Before going any further, why dont you explain to the world why there has to be a reason for humans existing, this planet existing, the solar system existing, this galaxy existing or this universe existing.
I believe we're here to have fun and to help others have fun. So that is why I am here. As a sentient being, it is up to every individual to decide why they are here, and to live according to that.
There doesn't necessarily. However, it does, and it continues despite many things going against its continued existence. So the natural query is "why?"
Narcissistic implies that it would be unworthy of the adulation. When you're God, you kinda get to make the rulz.
Then they will decide whether or not to have ethics (to place limits on their will for the betterment of humanity).
Let's set aside religion for the moment and think about this strictly in a scientific way. You seem to be suggesting that continuance is a motive for life. Would you agree to that?
Why is that? I mean, I can see how a sentient creature may have that motive, but what make a primordial protozoa have that goal? Where did that come from and why? What do you think?
This is very simple. In order for life to survive, it must reproduce. Its is as simple as that. Even when life was forming in primordial soup, if you do have a organism that comes into existing that cannot reproduce then that organism will simply die off. Life can only exist if it reproduces. There is no whys, only a must.
Why couldn't it just keep coming into existing? Reproduction--especially sexual reproduction--isn't necessary for life, obviously, or life would never come into existence in the first place (it's the chicken/egg thing--if a chicken can come into being, why would there ever be an egg? Of course I'm using "chicken" as a substitute for 1st organism).
If it just keeps coming into existence, then life cannot evolve. And life just can't keep coming into existence forever. Do you see pools or primordial goo on Earth anymore? Earth today can sustain life, it can no longer create life. PS: the chicken has to come first, in order to evolve enough to lay a egg.
Oh! The ole mother earth has become barren? She can no longer create life? Then what makes you think that scientists can outdo that good ole mother earth? Have the scientists conquered tsunamis or hurricanes, floods, volcanoes ???? Nah... guess good ole mother earth still has a lot more power than the scientists do.
That is a huge question in cosmology. What came before the big bang? The problem is that time did not exist before the big bang in our universe, so there was no "before" at all. In order to have cause and effect you need time. If you freeze up time, nothing happens. So maybe something in another universe which had time started this universe. The theory of evolution has taught us to not jump to design conclusions just because something is complex and has no natural explanation yet. The snowflake and our discovery of natural laws has shown us that just because there are big amazing things in nature that can even have patterns, that doesn't mean there is a person doing it. Natural laws can also explain it.
Two things: 1st, Why couldn't life just keep coming into existence? What requires that life reproduce or evolve to higher organisms, for that matter? and 2nd, There certainly are places on earth that are like the early earth--deep sea hydro-thermal vents, for one.
Well, that obviously begs the question where did that other universe get time? --on to infinite regression which is pointless. So what do you think? I'm not jumping to any conclusion--I'm asking--Why is all that is here, here in the way that it is?
When DNA reproduces, sometimes it does not make an exact copy and you will get variations. These variations over 3.8 billion years leads to the vast and very different life forms you see today. Every single independent living organism on this Earth has the same exact DNA structure, its the details in side is what is different. Its chemistry. To make this extremely simple, let me give you an example of how the same elements but in different amounts can give you vastly different results. What is water? H2O Correct? A life giving source. What happens when you reverse it and you get HO2? You will get an explosion! Same elements, different amounts, vastly different results. Now DNA is much more complicated, but the H2O,/HO2 example that people can understand. Speaking of every independent living organism on this Earth having the same exact DNA structure, this is why I say the Earth can no longer produce life. If it could did, we should see other DNA structures on this Earth, but we do not.
Well...actually, the prevailing theory is that DNA did not occur first, but rather catalytic RNA... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld However, I'm really asking more of a philosophical question as to why it is as it is--not how it is.
Philosophical questions get you no where. Philosophical questions is usually the problem. Here is a good video on what we know about abiogenesis...hope this helps....if you like classical music, turn up the sound. The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube
Now that is a mystery. Once we get very close to the start of the big bang, more and more unanswered questions start popping up. The problem is that we will need more scientific knowledge and theories to resolve these tougher question, if we are ever able to. If this problem leaves some of the smartest people on earth confused, why do you think I might know the answer? I don't have any evidence either way for what happened before the big bang. I suspect that the explanation is natural because of the fact that many things which appeared designed, actually have natural explanation. That is only a suspition, a hunch, and I don't quite believe that (yet). Science has explained a lot with the theory of evolution, big bang theory, stellar formation theory, planetary formation theory, etc, but there is still a lot of unanswered questions. This is what makes science so fun.
Are you sure that science has such answers? That is a paradigm of thought, you know--that phenomenological sciences can answer those fundamental questions. What makes you convinced that that is the path to answering those unanswered questions? Not having an answer should not preclude attempting to move toward an answer. It's the process of inquiry! That is an honest answer, and I appreciate that. I am not convinced that there is a "natural" answer to all such questions. On another thread, I cited Heisenberg's uncertainty--or rather quantum indeterminacy--as an example of the "super" natural.
Science has answered these kinds of tough answers before (evolution, big bang) so lets give it a chance with new questions. There is a chance we may never know, even with science. But science is the best method we got for trying. Do you have anything better in mind? Correct, and this is why scientists are working toward them. I am considering the possibilities myself. But none of them has enough evidence. What makes it harder is that I do not know enough of cosmology and physics to make a very good determination anyway. But I can try. Isn't uncertainty and pure randomness part of the natural world? What makes it supernatural?
