Cory,
You're right. There's an answer to the questions, "Why does the universe exist." And it is the nature of this debate. But what I clumsily said, apparently didn't convey what I meant. "Why does the universe exist." is a far different question from, "What is the meaning of the existence to the Universe." or "What purpose is there for the Universe to be here." There is obviously an explanation as to how the universe came about. But I ascribe that there is no meaning behind it. The universe exists because it does.
Humans are not the only animals to be curious. Just because we are the only ones who verbalize it doesn't necessarily mean we are the only ones to wonder about things. We just happen to be a species to have brains evolved enough to answer, "Why?" on a complex level.
The consensus of three major world religions pointing toward the same god isn't proof whatsoever that God is any more likely then a celestial teapot or a flying spaghetti monster. Just because the majority of people believe in it, that doesn't make it any more true. I might as well ask you if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too? The majority of people believing in God is a testament to the power and influence such bible stories have more than it is a testament to the truth. If god exists, then he exists weather we believe in him or not. If he doesn't exists, he doesn't exist weather we believe in him or not. The sheer number of believers has no bearing on god's existence. This is the same with a celestial teapot, or a spaghetti monster.
The God of the old testament is not the first god to be thought up or worshiped. In fact, there are many stories in the old and new testament which can be found from other faiths. The bible is not the first religion to have a flood story, a creation story, a half man half god, a god that died for our sins, a god that was crucified, a god that created wine from water, resurrection stories, etc... If anything, the persistence of these stories is evidence that human's quest to answer "why" came about before logic and the scientific method could start to explain such quandaries.
As far as the topic of Love is concerned... I'm not a physiologist. In just about any field, you are going to be able to ask me, "why" or "how" to a point where I won't be able to answer. But you have to realize that this is again falling into a "god of the gaps" situation. Just because I can't answer something doesn't prove the existence of god. It just means I don't know.
Physiologically speaking, as I understand it, when the brain is stimulated, it causes certain neurons to fire, which in turn causes it to produce various signals to the rest of our body which create hormones and other various chemicals, as well as action from our other various body parts. Certain chemicals that our body produces stimulate our brain. When our brain fires in response to certain chemicals, we interpret it as certain feelings, or emotions. When you see your wife, you are stimulated a certain way, which causes your brain to produce chemicals, which in turn causes you to experience, "love". If you categorize love in terms of the brain's reaction to stimulation, then love is no different from the feelings of physical pain, thirst, or hunger.
Humans are pack animals. We happen to be much better at surviving together than we would be alone. We have evolved to equate the feelings of love for those we mate with, and for those we live with and socialize with. Because love is a survival factor that keeps us together, those of us that feel love for each other have a distinct survival advantage over those that don't. Why do we feel love? Because it happens to be a trait that helped our early ancestors survive. Those animals that need a group to survive and don't have something keeping them together, simply don't survive long enough to continue existing.
Why do we fall in love with who we fall in love with? There are many many factors as to why this is, and I won't do any more than brush the surface to this argument. Evolutionarily, if love keeps us together, then we are best fit if we mate with those we fall in love with. We fall in love with those individuals we find to be attractive mates, which means we are attracted to those people who have traits, physically and mentally, which we find desirable. We stay in love (although what we describe as love in the beginning is not how we would necessarily describe it later) because we survive better together as a family.
In making reference to your argument, "If God and love are both observable conditions, the one through natural phenomena (gravity, atmospheric condition for life, or whatever) and the latter through CT imaging, does it change the fact that both are real things?" If you're saying that god is simply nature (gravity, atmospheric conditions for life, etc..) then that's certainly a different definition of god than you are trying to defend. You might as well call that god, "The Cosmos", "Nature", "The Universe", "The Laws of nature", or whatever. It still doesn't point to omnipotence or omniscience whatsoever. I'm not arguing that the universe isn't a beautiful place, just as I'm not arguing that Love isn't a beautiful emotion. But beauty is a concept that is created in my mind. My observation of what is beautiful, or who or what I love is a concept in my mind, which is different from yours or anyone else's conceptions. If you find the concept of God to be beautiful, that's fine. I find the idea of a god to be fascinating. But it's just a concept. There's no omniscience or omnipotence in that.
-Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment