What "imperative" is that?

They won't show themselves. Yet... — Haglund

That is probably because they don't exist. The only eternal here is your eternal 'yet.'

The eternal yet... Sounds great. Like a never ending now.

They won't show themselves. Yet...
— Haglund

That is probably because they don't exist. — universeness

Which is the question.

In other words, "belief" seems a developmental and atavistic vestige of childhood magical thinking in adults — 180 Proof

I feel sometimes that humans are Peter Pans (re neoteny as seen in salamanders). We never achieve maturity. I suppose we did get our wish, even Tithonus, for eternal youth. I wonder what an adult h. sapiens actually looks like: we should be hairier I suppose, but beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

I recall reading an article about a paleontologist who said something to the effect that other paleontologists had made the quite silly mistake of misidentifying the fossils of juvenile dinosaurs as a different species altogther. So, in a way, velociraptors could actually be young T. Rexes. :chin:

What causal relation? — Haglund

Gods are the entities that, for whatever reason, created the universe in which life develops. — Haglund

Gods would be the cause of a universe in which life develops.

I just said you were believing for the wrong reasons. — Haglund

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were wrong, but the reasons you gave are just not my reasons. I just don't think science alone offers meaning or reason for life. — Haglund

You didn't make a distinction between your reasons and the reasons. Now that you have you are basically admitting that the reasons are subjective, therefore no one can ever be wrong about the reason for which they believe.

You call the universe insufficient proof? — Haglund

The observation of the universe is simply evidence that the universe exists, not what caused it to exist. What caused it to exist and where would we find the evidence of its cause? What would the evidence look like?

Gods would be the cause of a universe in which life develops. — Harry Hindu

Yes. But not in the scientific cause and effect sense. It's a teleological cause. A "theleo"logical cause.

You didn't make a distinction between your reasons and the reasons. Now that you have you are basically admitting that the reasons are subjective, therefore no one can ever be wrong about the reason for which they believe. — Harry Hindu

My reasons are the reasons.

The observation of the universe is simply evidence that the universe exists, not what caused it to exist. What caused it to exist and where would we find the evidence of its cause? What would the evidence look like? — Harry Hindu

The existence of the universe is the evidence.

Yes. But not in the scientific cause and effect sense. It's a teleological cause. A "theleo"logical cause. — Haglund

How is it different?

My reasons are the reasons. — Haglund

Then you are claiming to know the mind of god? You seem to be afflicted by delusions of grandeur.

The existence of the universe is the evidence. — Haglund

Is the universe a teleological effect or a scientific effect of this teleological cause?

How is it different? — Harry Hindu

Gods can create a universe out of nothing. They are like magicians pulling things out of a hat. For real, that is. There is no material cause preceding it (the universe). They could have done this an infinite time in the past.

Then you are claiming to know the mind of god? You seem to be afflicted by delusions of grandeur. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Though I wouldn't call it grandeur. More a sense of reality.

Is the universe a teleological effect or a scientific effect of this teleological cause? — Harry Hindu

An effect of their thoughts, efforts, and creation power.

Gods can create a universe out of nothing. They are like magicians pulling things out of a hat. For real, that is. There is no material cause preceding it (the universe). They could have done this an infinite time in the past. — Haglund

But there wasn't ever nothing. There was a god, if you claim that one of these properties of god is being eternal, but if not then how did god come from nothing? How does something come from nothing? You see, this is what happens every time I engage with the religious. Nothing but mental gymnastics that end up collapsing in on themselves without having said anything constructive, reasonable or understandable.

An effect of their thoughts, efforts, and creation power. — Haglund

But not in the scientific cause and effect sense. It's a teleological cause. A "theleo"logical cause. — Haglund

What I'm looking for is how exactly does a teleological cause (god) form a relationship with a scientific effect (universe)? What would that relationship look like? How does something form a relationship with something else that does not share something in common? And please don't use "god" as the answer as that would just prove my assumptions about your intellectual capacity and honesty.

Yes. Though I wouldn't call it grandeur. More a sense of reality. — Haglund

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but your "reality" is a bubble of your own making.

But there wasn't ever nothing. There was a god, if you claim that one of these properties of god is being eternal, but if not then how did god come from nothing? How does something come from nothing? You see, this is what happens every time I engage with the religious. Nothing but mental gymnastics that end up collapsing in on themselves without having said anything constructive, reasonable or understandable. — Harry Hindu

There never was nothing. The gods are eternal. But they created the universe outa nothing. It wasn't there and the next moment it was there. The spoke the word, the logos, so to speak. "Let the be particles and spacetime!", and there it was. So its all there for a reason and not because of some scientific theory, though that does a good job in describing.

I can tell you exactly what happened before the big bang and before that one, and after the current one, and offer mechanisms, but the very existence of these mechanisms can't be explained by a mechanism. Call it the Gödel theorem for physical laws. Only gods can complete it.

:roll: Not useful.

Not useful. — Harry Hindu

For what?

Anything.

Anything. — Harry Hindu

Except for closure of everything and give meaning and reason to anything, which science alone can't provide.

That's strange. It's the complete opposite for me. Science has shown me that I create my own meanings and reasons for doing what I want. Freedom!

Science has shown me only descriptions of reality. Not meaning or reason. Unless you wanna give meaning to describing reality. For me that's not giving meaning to life. Though I admit science is a nice form of art! You can even make money with it!

