What is the Purpose of Life?

This is the last short video in an excellent introductory series to some foundational concepts of reality in terms of modern physics.

Thanks!

I will look at this later

Entropy increases with or without life.  So, the explanation doesn't really explain anything.

The inanimate universe simply functions according to well defined mechanisms; that is not a purpose.  A moon does not orbit a planet for a purpose.  A star undergoes nuclear reactions based on size and material contained within the star but those nuclear reactions do not have a purpose; they simply happen or don't happen.

The video isn't presenting physics but, rather, metaphysics.  Explaining the mechanical functioning of an inanimate universe in terms of purpose is only an attempt to create God.

The video isn't presenting physics but, rather, metaphysics. 

I have no idea where to even begin given this.   So I have decided to not bother.

I have to agree that the vid doesn't really address the question. What is the purpose of life? It explains how stuff happens over time, but it doesn't actually address purpose. To ask the question in a slightly different way in order to illustrate the point better, what is the purpose of a universe heading toward entropy? 

The intent of the video is actually to explain physics.   It is showing how life forms fit into the greater model of physics.

Dr. Carroll is not trying to address the 'meaning' of life, nor is he seriously suggesting that science can deem a purpose (as in 'intention') for life.   His 'purpose' is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   When he uses the word 'purpose' interpret it as 'function';  'function' is one of the synonyms for 'purpose'.   He is saying that life is complexity that functions as a mechanism for continuing the increase of entropy.   From a pure physics perspective, that makes sense.   And he is not saying that this is the only possible purpose (function) of life.

Scientists seek to understand how reality works (how the moving parts work together to produce that which we can observe).    The purpose (the function), therefore, of anything (per science) depends upon the context and manifests when one can observe the function.   For example, the purpose (the function) of a living lung is to oxygenate the blood.  

Note how I described this video:

Brilliantly explained by Dr. Sean Carroll (one of the best physics teachers I have seen).   This video weaves together many core concepts of physics in such a friendly, conceptual manner that you cannot even tell how deep this is.

Using keywords:  entropy and complexity.   No keywords such as meaning or intention.

Nowhere do I suggest that this video is anything related to yielding an explanation for the purpose (as in meaning) of life.   Note:  I am required to use the title as given by the content provider - even when it is 'being cute'.    

To ask the question in a slightly different way in order to illustrate the point better, what is the purpose of a universe heading toward entropy? 

The scientific answer is that if there is a function, it is currently unknown.

In short, this video explains two extremely important concepts:  entropy and complexity and shows a function that life forms play in the grand scheme of reality moving in the direction of time determined by entropy.

I have to agree that the vid doesn't really address the question. What is the purpose of life? It explains how stuff happens over time, but it doesn't actually address purpose. To ask the question in a slightly different way in order to illustrate the point better, what is the purpose of a universe heading toward entropy? 

The entropy of the universe cannot decrease; so everything in the universe contributes to increasing entropy.  That's one of the explanations for time.

The only thing the video really explains is that life is consistent with thermodynamics.  The role or function of life in the universe is not to increase entropy; that is a result of causality and not a purpose.  Black holes are more thermodynamically interesting than life.

The 'purpose of life' has been used as a metaphysical tease.  The video implies that life serves a purpose explained by physics; i.e. physics is the language of God.  It's really rather kitsch. 

The intent of the video is actually to explain physics.   It is showing how life forms fit into the greater model of physics.

I understood that. But what induced me to look at this seed was the question. I wasn't trying to be confrontational. Just pointing out that the vid doesn't actually address it. 

His 'purpose' is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Perhaps, but it circumvents the meaning of "purpose". I can't help but wonder if the point was, there is no purpose. Stuff just happens. 

The 'purpose of life' has been used as a metaphysical tease.  The video implies that life serves a purpose explained by physics; i.e. physics is the language of God.  It's really rather kitsch. 

I get the metaphysical tease part but not the rest. That is, I don't think it was trying to explain "the language of God." Purpose has a definite meaning, implying intent on behalf of some conscious entity. What I got from the vid was cause and effect without intent. That there is no purpose. 

I wasn't trying to be confrontational.

And all I was doing was explaining my intent and what I am convinced is the intent of Dr. Carroll (one of my favorite authors).

Perhaps, but it circumvents the meaning of "purpose". 

'Function' is a synonym for purpose.

I can't help but wonder if the point was, there is no purpose. Stuff just happens. 

I predict that Dr. Carroll would say that there might be no purpose ascribed by a sentient entity.   He would likely go on to say that it is not the role of science to determine meaning but rather structure (relationships) and function.

Purpose has a definite meaning, implying intent on behalf of some conscious entity. What I got from the vid was cause and effect without intent. That there is no purpose. 

(including 'function')

The video definitely has the message of structure and dynamics sans sentient intent.   That is, the video does not suggest a need for a sentient creator.

I predict that Dr. Carroll would say that there might be no purpose ascribed by a sentient entity. 

I would agree. That is, I surmise that was the intent. Obviously, I do not agree with the conclusion.

Obviously, I do not agree with the conclusion.

Understood.

This video does an excellent job of summarizing some very important major factors of modern science.   It was not intended to argue that there is no God.

This video does an excellent job of summarizing some very important major factors of modern science.

I would agree. I liked the vid from a science point of view. Was disappointed that it didn't directly address the question. 

I get the metaphysical tease part but not the rest. That is, I don't think it was trying to explain "the language of God." Purpose has a definite meaning, implying intent on behalf of some conscious entity. What I got from the vid was cause and effect without intent. That there is no purpose. 

