^^^Trivial reductionist statements don’t enlighten anyone. Calling us “stardust” is as trivial and incomplete an explanation of how we came into being on our “lucky” little planet as if you were to call us “God’s children”.
Simply evoking one way of viewing the assembly of materials and the rise of life in the universe, does nothing to devalue the other way, thus, cannot be used as though it were some sort of proof of the fallacy of the other. It takes considerable study and training in observing the intricacies of the operations occurring in the universe to draw a conclusion about the mechanisms by which things happen, and it takes considerable attention and meditation in observing The Way, or the Ying/Yang, or the Karma, or the Spirit within any sequence of events, to make inferences about the intent of that sequence, or the universe’s creation, or even about whether or not “intent” is displayed.
Please, stop fooling yourselves into thinking that skipping around with your arms over your head, and gleefully repeating “we’re stardust, we’re stardust” (or any pop culture reduction of reality) means that you have somehow successfully argued in favor of the idea that the design and function of the universe is random and displays no intent. Such a self-delusion only displays a lack of credibility and insures that your statements appear as no more than ignorance.
And that last statement about being a number, and about how simple things are... all the facepalm gifs in all the internet can't quite express how silly that statement is... of course, we're only "one thing each", just as each atom in our body is only one thing each, but the assemblage of those atoms into an object (each of us), through which the universe can observe itself, is really, really, quite spectacular, and not "simple" in the slightest.
I'm wracking my brain for any science article about "intent" being shown through the study of the universe. I will concede that there are things that sure appear to have a systemic evolution that might inspire a relatively smart amoeba to see things within it that might create a sense of "intent" behind the curtains of the unknown. However, like most dust mites, our comprehension is limited by our perspective. So far, all we can do is shine our little flashlight in this dark room to see tiny patches of our surroundings, and guess at what lies in the dark surround.Me too, and I never did understand why that is considered "toxic"...
For starts, it is a certainty that anywhere in the universe a planet exists with long-term liquid water, in significant quantity (unknown limit), there will be produced (in accordance with the universal laws revealed by our mathematical reduction/description of the physical universe) life. The universe is built on two opposing principles, Order and Chaos, from which all energy is derived in movement toward an equilibrium between them. Our Science shows evidence of "intent", in that there is a process of elimination inherent in the process of formation of chemical entities in the whole universe, and in biological entities on any planet containing sufficient liquid water. A similar intent is displayed in the formation of Black Holes; the universe is set-up to create them, just as it is set-up to create highly complex chemical structures (that become biological at some point).
It is my observation/belief/expectation that you put yourself at personal/spiritual risk if you separate yourself from the "intent" of the universe by discounting it's existence. Taking "the road traveled only by you" must result in being lead to a spot that only you can be in... taking the road traveled by the set of "all those who travel their own road", is equivalent... either is unlikely to result in harmony with The Way or the Great/Holy Spirit, or richness in positive Karma, or balance in your personal Ying/Yang, or support of Gaia. To deny the existence of processes beyond your perception is to place yourself too high on the ladder of causality, which ultimately means you are more likely to help create the world we have (one that is unsustainably driven by the follies of all), than you are to help create a world that will transcend our follies, since you will be unlikely to transcend your own.
We both know that there are no science articles about “intent being shown through the study of the universe” and there never will be. Science is built on empiricism, therefore, any conclusion “science” directs us toward must be able to be tested to prove it (or a theory proposed that is built on logical/mathematical connection to things that can be proven by testing). Science can only test what it can observe and quantify, thus, there is no scientific study that can ever be used to either prove or disprove “intent”.I'm wracking my brain for any science article about "intent" being shown through the study of the universe. I will concede that there are things that sure appear to have a systemic evolution that might inspire a relatively smart amoeba to see things within it that might create a sense of "intent" behind the curtains of the unknown. However, like most dust mites, our comprehension is limited by our perspective. So far, all we can do is shine our little flashlight in this dark room to see tiny patches of our surroundings, and guess at what lies in the dark surround.
My point, I don't need intent, or an omnipotent creator steering the evolution of the universe to tell me that pork is bad and to doff my scarf in the presence of the letter t. Spirituality is a function of sentience as opposed to a function of the universe. I'm the one who feels awe at the pillars of creation, they weren't put there to make me feel awe. Is the universe an organic being? That's for philosophers and existentialists to argue about, not physicists and astronomers. Does the universe impart a sense of wonder and amazement, even a sense of belonging, nope, that's all in the observer. Personal enlightenment is personal, not universal. My time here is finite, and as I am a product of universal constituents, darkness, flash, darkness is my existence, just like the bigger universe. I don't need transcendence to be supplied to me by any creator, I'll find it myself.
