Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[believeingod]

Why does there have to be an explanation?

the quest is not, if there is a explanation, or not. The simple fact that we exist, means there IS actually a explanation. And this thread is about to debate this issue.

 

The existence of an explanation doesn't mean we'll ever be able to discover it, at least not fully. The universe contains an infinite set of truths, and we can only imperfectly know a finite set.

 

Sure, we will never have absolute proofs. but you are , i suppose, a atheist now. Is it just based on a negative ( we poor guys cannot figure out anything ), or do you have actually some substantial arguments on hand to make a case for your position ?

[MagickMonkey]

Why does there have to be an explanation?

the quest is not, if there is a explanation, or not. The simple fact that we exist, means there IS actually a explanation. And this thread is about to debate this issue.

 

The existence of an explanation doesn't mean we'll ever be able to discover it, at least not fully. The universe contains an infinite set of truths, and we can only imperfectly know a finite set.

 

Sure, we will never have absolute proofs. but you are , i suppose, a atheist now. Is it just based on a negative ( we poor guys cannot figure out anything ), or do you have actually some substantial arguments on hand to make a case for your position ?

 

I am an atheist. I have no more reason to believe there is a god than I do a teapot orbiting Jupiter. My atheism is not based on a negative, but rather a lack of a positive. There is a difference.

[par4dcourse]

Another do-gooder with a very limited grasp of evolution and even shakier hold of free-thinking is here to explain to us non-thinkers that super-spook in a beard is a much more believable explanation than , pft, science.

 

if you think science can explain the cause of the universe, and life, please present the explanations. I am all ear.....

 

You first, oh provider of Truth. Prove god exists that we may speak of his creation.

[agnosticator]

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

 

True.

 

 

Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

 

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes. No one knows what was/happened before the Big Bang. Another universe existing is a much more rational explanation than a God with human attributes. The idea of God explains nothing, because it is incoherent. Unless you believe magic is real.

[BrotherJosh]

It'd be nice to know what BiG's beliefs are in this case...such as if the creation account is to be taken literally. How old the universe is, how old the Earth is, what time frames there are when it comes to evolution, if he can differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution through natural selection, how galaxies and planets form, all the competing forms of Big Bang Theory etc...although at this point I am suspicious if anything interesting will crop up judging by the inability to capitalize and spell basic words properly.

 

That being said this is one of my favorite videos on the subject.

 

 

[believeingod]

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

 

 

Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes.

 

the past cannot be eternal.

 

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

 

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

 

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

 

 

 

No one knows what was/happened before the Big Bang.

 

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-for-the-Existence-of-God-is-Sound/1/

 

since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.

 

 

Another universe existing is a much more rational explanation than a God with human attributes. The idea of God explains nothing, because it is incoherent. Unless you believe magic is real.

[believeingod]

Science is still researching how the laws of physics are determined, but everything that we know today tells us its not the universe that is fine-tuned for life, but life, through evolution, that has fine-tuned itself for the universe.

 

BS.

 

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god/

 

The laws of nature.

The constants of physics.

The initial conditions of the universe.

 

Collins makes a threefold “fine-tuning case” for God.

 

 

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

 

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

[MagickMonkey]

It'd be nice to know what BiG's beliefs are in this case...such as if the creation account is to be taken literally. How old the universe is, how old the Earth is, what time frames there are when it comes to evolution, if he can differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution through natural selection, how galaxies and planets form, all the competing forms of Big Bang Theory etc...although at this point I am suspicious if anything interesting will crop up judging by the inability to capitalize and spell basic words properly.

 

That being said this is one of my favorite videos on the subject.

 

 

 

EXCELLENT!!! If you had posted those separately, I'd have given you two points.

[BrotherJosh]

Collins makes a threefold “fine-tuning case” for God.

 

Keep in mind Collins is a geneticist.

 

 

None of what you posted holds any scientific weight, essentially because even if I grant you a theistic God exists, which I am not, you are still not proving it is your own God that gave rise to this universe. Essentially, I see your argument as nothing more than the God of the Gaps argument.

 

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23377/

[Margee]

I just have to get my two cents in here tonight.

 

We can talk all we want about fossil records, replicating molecules, amino acids, meteorites, chemical reactions, phenotypes, naturalism, simple particles, infinite set of truths, matter/energy and on and on and on.........With all the hard names to pronounce and the different concepts of 'reality'..................

 

All the above can be proved. The simple matter and problem is...... even IF there was a god behind the start of all the 'proven stuff'

(ie: the big bang).... he built the ship, disappeared and left and said...........'Sail it yourself.'

 

Now that is a truth!!!!!

[MagickMonkey]

the past cannot be eternal.

 

http://www.gradresou...e_for_god.shtml

 

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

 

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

 

That's not strong philosophical evidence. So what if you can't count to infinity. If time can extend infinitely in one direction, then it also can in another. Do you think none of the other dimensions can extend infinitely in both directions?

[midniterider]

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

Please do not rely your argumentation on a negative, aka, i do NOT believe in God, because Genesis does not make sense, for example. I want to see positive arguments. A world view and explanation, which stands by its own.

 

Please support your assumption that we exist.

[agnosticator]

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

Right. But, matter/energy are essentially the same, they are interchangeable, or can be traded back and forth (converted). Energy was at the singularity.

 

 

the past cannot be eternal..........We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

 

Since the singularity produced time using energy, it is most likely that energy always existed rather than a complex God. We don't know if the universe always existed, but energy is more likely to have. Philosophy isn't strong enough to use reason alone, without evidence. It's just armchair discussion that leads nowhere.

 

 

since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically,

 

We don't know there was nothing prior to the cause! Don't assume it.