The video is presenting a pantheist message that life has a purpose explained by physics.  The Universe (or Nature) is God and physics is the language of God.  Life's purpose is what the Universe (pantheist God) intended; apparently that intent was to increase entropy as if the Universe has that specific need.

The new science is becoming a pantheist religion.  The new science presents causality in terms of pantheist purpose and intent.  The current search for life elsewhere has put forward the argument that universal life supports the idea that life is not a random happenstance, the functioning of the universe is by purpose (and intent) and physics (as well as the other sciences) can discover that purpose.

The video does directly address the question "what is the purpose of life".  But that purpose is explained in pantheist terms.

Was disappointed that it didn't directly address the question. 

But really, how could it? Science can't address that question. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of any gods.

Do you think that Dr. Carroll created this series to promote pantheism?

I think he created this series to teach physics.   The series is:

• Why Doesn't Time Flow Backwards?
• Do Cause and Effect Really Exist?
• Where Does Complexity Come From?
• How Entropy Powers the Earth
• What is the Purpose of Life?

The last video very likely was intended by Dr. Carroll to give people a sufficient background in physics to factor in when they consider existential questions.

Dr. Carroll has never, to my knowledge, promoted pantheism.   His net view on God has been that he sees no need to introduce a sentient creator.   If asked, I suspect he would say that pantheism (God = everything) is consistent with science but that we have yet to find any evidence of cosmic sentience.   Cosmic sentience seems to be more appropriate as a lecture by Deepak Chopra. 

Do you think that Dr. Carroll created this series to promote pantheism?

No.

Religions arise through a gradual evolution and coalescing of ideas and beliefs.  The process can be so gradual that the religious ideas are accepted as conventional wisdom.  People may not be aware they are promoting religious ideas when they present conventional wisdom.

The last video very likely was intended by Dr. Carroll to give people a sufficient background in physics to factor in when they consider existential questions.

Which is a function of religion.  That's the key point.

Theist, by their nature, have a greater understanding of how religion works and what questions religion addresses.  So, theists are better attuned to recognizing religious beliefs than are scientists.  It is quite possible that a scientist can present religious beliefs as conventional wisdom without being aware they are doing so.

Which is a function of religion.  That's the key point.

But he was teaching physics.  That is the key point.

But really, how could it? Science can't address that question. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of any gods.

Agreed. And? Do you believe that for God to exist it must be proven by science?  

Do you believe that for God to exist it must be proven by science?  

My answer is this:

Of course not.   God might exist and, to date, not only has this not been proven true by science (which, by the way, goes beyond what science ever claims) but there is no evidence.   So there is no evidence (certainly no proof) yet a sentient creator nonetheless is a possibility.

Now for me to believe there is a sentient creator, I will turn to science (or an equivalent formal method of verification).   Unless of course the sentient creator were to pay us a convincing visit.

Of course not.   God might exist and, to date, not only has this not been proven true by science (which, by the way, goes beyond what science ever claims) but there is no evidence.   So there is no evidence (certainly no proof) yet a sentient creator nonetheless is a possibility.

Look at what you have said here. You say "Of course not" but then deny your own words. You fall back on science to justify your unbelief. 

You say "Of course not" but then deny your own words.

Okay, Drakk, now take very clear note of what just happened.   You just suggested that I contradicted myself.   You did not reread or try to figure out how what I said might make sense.   That is, you did not presume that I might be making a rational, consistent point.   You did not give me the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I will breakdown what I wrote:

Drakk @3.2.15 ☞ Do you believe that for God to exist it must be proven by science?  

TiG @3.2.16 ☞ Of course not.   

Stopping right here, note what you asked.   You asked if God's existence must be proven by science for God to exist.

Of course God's existence is not a function of science.   Science simply discovers and explains.   Now watch how I explain this in the quote:

TiG @3.2.16 ☞ God might exist and, to date, not only has this not been proven true by science (which, by the way, goes beyond what science ever claims) but there is no evidence.   

In my explanation I note that God might indeed exist.   I also note that God's existence has not been proven by science or even evidenced by science.   So clearly, God might exist even when science has no evidence whatsoever that suggests God exists.

Note how I summarized what I wrote to ensure my meaning was clear:

TiG @3.2.16 ☞ So there is no evidence (certainly no proof) yet a sentient creator nonetheless is a possibility.

In other words, of course a sentient creator (e.g. God) might exist even if science is dark on this question.

It seems to me that the misunderstanding is on your part, not mine. You appear not to understand the question.

Stopping right here, note what you asked. You asked if God's existence must be proven by science for God to exist.
Of course God's existence is not a function of science. Science simply discovers and explains.

No, that isn't what I asked. Apparently you do not understand the intent behind the question. You do not appear to understand that I am speaking to you, the individual. I am asking you, Truth is Good, if science is the necessity you require for your belief in God. 

Do you believe that for God to exist it must be proven by science?

Every word you speak indicates that, for you, God must be proven scientifically in order for you to believe He exists, even though in the past you recognized that science can't even address the problem. More specifically, you recognize God may exist in spite of, or irrespective of,  science, but you will not believe it unless science proves it. Do you not find that contradictory? You will not believe in a God unless a process that can't examine the concept can prove it? 

But he was teaching physics.  That is the key point.

"In a very real sense, the purpose of life is to continue the mission of the stars."

That's Dr. Caroll's last quote from the presentation.  What is the mission of the stars?

Objectively science has not found a mission or purpose for the universe (or anything contained in that universe).  We have learned that the entropy of the universe cannot decrease.  But that is a constraint on the universe; it simply is.  Without that constraint the universe would be objectively different, that's all.

