Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything

[ParentalAdvisory]

And EarthStone777, I didn’t mean to say that you too thought that there is no meaning in life in my response to your quote. Just that, those questions are last on my list of all that is out there, and that they are indeed limited in the grand scheme of things, as intriguing as life is. I’m just trying to say that the “meaning of life” questions are thought to be the great ones. When in my opinion, we were the result of many things that are greater.

[David_Simmons]

@ParentalAdvisory

I agree with this 100%. There is no meaning.

I agree with the late Jack Smith, columist for the Los Angeles Times who said that the purpose of his life was to stay alive so he could see what happens next. I haven’t found a better answer.

[Wake_up_call]

1. Is there a “Creator of Universe”, or an “Intelligent Designer” we earthlings call “God”?

2. If yes, what entity created that “God”? Please don’t tell me “God” has no creator, because I can then turn around and say “Big Bang” has no creator either.
   If no, how do we quickly give a “Wake Up Call” to billions of people believing and having faith in this Bullshit?

3. OK. Now that you have answered questions 1 and 2, where do we go from here, and how can I choose to have an eternal life without ever becoming sick, old, and eventually die?

[ParentalAdvisory]

@David Simmons

I agree with the late Jack Smith, columist for the Los Angeles Times who said that the purpose of his life was to stay alive so he could see what happens next. I haven’t found a better answer.

You say it as if he actually achieved his goal.

[SentientMeat]

Am I a biological computer living in a region of the universe, which has never not existed, having three dimensions of space and one of time?

[Mangetout]

@lekatt

Why would it need to be?

There is only one particle of which everything is made, there is only one force. It is man that makes everything difficult. Oh, yes, time and space are only temporarily created by linear physical events. When the physical passes so does time and space. Simple.

Simple because it makes hardly any sense and doesn’t even appear to be trying. Only one particle? Are you actually saying that the physical universe consists of only one particle? Or do you mean one kind of particle (but lots of them)?

[lekatt]

@ParentalAdvisory

Try me, we’re going to die anyway, and all will be erased. If anything, maybe I would like to know the answer, just so I could tell my religious grandmother, “I told you so!”

I agree with this 100%. There is no meaning. We’re so insignificant it’s not even funny. We’re specs of dust in relation to how big everything is. One planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, has formed us. Big deal. There are billions of billions of galaxies that could have done the same thing a million times over. And we’re not even sure that other intelligent life may, or may not exist, somewhere else in our own galaxy. We can’t even see it, that’s how small we are. But because it’s just us, we assume we are the one and only. BS, we’re nothing.

I would tend to ask: Where did all of this start, and where is all of THAT stuff contained? And further, where is THAT place contained? It’s claimed that it started with the Big Bang. Meh. What kicked that off? And where did the elements from the Big Bang come from? And where did those elements to form the elements of the Big Bang come from, and how were they formed, and where were the ingridients for those formed? …and on and on.

I have a feeling that your three wishes are not enough to answer this question. Although, I wouldn’t go as far as to say we couldn’t comphrehend it, should we find the answer. We’re just ignorant of what’s involved. Of course, having half the world believe in a “god always was” view, is certainly not helping the cause. It would help you run for President though.

Using the phrase “God always existed” is convenient since there is no chance we can find out any different from the physical. The fact that God does exist, or a “Higher Intelligence” exists, if you please, can be experienced.

We are not insignificant, we do have a purpose and a goal. We are loved and cared for by this Higher Intelligence.

Now if you are an atheist, then this may not be true for you. We choose to believe, or have faith in, those things that seem important to us. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. So believing in God is a choice unless you have experienced His presence. Those who have, and there are millions of them, don’t need faith any more.

I am aware science generally disagrees with what I say because they can not use their methods to “prove” God’s existence. This in no way indicates God’s non-existence.

So we come back to choice, it’s up to each of us to decide what to believe.

[lekatt]

@Mangetout

Simple because it makes hardly any sense and doesn’t even appear to be trying. Only one particle? Are you actually saying that the physical universe consists of only one particle? Or do you mean one kind of particle (but lots of them)?

It makes great sense and logic when you think about it. I meant one kind of particle makes up the entire universe, both physical and spiritual, actually the difference between physical and spiritual is only a matter of density. The attributes of this particle are: consciousness, curiosity, and the one force is what we call love. This force is controlled by thought which is an attribute of consciousness.

That is why all spiritual teachings say we create our own experiences.

[lekatt]

@SentientMeat

Am I a biological computer living in a region of the universe, which has never not existed, having three dimensions of space and one of time?

Yes, if you wish to be that, so be it.

[Mangetout]

Ahhh… one type of particle, but more than just a single instance of it?

OK; assuming you’re right about this and there is some fundamental universal particle of which all things are composed (and it’s not that weird an idea), can you not see that describing the individual attributes and behaviours of every instance of the particles is going to take up more space than the particles themselves?

[Anaamika]

@Stranger On A Train

[post=6581337]Actually…[/post] It’s all part of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. Now, where’d that cat go?

Stranger

Yeah, like I understand anything going on in that thread or have bothered to try! :smack:

[David_Simmons]

@Anaamika

Yeah, like I understand anything going on in that thread or have bothered to try! :smack:

You might try the essay on The Imaginary That Isn’t by Isaac Asimov. The arithimetic of complex numbers is fascinating and opens up a whole new world for expressing things and doing things numerical. Try it.

[David_Simmons]

@David Simmons

You might try the essay on The Imaginary That Isn’t by Isaac Asimov. The arithimetic of complex numbers is fascinating and opens up a whole new world for expressing things and doing things numerical. Try it.

But it doesn’t help your spelling even a little bit.

[lekatt]

@Mangetout

Ahhh… one type of particle, but more than just a single instance of it?

OK; assuming you’re right about this and there is some fundamental universal particle of which all things are composed (and it’s not that weird an idea), can you not see that describing the individual attributes and behaviours of every instance of the particles is going to take up more space than the particles themselves?

Yes, but why would you need to? Much of the behaviours would be future, and not accessible anyway. Going to have to think out of the box on this one.

I forgot to say “God” is the sum total of all of the particles.

[Mangetout]

If we’re to ‘know all’, that would presumably entail knowledge of the location, behaviour and attributes of every fundamental particle in the universe (or else it wouldn’t be ‘all’) - but storing this information (i.e. in order to ‘know’ it) would require a system larger and more complex than the articles being studied - which is impossible if the set of articles being studied comprise ‘all’).

[lekatt]

@Mangetout

If we’re to ‘know all’, that would presumably entail knowledge of the location, behaviour and attributes of every fundamental particle in the universe (or else it wouldn’t be ‘all’) - but storing this information (i.e. in order to ‘know’ it) would require a system larger and more complex than the articles being studied - which is impossible if the set of articles being studied comprise ‘all’).

We are a part of the system and contain the whole, as the whole contains the part. It is a holograph situation. We contain all knowledge.