Science, Proof and Meaning

I believe you're speaking of religion.

We're not alone in the universe. There's billions of billions of planets. There's life out there. However, you're right that the universe is uncaring. There's not much more to it than that.

 

lunar-assumption. perhaps educated, but assumption nonetheless.

also, the scientific community has definitely forced their fair share of false ideas on the public.

 

I was following these guidelines. See below

 

Whats wrong with the big bang?

 

I was speaking of science. Almost every scientific theory is a basic guess. This is amplified by the number of response theories broadcasted by other scientists on the same subjects. When several scientists make several different guesses and still can't approve any of them.. Well...

 

The universe doesn't care. Lunarverse is right. But who's to say we don't? We don't need to be the universe. Thing called eachother only.

Big mushroom party. That's my suggestion.

Nothing wrong with big bang, but it's behind us.

 

Assuming the universe cares is to assume it has a conscience. Surely the frailty of all life, and the easy manner in which it comes and goes, proves this chaos.


I'll bring twister

 

lol Wasn't it simon or some such?

 

heeh2-i don't think i said anything was wrong with it, unless it is seen as some sort of alternative to creation (and i don't mean the christian creation).

according to what many scientists believe, events need causes. the big bang is no exception, nor are the events that caused it, nor the events that caused those events, and on into infinity.

lunarverse- those guidelines-unless i'm mistaken-were for obtaining a personal understanding of things. the question was what to do when science can't answer a question conclusively. i would have to add that any ideas formed on the basis of these guidelines should not be forced on anyone. however (in my opinion), there's nothing wrong with discussing why you believe something.

oh, and you're sarcasm isn't lost on me.

 

Ha! Yea, I'll bring simon too.

 

That's when we use this

Ironically it'll be at the mushroom party too

 

lunar-i'm not assuming it cares either. i'm also not assuming that death is the end of awareness, and the frailty of this life is not enough for me to conclude that the universe is unaware or uncaring.

 

No. Perhaps though it is an attestation to the inherited value of life.

 

Wouldnt the word "universe" include humans?

 

The nature of the universe hadn't been specified, so it may have been an unspoken agreement that within the context of this discussion the universe would mean the space, the container that all else is in.


Again, I'm using the "jump to conclusions" mat for most of my answers

 

okay. I just don't understand how a difference is drawn, since the "container", and everything inside of it share the same state of existing.

 

i suppose i was avoiding using the word god, as we all have different definitions of that word. i currently subscribe to the notion that the entire universe, and everything beyond it, is alive and aware.

 

Well, I can't disagree with you. However, we know (thanks to science and mysticism) that all matter is one, connected. However there is space between. In outer space things have the illusion of being very far apart. So, I guess I was thinking that the universe is the space, and that everything else (the matter) is inside the universe, but still a part of it.

 

The word 'Universe' already considers existence beyond our scope of understanding and observation. There can be nothing 'beyond' it.

 

What name do you call this life/awareness?