de Chardin] are replete with ambiguities or rather with serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine." In particular, the Church rejected Chardin's theories about his interpretation of the workings of evolution as being unscientific and inaccurate.

 

So yes, some people may, as you say, "recognize" the actual existence of some sort of 'collective consciousness' as if its existence is as tangible as the qualities of water that emerge from the combining of hydrogen and oxygen, but I don't see anyone else except yourself claiming that this is proof, or that there is any proof for the existence of such a collective consciousness or "greater whole." Nevertheless, you could be right, but I suggest that the claim is better described as a bit of speculation on your part.....It seems that, on the one hand, you are suggesting that we can only know what our senses tell us, and then, on the other hand, you are claiming that your abstract speculations about an emergent collective consciousness (aka a "greater whole") can be proven (simply by virtue that we are aware of the existence of the "march of culture").

 

Again, I am neither suggesting that we are alone or not, nor am I suggesting that all theories are equally probable...rather, I am just suggesting that there are no final proofs about the matter (as you claim in your last post)....at least none that we could all "collectively" agree upon. So yes, the existence of a 'group consciousness' as an independent Being of some sort would show, as you say, that we are "therefore not alone." But ironically, I am not so sure that this alleged "group consciousness" would agree, itself, that IT exists. One person's or one group's god is often to others, just another personal or collective fantasy.

 

Indeed, many a fundamentalist refuses to accept that there culture is not superior to all others, or the only valid culture. This is perhaps particularly true if one includes religion in ones definition of tribal or national culture. Hence, their distaste for the claims of cultural relativism, as they tend to think that this implies that all cultures and all gods are equal. Extreme fundamentalists like the idea of being part of a greater whole, but only if there idea of the "whole" is best one, with all other ones often being regarded as barbarian and pagan.

Edited May 17, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

Interesting thread. And as a side note it is worth repeating a sentiment that disarray already alluded to on the previous page. If we are part of a greater whole (or collective consciousness), that greater whole cannot be exclusively representative of selected cultures, species or even planets. There can be no human-only greater whole. If humans have something like "immortal souls" or are in someway part of a collective consciousness, then, at the very least, all fauna, past present and future, within the entire universe, have to be part thereof.

[Enric]

I agree is a very interesting thread. And I agree with the 99% of thing saids. I only synthesize to the elemental things. This makes things very clear. And, I'm afraid that, synthesizing to the paroxysm, the apparition of this Universe can only be absurd in all ways. Maybe for this reason this "consciousness" searchs for God or something like this. And others search for explanations for all things inside this logic to arrive an explanation of all. We only can wait to the science in the future, if we arrive... But I'm afraid we will face always the wall of the absurd in front of us. For this reason my bets for not created alone are 50,01% - 49,99%

[Memammal]

Again, the problem with that (and with your original subject title) lies in the use of the word "created".

[tar]

disarray,

 

I concur with your description of the probably unreal nature of any imagined greater whole that is "special" just to us.

 

 

I am instead thinking in terms of any entity being both composed of components and itself a component of a greater whole.

 

Years ago, on a hilltop in Germany during a month long field problem, while in the Army, I spent a lot of time laying by myself on a field looking at the stars, saw some Northern lights once, and spent my days sitting and musing. One day, I UNDERSTOOD treeness. How a certain species of tree grabbed form and structure from an otherwise random and unidentified universe, and passed that pattern on, thru its seeds, to the next example of that type of tree. I do not KNOW what I knew that day, I just remember knowing it. But I got it. How life, including human life, grabbed form and structure and identity from a universe headed toward entropy. And the whole thing, the whole string of life from the first tree of that species 'til the one I was looking at, was but a glimpse. A moment in time in a vast expanse of time, in an immense universe.

 

We belong to this immense universe...if only temporarily...and in that, belong to it fully.

 

When people talk of an anthropomorphic god, they reflect their own sense of the world, back on the world. I don't think it works that way. We internalize what the universe is already. We are of it and in it, so we have a stake in the thing, and are the thing, are responsible for it and obliged to it.

