Thanks. I thought his comparisons (“Can you read?”) in response to the snobbery were outstanding. Anyone who commits to real expertise in an area of study is sacrificing time and energy that could go onto something else that another might understand (and therefore be more directly able to value (or criticize)). The studied expert at least deserves respect for the labor and dedication to achieve that expertise as well as their application of it. [Cue 
; off goes Y.D.!]
Regarding Goldilocks, thank you, I missed the link. I remember somewhere recently “interpreting” the interpretation and use of Goldilocks as a metaphor for planets with hospitible conditions for life. Snow will surely bring me back to that intended use of it, but it’s been a really long time since those three-hour class sessions hashing over books in person. (I LOVED that part of grad school. My sister thinks I’m nuts. ) Sometimes I just can’t help myself. ; )
Oooh. A gift for you. I hope you don’t already have one of these. Alt and Number pad (Num lock on): Alt 248 .
Hmmmm. Alt and Number pad (Num lock on): Alt 248 - nuthin’. Does it boop or something? The Goldilocks zone, of which there are many trillions in our universe, enables the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make us.
European keyboards! It makes ° on mine.
Thanks for Goldilocks.
AH! Mine too.
I’m with Mervin for the most part.
Admittedly, if we were the only inhabited planet in existence, that might enhance my faith due to how absolutely improbable it is, mathematically speaking, that we are the only inhabited planet. It would make life here seem all the more miraculous. Yet, its existence shouldn’t be faith destroying. It should be expected.
Extraterrestrial life isn’t incompatible with religion as I understand it. I don’t think its discovery would upend religion or faith. Some folks argue that it would invalidate Christianity simply because alien life isn’t discussed within the Bible. Omission isn’t denial. There are plenty of things that exist, which are likely not mentioned in the Bible, let alone in any intricate detail. The purpose of the Bible is not to reveal every truth in reality. I assume the same is true of other holy books. Can you imagine how expansive & inaccessible such a tome would be?
In my opinion, or as far as I’ve gathered, the primary purpose of the Bible- aside from explaining Creation or the nature of God to some extent- is to help people live in alignment with God’s guidance & to aid salvation. Therefore, the lack of recognition of certain scientific realities within the Bible is to be expected. Balking at the Bible because it doesn’t contain information about extraterrestrial life, should it be proven to exist, would be like me questioning the worth of a cookbook written by a chef who was also a mechanic because it didn’t tell me anything about carburetors, given that carburetors exist & a mechanics should know about them. Why should it mention carburetors? It’s not the purpose of the book. It doesn’t invalidate the culinary expertise in the book nor does it mean the chef isn’t also a mechanic. The book isn’t about mechanics. Similarly, the Bible isn’t made to teach us everything there is to know. It was given to humans who presumably don’t need to know about extraterrestrial life to be saved or to follow God’s guidance. It’s irrelevant to the purpose of the book & for its intended audience.
I agree that if people weren’t made with purpose or given purpose after creation, it could make life less meaningful, but I don’t think the existence of natural processes- which could still be God-guided- invalidates meaning or refutes Divine intention nor God’s existence.
It doesn’t matter to me how God made us other than that I find it fascinating. I don’t feel that setting things in motion- perhaps with an intended outcome- would be any less significant than other forms of creation. I don’t think that tells us whether or not God is involved or is an interventionist god. God could be involved in our lives or destiny, or/& God could be available for personal connection even if the Divine set things in motion & didn’t micro-manage every moment of creation. A lack of micro-management or creating a self-updating dynamic system doesn’t mean that humans weren’t an intended outcome nor a loved & valued creation.
As Dale pointed out with reference to Psalm 8:4, if God still cares about us in such a vast cosmos, that should make one feel even more valued to & loved by God if anything. And it shows the power & creativity of God.
It’s not odd to me that there are other physical bodies in space, such as additional planets, stars or galaxies. Why does everything have to be for us? Even if there is no life elsewhere, there are multiple possibilities for why God might’ve made these physical forms. It’s possible that they serve a purpose that does affect us, & we aren’t sufficiently aware of the interplay between all of existence. It’s also possible that it’s a by-product of God’s creative process. Plus, it’s possible that God makes things for God’s own purposes, benefit or amusement. As a human, I love creating, & find it fulfilling. Many people do. Maybe God enjoys the act of creation, as well. Why does it have to be about me & not about God? Finally, there is also the possibility that life does or will exist elsewhere at some point & that these structures & celestial bodies are serving a purpose for something else. That shouldn’t make people feel unloved by God. A parent’s love doesn’t have to be diminished by the existence of other children. If God is all powerful or infinite, God’s attention & assistance doesn’t have to be watered down by their existence, either.
Also, if there isn’t life elsewhere, the vastness of the cosmos, & the limited presence of life would, if anything, make me more convinced of God’s existence, & increase the sense that earthly life was even more special, as opposed to more meaningless. Given the mathematical probability that life exists elsewhere, if it doesn’t, that would be all the more miraculous.
In what regard?
Might?! No relative terms apply to that absolute p=0 impossibility. As well as completely faith enhancing it would also be completely faith destroying, it would mean that despite having a window of rational apprehensibility in the prevenient laws of physics, that is in fact an illusion. A single universe of 10^25 worlds with life only on one of them is proof of utter weirdness in God or no. What else has He been doing for eternity?
As for the rest, it’s a start in standing above an ANE cake as the icing of the NT has to.