Does the constraint that entropy cannot decrease have a purpose?  Was that constraint intended?  Dr. Caroll's presentation does not address that question.  But the ideas of chemistry and thermodynamics of life has been presented in a deductive manner that leads toward concluding that the entropy constraint does have a purpose.  That's really not too different than the genealogy of Jesus presented in the Bible.

The new science really is trying to find a new god. 

The video is presenting a pantheist message that life has a purpose explained by physics.  The Universe (or Nature) is God and physics is the language of God.  Life's purpose is what the Universe (pantheist God) intended; apparently that intent was to increase entropy as if the Universe has that specific need.

I agree the message can be construed as pantheism, but I don't think that was the intent of the creator of the video. I would say it had a materialistic intent before using pantheism to describe it. 

The new science is becoming a pantheist religion.

Well, I agree it is becoming a religion, if it hasn't been all along, but I think it would be more correct to name the religion "materialism". Although, I recall reading something about scientists putting forth the idea stars are actually living organisms. Tried looking for it but no luck. If science heads in that direction, considering the universe as an actual living entity, that would give weight to the pantheism charge. 

But really, how could it? Science can't address that question.

That is my belief as well, which is why I was curious as to how this vid would address the question. It did not, unless by implication. 

The new science really is trying to find a new god

Perhaps because everyone, on some level, recognizes there must be one? 

No, that isn't what I asked.

Quoting ...

Drakk @3.2.15 - Do you believe that for God to exist it must be proven by science?  

TiG @3.2.18 - You asked if God's existence must be proven by science for God to exist.

I virtually repeated your question Drakk.   And the answer to what you asked is: 'of course not'.

You do not appear to understand that I am speaking to you, the individual. I am asking you, Truth is Good, if science is the necessity you require for your belief in God. 

Instead of blaming me, did you stop to consider (for even a moment) that your question might not match your intent?   Clearly you saw how I interpreted your question (directly, by the way, since you complain when I stray from the literal words you write) so that gives you information to rephrase.   

If it were me, instead of:

Do you believe that for God to exist it must be proven by science?  

I would write:

For you to believe that God exists, must His existence be proven by science?

Note that I even answered the question that you intended to ask @3.2.16:

TiG @3.2.16 - Now for me to believe there is a sentient creator, I will turn to science (or an equivalent formal method of verification).   Unless of course the sentient creator were to pay us a convincing visit.

I have stated in the past several scenarios that I would consider compelling evidence that I am in the presence of a sentient creator of the universe.   One scenario, if you recall, is for the entity to create a twin to our sun and have the two stars co-orbit and then adjust the orbits of all the planets so that there is no disruption to them.   In result, everything remains the same except we now have a twin star solar system.    

Another would be demonstration of knowing the future.   For example, the entity could state the price of each stock as it will appear next week at the closing bell.   Once we hit the closing bell, if the numbers are correct then I would find that to be exceptional evidence that this entity has an understanding of reality that is far beyond our comprehension.

So, yes, I think it is possible.   But in all cases I think I would need scientific formalisms to ensure the entity is not fooling us with tricks.

Every word you speak indicates that, for you, God must be proven scientifically in order for you to believe He exists, even though in the past you recognized that science can't even address the problem.

Assuming that you carefully read what I just wrote, let's pretend that I will only believe God exists if science can prove that.   Okay?   Now, if my only choices were to believe that which is formally proven true (albeit science does not do that) or believe without evidence (much less proof) I will clearly choose the former.   I recommend that everyone do likewise.   The former is rational based on sound information.   The latter is pure speculation.

More specifically, you recognize God may exist in spite of, or irrespective of,  science, but you will not believe it unless science proves it.

Okay, going back to my actual position, no I have never stated science must prove God.   You are putting words in my mouth - and those words I would never speak anyway because science does not prove.   A more appropriate presumption on your part would be that I will not believe God exists unless science has solid evidence which has lead to a theory of God that is falsifiable and has been heavily tested and found (thus far) to be sound.   But (per my earlier comment) that is not the only method that might convince me.

Do you not find that contradictory? You will not believe in a God unless a process that can't examine the concept can prove it? 

Well, since the above is not my position, your question is invalid.   Hopefully you understand why.

I just gave tons of details here on a rather simple question.   Just carefully read this and we should be able to move on without yet another iteration of rehashing.

That's Dr. Caroll's last quote from the presentation.  What is the mission of the stars?

Are you aware that scientists are allowed to speak figuratively?   Well, that is allowed.   

Does the constraint that entropy cannot decrease have a purpose?  ...  But the ideas of chemistry and thermodynamics of life has been presented in a deductive manner that leads toward concluding that the entropy constraint does have a purpose.  That's really not too different than the genealogy of Jesus presented in the Bible.

LOL, so what is the purpose of an ever increasing entropy?   How does this relate to the 'genealogy of Jesus'?

The new science really is trying to find a new god. 

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish Nerm.   I cannot help you here.

Perhaps because everyone, on some level, recognizes there must be one? 

Why must there be a creator of the known universe?

Well, I agree it is becoming a religion, if it hasn't been all along, but I think it would be more correct to name the religion "materialism".

One must fundamentally change the meaning of the word 'religion' to include science as a religion.

I would write:

Irrelevant. It was not you asking the question. Your explanation is nothing more than how you took the question, which was incorrect. The rest of your post only confirms what I stated. That you will not believe in a God that cannot be proven through science, even though science cannot address the question. This is a contradiction. 

Occam's razor. It is the simplest, viable explanation for what we observe. Not simply existence, but the manner in which it exists. 

I do not think you need me if you are going to ask a question, ignore everything I write, and then answer the question yourself in a way that does not reflect my position.

Occam's razor. It is the simplest, viable explanation for what we observe. Not simply existence, but the manner in which it exists. 

Let's see:

1. You say: existence ⇨ God ⇨ known universe
2. How about: existence ⇨ known universe

Parsimony goes with option 2.

One must fundamentally change the meaning of the word 'religion' to include science as a religion

I disagree. I think Wiki puts it best when it says...

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.

To my mind, religion is what a person believes to be true about the nature of existence. The relevant word in that sentence is "believes". To restrict the meaning to a belief in God is artificial and myopic. That belief is somehow different if it doesn't include a God. 

Parsimony goes with option 2.

Only if one leaves out the question "why?" Once asked, option 1 makes more sense. 

I do not think you need me if you are going to ask a question, ignore everything I write, and then answer the question yourself in a way that does not reflect my position.

Okay, then. My position is that you will not believe in God unless He can be scientifically proven. How does that not reflect your position? 

God that cannot be proven through science

By the way, this is not necessarily true.   I would strike the word 'proven' because science does not prove.   So let's go with this:

God that cannot be proven [evidenced] through science  ⇨  God cannot be evidenced through science

I do not think it is impossible for the creator of the known universe to be evidenced through science.   If said creator exists then I gave you a scenario where I (and certainly any scientist) could record what was witnessed as evidence.   To wit, any entity that can turn our solar system into a binary star solar system has put forth some damn impressive evidence of awesome power.   Not proof, but certainly impressive evidence.

Why?

Okay, then. My position is that you will not believe in God unless He can be scientifically proven. How does that not reflect your position? 

Because I have stated several times that science does not prove (so your question is malformed) and that there are plenty of ways for a/the creator of the known universe to provide impressive evidence of the creator's existence.   A theory of science is not necessary.   I offered a few examples.   

Did you not read the binary star solar system scenario, for example?

To wit, any entity that can turn our solar system into a binary star solar system has put forth some damn impressive evidence of awesome power.   Not proof, but certainly impressive evidence.

The 'books' say that there are evidences in the things in the universe already that there is a Mind, God. But 'feasting' your eyeballs upon our solar system changing into any number of odd changes or occurrences would simply send scientific men back to their research seeking to comprehend through nature what occurred or looking for ways to falsify it and not in that order. Correct?

Why?

Because 1. explains why there is a known uneverse. 2. just accepts that there is. 

Because 1. explains why there is a known uneverse. 2. just accepts that there is. 

Neither option explains intent (why the universe was created).

Both options explain how the universe came into being.

The 'books' say that there are evidences in the things in the universe already that there is a Mind, God.

Parse this for me.   

But 'feasting' your eyeballs upon our solar system changing into any number of odd changes or occurrences would simply send scientific men back to their research seeking to comprehend through nature what occurred or looking for ways to falsify it and not in that order. Correct?

My scenario is God proving He is God.   It is not that the solar system extemporaneously goes binary.   It is that the entity claiming to be God claims to do it and then does it.

Because I have stated several times that science does not prove (so your question is malformed) and that there are plenty of ways for a/the creator of the known universe to provide impressive evidence of the creator's existence

Word games. Proven, evidence... it amounts to the same thing. Your philosophical attempt to indicate science doesn't prove anything is simply a means for you to escape being pinned down to what you say. You are saying there is no proof of gravity but plenty of evidence. Regardless of the nuances of philosophy, is there a person alive and with functioning faculties who doesn't believe gravity is a proven concept? We may still be learning about it but, in spite of not being able to see gravity, we know it is there. No one asks to see a teaspoon of gravity before they believe it exists. 

Did you not read the binary star solar system scenario, for example?

Yes, I did. I ignored it because it doesn't really signify. If God were to do such a thing, you would still not accept God as God, but rather, some sort of emergent property of a material universe. Something that could be measured and explained. As CB alluded to, you'd try to stuff God into a test tube. Explain Him in terms of science. Which, I believe, is why God doesn't do such things. God knows He exists. Proving it isn't necessary, as billions of people have proven without the sort of evidence you require. God's goal is not to get you to believe that He exists. People believe Dark Matter exists, but what practical purpose does such a belief make in their lives? Does it change their behavior? Do you believe planet X exists somewhere out beyond Pluto? If so, how has that changed your life?

Belief that God exists is not what He is after. Belief He can change our lives in order to achieve the purpose for which He created us, if we give them to Him, is. There is nothing in that which requires He provide evidence that He exists in the manner you suggest. The evidence is in changed lives. 

Neither option explains intent (why the universe was created).

How do you figure? Oh! I see. You put "existence" before God. In other words, God is an emergent property of existence. Right, forgot your views on this. Materialism. 

Word games. Proven, evidence... it amounts to the same thing.

No Drakk, the distinction between proof and evidence is absolutely critical when speaking of science.

Your philosophical attempt to indicate science doesn't prove anything is simply a means for you to escape being pinned down to what you say. 

So what are you saying, that I am making this up?    Do a little research then and show me where science claims 100% certainty on anything that is based on empirical observation.   Science does not prove, Drakk, science explains and offers levels of confidence in the explanation.   Do you know why science never claims they have achieved 100% truth (proof)?    

If God were to do such a thing, you would still not accept God as God, but rather, some sort of emergent property of a material universe. 

So, again, if you are going to provide answers for me and tell me how I would react to events, why do you need me?   Why not just build strawman arguments in your kitchen and argue away?

God knows He exists. Proving it isn't necessary, as billions of people have proven without the sort of evidence you require.

Then why are you asking me about ways to 'prove' God exists outside of science?   Clearly no matter what answer I gave you would have gotten to this point where you throw up your arms and claim that it does not matter anyway.