For me that's not giving meaning to life. — Haglund

What is the meaning of life? In your own words or less.

What is the meaning of life? In your own words or less. — god must be atheist

The meaning, the reason, for all life, in my humble opinion, is that the universe, or at least the particles making it up, were created by gods, so, for whatever reasons they had for it, so we and all creatures developed as a copy of heaven, so they can watch us. In which case every scientific explanation, reason, or meaning, ceases to be valid. Are the gods atheists? Maybe they didn't believe in themselves anymore. So they used their creation power. So let's not disappoint them and give them some spectacle!

I am sorry, but I asked a straight question, to which you answered (as far as I can see) that the meaning for your life is that the gods can watch us.

And now that we settled that, I'll ask you, what end does that meaning serve you with?

There never was nothing. The gods are eternal. But they created the universe outa nothing. It wasn't there and the next moment it was there. — Haglund

What is the medium in which this god existed and that divides the god from what it creates. If god and universe are not the same things (as it is in some other religions), then what is the medium that divides them. That must also exist, no?

I am sorry, but I asked a straight question, — god must be atheist

good luck in getting a straight answer. :smile:

The meaning, the reason, for all life, in my humble opinion, is that the universe, or at least the particles making it up, were created by gods, so, for whatever reasons they had for it, so we and all creatures developed as a copy of heaven, so they can watch us. — Haglund

Sounds like scientists performing an experiment.

I don't want this to go to the wayside. Please respond, Haglund. I wish for an answer, because I wish to prove to you that the concept "meaning of life" is basically a futile, meaningless concept, but you can only internalize that truth by answering my questions truthfully and honestly.

So please do answer my questions, otherwise face the fact that your opinion is undefended, and therefore false.

I asked a straight question, to which you answered (as far as I can see) that the meaning for your life is that the gods can watch us.

For me that is not a meaning, but a view. What meaning do you see there?

And if you don't see any meaning in "so that the gods can watch us" either, I'll ask you, to please tell us at least, what end does that non-meaning serve you with? The gods watch us. So what? What is your opinion on the gods watching us?

And now that we settled that, I'll ask you, what end does that meaning serve you with — god must be atheist

The only meaning it serves for me is that science can't provide the reason. It gives meaning to my being. A reason for me being there. Which science can't provide. That's all. So every time science says I'm a product of evolution or particles bouncing around I can say, that's a description only. No reason.

In short, all creatures are copying the gods.

Sounds like scientists performing an experiment — Harry Hindu

Well, they know what they watch. Themselves in better times.

The medium is heaven. Outside of the universe. Maybe somewhere in a higher dimensional space. I dunno. Maybe they are not casually connected. Maybe they can interfere somehow. Quantum mechanics offers possibilities. But I think there was no need to interfere. What for? To teach morals? Don't think so.

I am sorry, but I asked a straight question, to which you answered (as far as I can see) that the meaning for your life is that the gods can watch us. — god must be atheist

You asked me the meaning of life. The meaning of our lives, of all life, I might add in joyful honesty, stems indeed from a rather selfish reason the gods had. They made all life to watch it. Not to judge it. So we better give them a good time. Or do exactly the opposite. Just bother them...

The only meaning it serves for me is that science can't provide the reason. It gives meaning to my being. A reason for me being there. — Haglund

The reason for being here, as you put it, is for someone else's entertainment. Being here for the pleasure of their watching. Well... a reason for existence is to entertain some higher beings. How and why should that provide you with comfort? It is more of a Cause than a Reason. You are here because someone created you for his or her own amusement. I can see that as a causational process, but not as a status of reason.

A reason for me being there. Which science can't provide — Haglund

Well, I could see your point that science can't provide a reason for you being here. It can provide a complete chain of causation from the big bang, but it can't tell you why you are here.

Why you are here is answered by "because some higher beings enjoy watching you." Is that something to be proud of, or something that settles your mind? It has been shown that a being created just to be watched is more of a causational process than a state of reasonable existence. So... then... causational process here, causational process there... be it science or faith in the supernatural.

If you can accept a causational process for your existence in the supernatural, I think it ought not take too much effort to accept your existence in the natural as the reason to be. Because being the show-puppet for some higher being is not the reason to be for the puppet, but a caused existence.

How and why should that provide you with comfort? It is more of a Cause than a Reason. — god must be atheist

It's the reason for existence. They had good reason to let universal life continue their mad plays in heaven.

This knowledge gives me more comfort than the story atheists like Dawkins and Harris throw around, hitting themselves on the chest. All scientific knowledge, and as a physicist I can play the game along, is just a description from a distance. Knowing the gods made the universe evolving gets you actually involved in life without anyone being scientifically able to explain me.

It's the reason for existence. They had good reason to let universal life continue their mad plays in heaven.

This knowledge gives me more comfort than the story atheists like Dawkins and Harris throw around, hitting themselves on the chest. All scientific knowledge, and as a physicist I can play the game along, is just a description from a distance. Knowing the gods made the universe evolving gets you actually involved in life without anyone being scientifically able to explain me. — Haglund

We use reasons as the causes of our behaviors. Reasons, intentions and motives are just particular types of causes. "God created the universe" is also a description from a distance - just a different type of description - one that has no evidence. It's really no different, and has no more evidence for, the description that extra-dimensional aliens genetically engineered humans and are watching them.

"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe.