aklimento, I really like science. I like reading up on the evolutionary relationships of animals and the big bang theory and the new attempts at a unified field theory and all the complex stuff I can only partially understand. We tend to put too much importance on science, feeling that knowing the earth goes around the sun actually makes us morally superior to someone who believes otherwise. But, as a Christian, science is just about the physical and the temporary and isn’t worth much in the end. Even if the universe is around billions or trillions of more years, it’s all just a blink of the eye in the face of eternity.

And I believe there is the big difference between the religious and th...

aklimento, I really like science. I like reading up on the evolutionary relationships of animals and the big bang theory and the new attempts at a unified field theory and all the complex stuff I can only partially understand. We tend to put too much importance on science, feeling that knowing the earth goes around the sun actually makes us morally superior to someone who believes otherwise. But, as a Christian, science is just about the physical and the temporary and isn’t worth much in the end. Even if the universe is around billions or trillions of more years, it’s all just a blink of the eye in the face of eternity.

And I believe there is the big difference between the religious and the atheist: When you have eternity to think about, it changes your priorities. Or it should.

I like to think I'm somewhat of a free thinker so here is my take on this.
"And God formed man from the dust of the earth." Let me start with the dust of the earth. What difference does it make how we were made from the dust of the earth. Evolutionist believe that life was formed from some slimy hotbox of progressively advancing microbial sludge that perked out all the different types of lifeforms on earth as we know it today. Creationist (Christians) do believe there to be a superior all knowing being, who's not one but, three beings in one, that created the universe and all that is in it. Genesis 1:24, NIV, states that God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kin...

I like to think I'm somewhat of a free thinker so here is my take on this.
"And God formed man from the dust of the earth." Let me start with the dust of the earth. What difference does it make how we were made from the dust of the earth. Evolutionist believe that life was formed from some slimy hotbox of progressively advancing microbial sludge that perked out all the different types of lifeforms on earth as we know it today. Creationist (Christians) do believe there to be a superior all knowing being, who's not one but, three beings in one, that created the universe and all that is in it. Genesis 1:24, NIV, states that God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:"... And then it says in verse 25:"God made the wild animals according to their kind"...Wouldn't it be the same for humanoid forms of life? Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind and, then in Gen. 2:7, God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being. What part about the dust of the earth don't people get?
Even with the Big Bang theory, didn't there have to be some kind of matter in an aptmospere of something to go BOOM!? OK, now, I'M really confused.

quote]But, as a Christian, science is just about the physical and the temporary and isn’t worth much in the end. Oh, God, give me a break! May I take one, please? Do I need to prove that religion is just one of retreats to escape from harshness of cruel reality? I like to meditate myself, and in virtual world it is become so easy and addictive, but in the end we have to come back to the earth and do whatever real life require us to do, and there are not always pleasant things sometimes but pleasure to get things done cannot be compared with abstract endless surfing in imaginary space of mind. BTW, science can be about everything, religion including. We are free to explore a...

quote]But, as a Christian, science is just about the physical and the temporary and isn’t worth much in the end. Oh, God, give me a break! May I take one, please? Do I need to prove that religion is just one of retreats to escape from harshness of cruel reality? I like to meditate myself, and in virtual world it is become so easy and addictive, but in the end we have to come back to the earth and do whatever real life require us to do, and there are not always pleasant things sometimes but pleasure to get things done cannot be compared with abstract endless surfing in imaginary space of mind. BTW, science can be about everything, religion including. We are free to explore and make our own conclusions about anything and if somebody attempts to limit our rights and ability, that would be an obstructionism and obscurantism. If not real crime of imprisonment and abuse of authority.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen"

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole ...

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen"

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe. I wonder who can?" Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store. The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?" "No one," joked the believer; "it just happened by chance."

It depends. To say that life has, or has no, meaning is a subjective statement, not an objective one. What is the meaning of a random rock you pick up on the beach? (What is it's objective meaning? To who?)

You can "give" it meaning, but it's subjective. If the professor is talking about "life as a whole" in an objective sense, then he is correct, unless the universe "itself" is conscious and has feelings for sentient things that are alive. Otherwise who would be the one giving it meaning?

This would mean that inanimate matter has awareness and has an opinion and its opinion is such that life is important to it. The hospitality of the universe (or rather the complete lack of it) demonstra...

It depends. To say that life has, or has no, meaning is a subjective statement, not an objective one. What is the meaning of a random rock you pick up on the beach? (What is it's objective meaning? To who?)

You can "give" it meaning, but it's subjective. If the professor is talking about "life as a whole" in an objective sense, then he is correct, unless the universe "itself" is conscious and has feelings for sentient things that are alive. Otherwise who would be the one giving it meaning?

This would mean that inanimate matter has awareness and has an opinion and its opinion is such that life is important to it. The hospitality of the universe (or rather the complete lack of it) demonstrates that this is not the case. The universe doesn't appear to know that we exist, or even that "it" exists.

--
If you, for example, believe that the "meaning" of your life is to serve another, then so be it. But it remains a subjective meaning. The universe at large doesn't know you exist.

--

Just curious: What does the question of "design" have to do with "does life as a whole have meaning?" Just curious.
--

But to "presuppose" the universe had a designer simply because patterns emerge from natural laws is to "insert" an agent where knowledge of "how" is not known. (God of the gaps.)

The wind blows... therefore "somebody" must have done it, is to presuppose a "who" instead of a how.

So here's my question to you. Since you speculate the universe requires a designer, "who" designed the designer? (Of course if you posit that the designer doesn't need a designer, then by your same reasoning I would posit the universe doesn't need one either.) So be creative.