I absolutely agree. A faith-based belief in an intrinsic meaning to life works just fine for many, many people. We don’t need overt evidence of supernatural guidance in life in order for people to believe in a God designed meaning and purpose in life.
Aye, the fallacy of incredulity is all we need.
PS Or the leap of faith.
We do need an undisguised and solidly based belief to be able to trust God for our well-being in this dangerous world.
I do not agree.
Which is the more meaningful?
- We are made as a means to an end like tools with purpose in mind like a hammer or a computer.
- We are made as an end in ourselves, children rather tools, and our purpose is something we decide for ourselves as we choose what to do with the lives we have been given.
The second of these 2 seems far more meaningful to me.
But I suppose that is one of the differences between people raised Christian (and from this is where they get their first principles) and myself who started with science and existentialism was my stepping stone to Christianity. Number 1 would have been an impassible obstacle for me to accept Christianity.
But I suppose one of the rational stepping stones was that even though we give our lives meaning with our own choice of purpose for our lives, it does not mean all choices are equal. It is like the difference between having a relationship with a pet rock, a plant, a cat, or a child. It does matter what capabilities they have for responding to what you invest in your relationship with them. So while it is we who find meaning in our lives with our own choice, this cannot change the fact that the greatest meaning is found in one with the greatest capabilities for responding to everything we choose to give.
Of course this doesn’t resolve the question which lies between theist and atheist, for God cannot be the one with the greatest capabilities for responding to us if He does not exist. But I wonder if perhaps there is a reformulation of Pascal’s wager in this – the payoff of seeking a relationship with one who can respond infinitely more to what we give?
Little children (which we are to be like) do not ask themselves if their lives have meaning, nor do they need to create any. (But they do make the best philosophers. ; - )
The problem with that is you maybe have to believe in him first to find him:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
Hebrews 11:6
On the other hand, faith is a gift, and we have a couple of instances were the believer appears to be the one found (and that also concords with the scriptural Shepherd finding the lost sheep): Maggie of course, and Tim Keller’s parishioner –
During a dark time in her life, a woman in my congregation complained that she had prayed over and over, “God, help me find you,” but had gotten nowhere. A Christian friend suggested to her that she might change her prayer to, “God, come and find me. After all, you are the Good Shepherd who goes looking for the lost sheep.” She concluded when she was recounting this to me, “The only reason I can tell you this story is – he did.”
Tim Keller, The Reason for God, p.240
I am just getting back to this. Sorry. Many pulls on my attention and energy here.
I remember sitting in Mrs. Connor’s chemistry lecture in 11th grade, when I was 16 or 17, and experiencing a powerful emotional reaction, when she introduced the 2LoT. I proved that it didn’t take a genius to figure out the implications. In some ways, I rejoice at the idea of the the endless shots on goal (hockey term) that a multiverse model would provide.
Your connection though seems different from mine, which was dispairing. How does the 2LoT provide for the development of life as well as its anihilation?
Since I haven’t been following this thread really, hou may already nave answered my question elsewhere. Please just direct to that, if you have.
What applies to living organisms applies to pre-genetic then pre-macromolecular open cyclic systems. Downhill flow drives wheels.
Thank you.
Yep. I read this section on living organisms. Most of that is familiar, except ¶ 3. That’s probably what I need, and I wasn’t clear on it.
This is the part I’m missing. ¶ 3 the key? I’ll try again.
The emergence of life and increased complexity does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, which states that overall entropy never decreases, since a living organism creates order in some places (e.g. its living body) at the expense of an increase of entropy elsewhere (e.g. heat and waste production).
Complexity (of information) begets complexity (~), which increases entropy. The 2LoT is always conserved.
The spectrum of prebiotic to biotic will be a lot broader than we find now. It all started in warm alkaline vents in Hadean olivine. Look Ma! No enzymes:
Leaky membrane cell powered by external proton gradient - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Nick Lane’s The Vital Question is essential C.P. Snow required reading. It will be hard work.
I think everything is becoming so. This is why kids grow up, so parents can have their now devistated attention back to try to resume some level of intellectual life before there’s nothing left.
Thanks for the help here, thought.
I am never bored.
The lesson I get from that is that we can rely on God finding us because God exists and NOT that God only finds us if we believe in Him first.
The problem with that is it basically says God doesn’t exist independently but only in our minds if we believe in Him.
But yes it is a general problem with all rational approaches to God that we are relying on ourselves to get to God, which I generally agree is ultimately unworkable. So I am generally opposed to arguments for the existence of God and that includes Pascal’s wager. But the principle flaw I have seen in Pascal’s wager is the assumption of the Gnostic gospel of salvation by knowledge – in this case knowing that God exists. But even if we are generally opposed to all such arguments for the existence of God, it doesn’t mean we cannot see possible improvements in the arguments we take a look at – in this case a version of Pascal’s wager that replaces this assumption that you are saved by believing God exists with just the realization God is best relationship we can hope for, if He exists.
I said maybe, and I also said that faith is a gift. That would apply in what I cited that you quoted. No, I don’t believe that we have to autonomously and independently build up faith first. Maggie, for instance (sorry, @Terry_Sampson, but not very), did not. We can certainly do things to strengthen or tear down our faith though, by what we choose to read or the company we keep, good or bad, what we pay attention to and what we practice telling ourselves in our self-talk, truth or lies.