Belief that God exists is not what He is after. Belief He can change our lives in order to achieve the purpose for which He created us, if we give them to Him, is. There is nothing in that which requires He provide evidence that He exists in the manner you suggest. The evidence is in changed lives. 

You are now preaching.

How do you figure? Oh! I see. You put "existence" before God. In other words, God is an emergent property of existence. Right, forgot your views on this. Materialism. 

We have not even explored that here.   And it does not matter pursuant to my question.   God creating the universe does not explain why the universe was created.   If you disagree, then show how the causal relationship God ⇨ known universe answers why the universe was created.

So what are you saying, that I am making this up?

No, I'm saying your philosophical attempt to indicate science doesn't prove anything is simply a means for you to escape being pinned down to what you say. You are making a philosophical point and not a practical one. Every moment of every day the law of gravity is proven over and over by everything in existence. To say that everything we observe is not proof of gravity is a philosophical point, not a practical one. 

So, again, if you are going to provide answers for me and tell me how I would react to events, why do you need me? Why not just build strawman arguments in your kitchen and argue away?

Is this supposed to be a denial of what I said? And I remember a number of times you have done the same. You did so based on what I have said over the course of years. Why complain when I do it? 

Then why are you asking me about ways to 'prove' God exists outside of science?

I haven't. I asked what it would take to get you to believe. And I don't mean merely that He exists. But to believe Him. Put your trust in Him. If God did your binary star thing, would that cause you to do that? Put your trust in Him? 

We have not even explored that here.

No, but what you have said about it in the past informs what I am saying now. 

God creating the universe does not explain why the universe was created.

I don't think that was the question. The question is how did it come to exist.

     1. You say: existence ⇨ God ⇨ known universe
     2. How about: existence ⇨ known universe

Your question here seems to ask how did one thing emerge from another, not why. But to answer anyway, because it pleased Him to do so. 

The 'books' say that there are evidences in the things in the universe already that there is a Mind, God.

Parse this for me.   

Romans 1:19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Man can look around this world and see the handiwork from the mind of Man; God says you can look into the heavens and see the handiwork from the mind of God.

My scenario is God proving He is God.   It is not that the solar system extemporaneously goes binary.   It is that the entity claiming to be God claims to do it and then does it.

Besides an issue of your "proof" causing science to immediately launch itself into looking for natural causes/reasons for such a change occurring in nature, you are inadvertently establishing a personal test for God.

For example, in the 'Book' Doubting Thomas demanded a proof of Jesus' return from the dead. Thomas stated he could not believe unless his reasoning was satisfied (John 20:24-28): Thomas asked to touch wounds known to be on the dead body naturally found on this 'risen' look-a-like.

After this manner, Thomas reasoned this man to be truthful, and Thomas believed.

Your 'ask' is for a binary star bursting into existence out of 'thin' air. Another will 'ask' that your extemporaneous solar system burst 'out' of existencer as his or her proof for existence of an invisible God. The obvious question: What effect(s) would such phenomena cause on the universe, naturally?

Such requests are impracticable for obvious reasons.

It is better to ask God for an individual, personable 'proof' of existence; which is what God does already through personal faith.

No, I'm saying your philosophical attempt to indicate science doesn't prove anything is simply a means for you to escape being pinned down to what you say.

So my consistent noting for years that science explains but does not prove is just a way for me to escape being pinned down??   I am quite happy to be 'pinned down' to my actual positions - especially (as in this case) if my position is correct.

You are making a philosophical point and not a practical one. Every moment of every day the law of gravity is proven over and over by everything in existence. To say that everything we observe is not proof of gravity is a philosophical point, not a practical one. 

When your fork drops to the floor that is evidence of gravity; not proof of gravity.   Isaac Newton believed gravity was a force of nature where the Earth literally pulled your fork to it as though it were a magnetic attraction.    Einstein's theory of relativity shows that Newton was incorrect — that gravity as we observe it is a distortion of space-time by mass.   By your reasoning, gravity in Newton's time was proven true every time a citizen dropped something and it moved downward.   

It is evidence — an observation that has shown to be consistent.   If it were proof, then by definition, Newton's gravity would still be correct.   Not a word game, this is critical to how science works.

Why complain when I do it? 

I would never intentionally ignore a person's stated position, substitute a different position and then claim contradiction.   That is intellectually dishonest.   

I haven't [asked you about ways to 'prove' God exists outside of science]. I asked what it would take to get you to believe. And I don't mean merely that He exists. But to believe Him. Put your trust in Him. If God did your binary star thing, would that cause you to do that? Put your trust in Him? 

Then why are you fighting me when I correct your insistence that science delivers proof?   You repeatedly and explicitly have excluded 'scientifically proven' in your questions.   I cannot read your mind, only your words ☟:

Drakk @3.2.34 - Okay, then. My position is that you will not believe in God unless He can be scientifically proven. How does that not reflect your position? 

If 'unless scientifically proven' is not relevant then you should not include it in your question.   

Based on your explicit tie to '~proven~' science I provided you with two examples that are not based on '~proven~' scientific theories that would serve as evidence.   The binary solar system example evidences cosmological power; the stock market example evidences profound understanding of cause and effect.   If the professed creator of the known universe were to truly accomplish those feats (would need to be verified) then I would consider that evidence and would in result have a creator of the known universe hypothesis.   That would open a ton of questions which would reflect my remaining doubt.   Maybe the questions, when answered, would justify a theory of sentient creator.

I am, however, confident that the binary solar system demonstration alone would not cause me to fall on the floor and believe that this is indeed the creator entity and put all my trust in him.   I would still have doubts (key doubt is the difference between a powerful sentient entity vs. the entity that created the known universe).

Further, and importantly, I am confident that it is not possible to evidence the God of the Bible.   The claim of creator of the known universe is not in itself a contradiction.  It is quite possible.   The God of the Bible, in contrast, is self-refuting.   The Bible, due to its human flaws, defines a God that does not exist because said God is a contradiction.    So when it comes to the God character as defined by the Bible, logic precludes any need for evidence.   That is, there is no need to look for evidence of that which is self-refuting.   No need to search the planet for evidence of a married bachelor.

No, but what you have said about it in the past informs what I am saying now. 

Yes, but we have not yet reached that point in this 'discussion'.   We are still mired in petty nonsense such as the strange belief that science declares truth (proves).

Your question here seems to ask how did one thing emerge from another, not why. 

You introduced 'why', not me.  You said the presence of 'why' changes the parsimony level.   I noted that 'why' was not part of the scenario.

But to answer anyway, because it pleased Him to do so. 

Well if you are going to provide an answer that is derivable from your premise of a sentient creator, then the secular 'why' would be 'because the state of existence naturally lead to the Big Bang'.   Neither provides any information to actually answer the 'why' question.

Man can look around this world and see the handiwork from the mind of Man; God says you can look into the heavens and see the handiwork from the mind of God.

I find the human eye to be a magnificent mechanism.   The complexity and functionality of the human eye is not evidence of God;  it is evidence that eyesight is valuable to human beings.   I presume you think that this is evidence of God because you cannot fathom that such an amazing biological construct could have evolved.  But if you look at the human eye you will see rather ridiculous 'design' elements.   These are explainable from an unguided process where net improvement in functionality is sufficient to progress.   Not from the greatest possible designer.  ( link )

Now on to the physical design of the eye. One of the all-time most famous examples of quirky designs in nature is the vertebrate retina. The photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward. A photoreceptor cells looks something like a microphone: the “hot” end has the sound receiver, and the other end terminates with the cable that carries the signal off to the amplifier. The human retina, located in the back of the eyeball, is designed such that all of the little “microphones” are facing the wrong way. The side with the cable faces forwards!

A good general explanation of how the eye evolved:

... you are  inadvertently   establishing a personal test for God.

There is nothing inadvertent about it.  I intentionally am devising a test for God (i.e. creator of the known universe).

It is better to ask God for an individual, personable 'proof' of existence; which is what God does already through personal faith.

Emotional feelings are not proof of God.

My comment has little to do with evolution, beyond the mechanics of time and space. Your video is interesting, but more than what is needed in this case. Those who attempt to sufficiently explain the making of the eye, do nothing to explaining the materials present in the cosmos to make all these things possible. This is a discussion for another day, nevertheless.

The elements (materials) are present to do great things and it is the mind which comes up with great things.

I intentionally am devising a test for God.

I offered you an idea for why you can not do this thing in the manner you desire.

Emotional feelings are not proof of God.

Having admitted to knowing nothing about God or gods, you can't know that conclusively.

Having admitted to knowing nothing about God or gods, you can't know that conclusively.

Emotional feelings are at the very best personal evidence of God.   How could an emotional feeling be proof of anything other than the presence of the emotion?   For example, if I said that I feel the presence of exolife present on Earth, how is that feeling evidence?

By the way, I know quite a bit about God and gods in general — I am talking about what human beings have written about them.   My comment is that anyone who claims to know the mind of the sentient creator of the known universe had better deliver some staggeringly good supporting evidence because that is a prodigious claim (and qualifies, I think, as extreme hubris).

Emotional feelings are at the very best personal evidence of God. 

Emergent: Spirituality is at the very best personal evidence of God. So, I think we agree. And, I will leave it at that!

How could an emotional feeling be proof of anything other than the presence of the emotion?

If only it was that simple. You, an organic being, have emotions for a reason. And by the way, whose to say that faith is a simple feeling? It is not. People have faith continuously (no matter the feeling or feelings involved on any particular day). Spirituality is a way of life! Some would state, a "Calling."

You, an organic being, have emotions for a reason.

We also have an appendix for a reason.  A reason does not imply sentient origin nor does it imply current purpose.

Is this a type of argument for argument sake? For example: If Tig is happy is there a current cause (a reason) for the effect?

Do you understand what I mean by: a reason does not imply sentient origin nor does it imply current purpose?

Asking a question about cause & effect does not make sense as a response.   But yes, if someone has an emotional feeling that is an effect of a cause.

a reason does not imply sentient origin nor does it imply current purpose?

May be you can explain it and remove any doubt. Thanks, I'll wait.

It does not imply sentient origin.   That does not mean sentient origin is precluded.

Well. Thanks? (I guess.)

Is all life sacrosanct?

In what sense, SP? Please elaborate.

That should not be a surprise.   I have stated that (in effect) for years.

You have already found the passages I referred to.

As surely as the earth spins, there will be a sunrise here tomorrow,

and if my life force continues, may I awaken to continue the conversation there.

Have a good night CB.

Have a good night Split Personality.

What Is The Purpose Of Life?

To die. 

To die. 

Then what purpose does dying fulfill?

I would answer that one key purpose of life is to perpetuate life.

George Carlin may have been on to something though:

It's a universal invariant, everyone and everything dies eventually.

Also, how many humans in the history of the species ever asked to be born? Having children is one of the most selfish things humans do. We are born to make mom and dad feel good about themselves. 

I know of George Carlin, not really about him. There is some deep-think in his humor. Can someone tell me without my having to look it up—was he known for ("heavy") psychotropic drug use?

Your comment doesn't answer the question. What is the purpose living, simply in order to die? 

What is the purpose living, simply in order to die? 