 

I don't think we break any scientific law to feel this way about ourselves.

 

But to the thread point, and back to recognizing our part in a greater whole, I was not talking about belief in god, I was talking about belief in science.

 

Regards, TAR

[Enric]

Dear Memammal,

 

Perhaps for some people the word is "appeared" alone, for others not "created" alone. Maybe is more adequate "appeared". Sometimes, I think about it with the word "created", and the rest, with the word "appeared". In fact, I don't know yet which to choose. The most important word is "absurd", next, "science".

 

Regards.

[disarray]

Tar:

I knew that you were speaking about science and not god...I just was making the point that that the main options that one might have in mind when speaking of (the march of) humanity are either that one is referring to a particular "greater whole" (and its culture/gods), or else speaking of some collective consciousness of humanity as a whole (as did Jung and de Chardin).

 

I agree that life itself might be described as a reflection of some (perhaps anti-enthropic) vital natural force (as did Dylan Thomas, Hegel, Walt Whitman, Bergson, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, etc.) and that some people might take it further by suggesting that the universe, by some stretch of the imagination, "created" us in its image (e.g., we strive to grow and survive must as the universe does).

 

Nevertheless, it seems to me that you are taking things further and perhaps anthropomorphizing the universe, or at least hypostatizing the concept of Nature (aka the universe) as if it were some all-encompassing Being that created us. On this basis, it appears to me hat you are suggesting that we must therefore owe our creator (the universe) something and that we have some responsibility....presumably the responsibility to look after it, e.g., look after our natural environment. In short, you seem to be drawing some moral imperative from the fact that the universe "created" us, as if the universe was teleological and had some purpose in mind when it "created" the human race (aka humanity)...In short, the universe you describe certainly sounds like a sort of God.

 

This seems like quasi-religious thinking to me, and goes against the thinking of millions who see the universe as a very cold and impersonal place, full of absurdity, pain and suffering (a la Schopenhauer) as well as the odd moments of beauty and compassion, and that life was just a lucky accident, or just the logical outcome of some impersonal life force. They do not generally suggest that we owe anything to the universe.. And indeed, even if the majority of humans agreed that we owe something to the universe and are responsible to it because it created us, each individual would have a different opinion as to just exactly what such a responsibility might entail...as again....there is not collective consciousness of humanity that thinks as if all individuals thought as one.

This reminds me of Rousseau, who, imho, mistakenly, thought that those deciding on what laws to pass or veto could all meditatively tap into the same universal moral and natural principle of the what is good for the community as a whole group (the "common good"). In short, Rousseau thought that Nature knew what people's responsibilities were and that they should try to figure out what Nature (aka the universe) thought, rather than what they as individuals thought.

 

Unless the universe is a conscious agent (as you seem to suggest), or unless there is one or more gods who created us (as religious devotees suggest), it is strictly up to human beings to make this choice as to the degree to which they are responsible for looking after their environment (aka, the universe, Nature) or each other or whatever, and we owe nothing to anyone or anything outside of ourselves....because we are alone. Darwin, for example, would agree that we evolved within the universe, but certainly did not suggest that we therefore had some sort of moral responsibility or obligation towards the universe. (The phrase "evolving within" the universe does not have the same connotations as being "created by it," as the latter term implies that some (conscious?) Being did the creating.

 

I get the impression that you are trying to hypostatize abstractions such as "humanity" and the "universe" as if they are actual entities on their own that would qualify as Beings that are real and "personal" and/or self-aware. Are you suggesting that we are not alone because things that we are part of, i.e., the universe and/or all humans (aka humanity) or all living organisms keep us company?

Edited May 18, 2016 by disarray

[Enric]

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not?

Only Yes or Not.

And which answer is more irrational? Yes or Not?

Nobody knows the answer, but the question is very interesting by itself.

 

The only thing we can do are bets , or not?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Enric