As for the limitations that you imply in my philosophy, wrong. I'm only limited by my biology, which is the stem of my imagination and source of my comprehension. A star doesn't need me to burn, but it's sure ****ing amazing.
The oral-history/pre-writing person who first conceived the creation story that is written in Genesis was either a super-genius, or had a conversation with aliens or time-travelers, or was channeling someone from our time, or was inspired by God, because that sequence of events concerning the origin of the universe parallels the conclusions of our cosmological research. It is a mistake of Ego for anyone to believe that nothing exists that supersedes them… it follows that a world filled with people who credit themselves with that much importance is a world where compromise on critical issues is impossible and failure is certain… in that way it DOES matter what you, or I, or anyone believes.
There definitely are creepy people in the world, trying to make fools of others for their own gain, but as I've tried to say, there is a better story to be told. Thanks for the video.*That was the point of the vid I posted... Being hoodwinked into a story..
Agree. That strikes me as the definition of "hubris", if we believe we are the ONLY sentient life form it the universe. On the contrary, there must be many, many examples among the 300 billion, or so, stars in our own galaxy, let alone the hundreds of billions of other galaxies. Life must be plentiful, although perhaps not so common, and sentient life as well.I have zero issue with the concept of faith, where it falls apart for me is the whole "we exist because the universe needs validation through sentient observation". That strikes me as hubris.
I partially agree. There seems to be no “necessity for a master puppeteer”, except that science does not rule that out. If we conceive of God as “The Maker of the Rules of the Universe”, then much is possible, since we are still in the process of discovery of many details about the universe, and constantly being exposed to new “surprises”. If we consider God to be “The Rules of the Universe”, then it would seem to be a static, one-shot thing, unless The Rules originally included provisions for more than just the obvious propensities to create Black Holes and sentient life forms. The rules could also include provisions for forms that exist in realms that are beyond the limits of our perception, the realm that has always been referred to as “spiritual”. Testing the contents of such a realm is daunting to scientific inquiry, which uses our perceptions (including the extremes that are outside our limits) as its basis for study. The quantum universe is just being scratched at, who knows, there may be scientific support for the existence of manipulating beings one day. In the meantime, the ancient teachings of many diverse populations point toward a spiritual realm, and/or spiritual beings that do intercede in the affairs of life. That is the realm of Faith, not Physics (at least, not yet).What I don't have issue with is drawing inspiration from our existence and the incredible wonders of the universe. I don't even have an issue with the system having an overall tendency to generate life, or even sentience. But a master puppeteer is not a necessity. We as a species, have existed for a minuscule mote of time relative to the age of the universe and are likely to be erased from existence by radiation, or comets, or some other cosmic event in an equally relative mote of time. In which case, if there is a grand plan, the universe has created humanity solely for the purpose of reducing it to ash. The very fact that we are a tentative creature in the grand scheme, is precisely why we are more precious a creature than a construct of some great scheme. It doesn't lessen our self perceived importance, quite the contrary, we need to transcend our current foibles, or else there is zero point behind our existence.
As far as genesis is concerned, it is a story derived from the ancient histories of humanity and its need to create meaning behind events. It is a compilation of creation myths and distant human experience. Most of which were written by the equivalent to modern astrophysicists. They weren't any more genius than the authors of the present physical laws of the standard model in physics, they just had a different language to express their perception of the universe.
I tried, but now I just feel sorry for you and anyone who places humans (a product of evolution in the universe) at the top of the ladder of causality... to believe the only way a superior being could exist is within our fantasy, is simply another definition of "hubris".... Intent isn't necessary for that to happen. I highly doubt we are the lone sentience in the universe, but the only gods there are, exist only inside ourselves.
There are vast numbers of superior beings, just no supreme being. If you think that I'm placing humanity above anything, including the most minuscule paramecium, I have failed to make my point. Humanity isn't more special than any other life form, which by odds alone might hold sway over billions of earths, or only this one. Humanity is placed above only in its own mind. A mind that has vast potential, or it may be snuffed out in a flash. These points are why we could be amazing, if only we'd let go of gods, accept our fragility and become the caretakers that we need to be to make a go of it.I tried, but now I just feel sorry for you and anyone who places humans (a product of evolution in the universe) at the top of the ladder of causality... to believe the only way a superior being could exist is within our fantasy, is simply another definition of "hubris".