Maybe there isn't a purpose. Maybe our purpose is only in this particular moment. Is there a purpose for the life of my cat? It brings me lots of joy, but in the overall scheme of things - the cat doesn't matter. And through the long course of history, how much does any one person actually matter?

Without death, the Earth would have run out of resources eons ago. It's just part of the natural cycle of life. Our real reason is to reproduce - that is the driving factor behind every species. All creatures have that innate drive to reproduce. If an oak tree is dying, it will often produce lots more acorns toward the end, in its last gasp to spread its genes.

Maybe there isn't a purpose.

I hope not. I can't imagine anything more terrible than purposeless life. Do you feel that the love is without purpose? Do you feel it is in vain? Would you trade the love in your life for anything you could imagine? 

Is there a purpose for the life of my cat? It brings me lots of joy,

You answered your own question. 

but in the overall scheme of things - the cat doesn't matter.

How do you know this? Does your joy not matter? 

And through the long course of history, how much does any one person actually matter?

Why choose to imagine that it doesn't? 

Our real reason is to reproduce

I think our real reason is to love. 

The way I see things, the only way for life to have a philosophical meaning (intended purpose) is if there is a sentient intender.   The intender, of course, would be the creator.

If there is no intender, then we have no intended purpose.   But that does not mean we should be lost or depressed.   We are all alive despite incredible odds against any of us actually making it to conception much less adulthood.   We live in a time where staggering amounts of information are available to us at the click of a mouse.   Millions of people are out gathering new information and revealing even more of the reality we occupy.   Reality is utterly fascinating and wondrous.   

So for those who look for a purpose sans a God, I would suggest a purpose of continual learning, teaching and application with a focus on enabling the next generation to make the world better for their progeny.

Sorry, TiG, but I find such a view beyond sad.

There is an interconnectivity even with all things. For example, the sun appears to 'care not' what it rays are doing, and the slow creep of time, could make it appear that sun rays accomplish little, then something small and insignificant pokes it 'arm' out of the ground, then its 'head' rises, and its 'trunk,' then comes its 'bloom.' It's purpose first is in simply being, later to serve.

I hope not. I can't imagine anything more terrible than purposeless life. Do you feel that the love is without purpose? Do you feel it is in vain? Would you trade the love in your life for anything you could imagine? 

I find it sad that without your faith that there is some god who gives you purpose, your life would be terrible. I love my life. It's not terrible in the least. Life is filled with beauty and wonder ... at least for me. For so many people in the world, though, life is filled with suffering. What's the purpose for that? 

Of course love isn't worthless. But again, in the long run, it's only relevant to the people experiencing it, and those impacted by them.

I think our real reason is to love. 

Then what's the purpose of all other life?

Consider Leucochloridium paradoxum.  It is alive, it procreates in a most bizarre life cycle, but unfortunately not one unusual

for parasites, snails and birds.

In this crazy cycle the infected bird poops flatworm eggs randomly during the day time.

Amber snails which are nocturnal, randomly find the poop and either eat it or glide over it and are infested by the

minuscule flatworm larvae.

At a certain point the flatworm enters the snails liver to manage the snail like a zombie.

It prevents reproduction of the snail.

It causes the nocturnal snail to venture further, higher and faster up a tree in broad daylight to be attractive to insectivorous birds - the true host that the flatworm seeks.

The larvae through as yet unknown mechanisms push themselves into the tentacles, or eye stalks of the snail

creating a large pulsating lure.

The birds eat the lure, leaving the infected snail usually alive for a different bird.

The birds, if not already infected become hosts to the egg laying stage of the flatworm and this cycle continues.

scienceinpoland.pap.pl

infected snail

normal snail

Now what on earth is served by such torture.

What is the purpose of any parasitic flatworm.

In what grand or intelligent design would such a thing be necessary?

Seems like a god would not bother creating such things.

But evolution cares not about the end result, since in theory, the end result is always changing, ever so slowly.

Excellent example of a life form (and reproductive process) that argues against the notion the notion that it was designed by intent.  Evolution is a mad scientist; one would not expect such nuttiness from a sentient creator.

The mistake (if there is one) is to think that by "good" God is "good" like a man is "good." We have no reason from everything we know about this world or universe to conclude this—even when we BELIEVE in God. Death is an 'ugly' thing to behold, but the question for us is does it bring about any "good"? Moreover, God will have more duties and responsibilities than any man or 'world' of human beings, necessarily.

And one would have to ask proponents of "all life is sacrosanct" because it is derived from god,

why do we boil water?  How long after "the garden of eden incident" did we master fire?

We boil water ( and heat solid foods to 165F ) to kill the very bacteria, viruses and parasites that can kill us.

Period.  Full Stop.

Our continued existence defies the definition of a god based intelligent design by necessarily killing off millions of his/her 

creations hour by hour to self determine our own comfort & continued existence.

the supposed logic and lack of logic is mind boggling...

smh...

Life is deadly to life.

To die. 

To live.

When we say the purpose of life, whose life are we talking about? 

The life of "the universe" or even the life of a star system or even a single star, or about the life of a human being?

Human beings are the only beings in existence , that we know of,  that are conscious of their own eventual end.  That makes all the difference in describing the purpose of life - you know that you are one small part of a huge picture .  The purpose of life is to feel that you left the world of man in better shape than you found it, even if just an itty bitty little better. 

With all due respect to the scientific bent of the seed, it is not describing the purpose of life as it relates to the way human beings experience their consciousness. 

With all due respect to the scientific bent of the seed, it is not describing the purpose of life as it relates to the way human beings experience their consciousness. 

Indeed, this is an explanation of physics rather than existential philosophy.

The value comes from how Dr. Carroll integrates rather profound concepts in physics which explain the nature of change and the progression of time.

I would have used a different title and not get cute with the notion of 'purpose of life', but this is how the final segment of this series was entitled.   This video describes a key function of life (as it relates to big picture physics).   Given 'function' is a synonym for 'purpose' I would have preferred he use that word.

I once had a purpose in life.  I then lost my son in 2009 and then my husband in 2013. 

There are many days I feel like why am I still here but the 2 people that meant the most to me are gone.

I hate having to rely on other people case in point happened last night at 7:30.  One of the windows in my truck rolled down but would not roll back up.  

A neighbor tried to help me but he was afraid to take the door apart and there was no way I could do it.

This morning I took it to my mechanic who graciously drove me to work as they do not do loaner cars.  

Come to find out the part needed will not be in until tomorrow.

A friend from work drove me home.

My nephew is taking me to work tomorrow luckily he works downtown 5 minutes from where I work and a friend from work is taking me to pick up my truck after work.

This week is not a good week to begin with because this Thursday is the 6 year anniversary of my husband's death.  My anxiety is through the roof, my depression really bad.  I will be at home on Thursday as i do not work on the date he died. 

I'm not living, I'm existing.

I'm so sorry to hear this. I wish I knew what to say. Do you have other family you could reach out to ?

Yes I have a great family that would help me if I ask, I just don't like to ask unless I have no other choice.

I understand how hard it can be to ask for help.  But please don't feel guilty, or as if you're a burden.  I'm sure they'd hate to think you feel that way, and any help you ask for is likely far less of an inconvenience to them than you imagine.

I also second TiG's suggestion to reach out to Enoch.

Lady in Black, I am so sorry for your separation. I want to offer you something. A video clip from the movie, "The Shack." The scene is: Judgement.  I do not know if it is appropriate for you situation or what effect, if any, it can improve in your life. Maybe it just to make you aware of the movie itself. What is interesting is I intended to share it with Katrix, and by the time I was ready to add it - your comment was in front of me.

Do watch the scene, if you like it, locate the movie. It has great wisdom above and beyond this clip. Know this: there will be no judgment from me one way or the other.

To set the scene: The star in the scene is a man who is having varied encounters with "personages" of God. Early on in the movie his youngest daughter has been abducted by a pond, taken away, raped, and killed. The star of the movie has been struggling with himself, finding and punishing her unknown killer, and coming to grip with God ever since:

Have you considered bringing this up with Enoch via his Chaplain's Corner group?   He is very experienced in the complexities and tolls of life.

He has offered his services if I need them.  

I'm so sorry for your losses, and I so understand the anniversaries and emotion that goes with it.  I feel there are lessons in everything, and loss of loved ones is one of the biggest.  There is more life for you even after the worst.  Relying on others can be one of the hardest things for some people (I am one).  Being put in the position to accept and do it graciously is as important as giving graciously, and we need to learn both sides, hard for someone who is a giver.  Made me uncomfortable, but I've come to appreciate the importance of the balance of experiencing both sides.  I don't blame you for taking the anniversary off, I hope you do something special for yourself to make the best of a really hard day (its usually more than a day, I remember the anxiety and depression coming a month before, took a while to realize what it was).  There is a reason you are being put in a position to receive.  Sending you light and really sorry for the loss of your son and husband.  

Thank you. I'll be spending the day vegging out in my pjs.  

Yes, i am a giver and it is hard asking for help and I always fear being rejected.  The added stress of having to have my truck repaired didn't help. 

To give the question a commonly understood meaning instead of referring it to the world of physics, that question was asked by the actor playing Gurdjieff in the esoteric movie Meetings With Remarkable Men, which told the story of mystic philosopher George Gurdjieff's younger years. He asks the question: "Why am I here?" as he goes on a quest to find the answer to that, meeting with many who try to help him find the answer, including a Russian Prince, played by Terrance Stamp, an actor who is known to act in unusual films.

"What is the Purpose of Life?"

Entropy:

1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Such is life. Just a work in progress that actually ends up "NO WHERE" !

In simple terms:

"Eat, Sleep, Work, Play, Shit, Eat, Sleep, sex, Play, Sleep, Work, Shit, Sex, Sleep, Play, Work ....etc...and go about the same thing every friggin day.

It is actually a "Predictable" Life !

Just a work in progress that actually ends up "NO WHERE" !

How long had snow been falling on the earth before we gave it a name and collected some and put it under a microscope to see the amazing patterns? Perhaps billions of years? All those snowflakes, falling in seemingly intricate patterns. For what? For who?

Most were taught that every snowflake is unique but that's a lie, there are only 35 different shapes they come in and the patterns are the result of water molecules arranging themselves during the process of crystallization, forming a hexagonal prism (six faces), with a top and a bottom. The different shapes and patterns occur because of atmospheric conditions of temperature and humidity. Yet the shapes seem "designed" for no apparent reason and often melt before they even hit the ground. Just a beautiful pattern winking in and out of existence as energy moves from one form to another, just like us. We live the life of a snowflake relative to the existence of stars or other celestial bodies, and there's nothing wrong with that. We can give our life purpose and meaning if we wish, spending our time with our eyes truly open absorbing as much as we can while we can, or not. Or, we can spend our very limited time on this planet seeking some original mover of whom we can ask what our purpose is.

But, like the snowflake, we are limited and shaped by our environment. Where we are born and to whom is a major predictor of who we will become and to what faith we will adopt.

But, like the snowflake, we are limited and shaped by our environment.

No !

We are only limited by ourselves and our own thinking process, and even if/when the chains came off our self induced limits, where will one actually go anyway. To another planet to start the same ol' process all over again ?