[agnosticator]

the past cannot be eternal.

 

I missed this in the last post. Time is irrelevant. If energy exists "outside" of time, it simply IS.

[MagickMonkey]

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-for-the-Existence-of-God-is-Sound/1/ since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists. Another universe existing is a much more rational explanation than a God with human attributes. The idea of God explains nothing, because it is incoherent. Unless you believe magic is real.

 

 

From the page you linked to:

 

"... the existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God."

 

There are no objective morals. The common sense of morality among humans and other animals is instinct. Researching game theory can help one understand why we may have evolved these instincts.

 

"Premise 2. 'Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.'

It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that...

 

So who caused god to exist? If he doesn't need a "first cause" then why does the universe need one? Also, as I mentioned before, the idea that time doesn't extend infinitely in both directions has not been established.

 

I will not develop these. Rather, I will simply point them out.

1. Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a beginning, but it supports this claim.
   
2. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the universe had a beginning but it also supports this claim.

 

Ummmm, a lot of physicists who have in the past said there was no "before the big bang" have been changing their minds. In regards to the second law of thermodynamics, it might depend on the nature of time on the other side of the big bang. All these causes for various things since the big bang may simply be a result of the expansion of space as one moves in whatever direction away from the moment of the big bang.

 

Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause. This cause existed eternally.

 

Ok, did the writer of this page REALLY say that? Isn't accepting the concept of eternal as used here an admission that time extends infinitely in both directions?

 

Morality is subjective. There is some combination of personal morality and societal morality. The instincts that drive morality are a part of our means of survival and passing on genes.

 

The problem with this is that we do not need morality to survive today. In fact, if you and I know that morality has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it is valid, we can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, robbery and murder.

 

If you do not accept that the lives and well being of others has value, you still have reasons not to harm others. That's what the justice system is for. Morality for survival is about people generally being moral.

 

I could go on with this, and may in a bit if I have time.

[midniterider]

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

 

 

Everyday you open your eyes and create the universe you see. And 'day' is just a familiar point of reference for conversation sake. You are neither young nor old. You are eternal. You are without beginning and without end. You were never born nor will you ever die. There is a false identity amongst a group of thoughts and a bag of skin that has been labelled 'you.' At the end of the day 'you' will cease to exist for a while as you fall asleep. Then once again you will create the universe upon waking up. At this time you will log on to Ex-C and harass us all again about Jebus.

 

Now lets see, if I woke up and created the universe at about 10 am today, then the universe is about 7 hours old. This version, anyway. I'll destroy the whole thing about 2 am Pacific time when I go to bed.

[MagickMonkey]

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

 

 

Everyday you open your eyes and create the universe you see. And 'day' is just a familiar point of reference for conversation sake. You are neither young nor old. You are eternal. You are without beginning and without end. You were never born nor will you ever die. There is a false identity amongst a group of thoughts and a bag of skin that has been labelled 'you.' At the end of the day 'you' will cease to exist for a while as you fall asleep. Then once again you will create the universe upon waking up. At this time you will log on to Ex-C and harass us all again about Jebus.

 

Now lets see, if I woke up and created the universe at about 10 am today, then the universe is about 7 hours old. This version, anyway. I'll destroy the whole thing about 2 am Pacific time when I go to bed.

 

That's not really creating the universe. It's simply percieving the universe as best we can.

[MagickMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/u/46/iVU3GDJtJec

[midniterider]

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

 

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

 

 

Everyday you open your eyes and create the universe you see. And 'day' is just a familiar point of reference for conversation sake. You are neither young nor old. You are eternal. You are without beginning and without end. You were never born nor will you ever die. There is a false identity amongst a group of thoughts and a bag of skin that has been labelled 'you.' At the end of the day 'you' will cease to exist for a while as you fall asleep. Then once again you will create the universe upon waking up. At this time you will log on to Ex-C and harass us all again about Jebus.

 

Now lets see, if I woke up and created the universe at about 10 am today, then the universe is about 7 hours old. This version, anyway. I'll destroy the whole thing about 2 am Pacific time when I go to bed.

 

That's not really creating the universe. It's simply percieving the universe as best we can.

 

Is the universe subjective or objective? And what about dreams? Are the people in my dream real or just my own creation?

[MagickMonkey]

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

 

 

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

 

 

Everyday you open your eyes and create the universe you see. And 'day' is just a familiar point of reference for conversation sake. You are neither young nor old. You are eternal. You are without beginning and without end. You were never born nor will you ever die. There is a false identity amongst a group of thoughts and a bag of skin that has been labelled 'you.' At the end of the day 'you' will cease to exist for a while as you fall asleep. Then once again you will create the universe upon waking up. At this time you will log on to Ex-C and harass us all again about Jebus.

 

Now lets see, if I woke up and created the universe at about 10 am today, then the universe is about 7 hours old. This version, anyway. I'll destroy the whole thing about 2 am Pacific time when I go to bed.

 

That's not really creating the universe. It's simply percieving the universe as best we can.

 

Is the universe subjective or objective? And what about dreams? Are the people in my dream real or just my own creation?

 

The universe is objective. Dreams are a simulation of reality that occurs when we sleep. They are a result of neurological activity when we sleep. The people in your dream are simulations of real people, or if they are people who actually exist, they are simulations of actions by those people.

[MagickMonkey]

http://www.debate.or...God-is-Sound/1/ since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists. Another universe existing is a much more rational explanation than a God with human attributes. The idea of God explains nothing, because it is incoherent. Unless you believe magic is real.

 

 

From the page you linked to:

 

"... the existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God."

 

There are no objective morals. The common sense of morality among humans and other animals is instinct. Researching game theory can help one understand why we may have evolved these instincts.

 

"Premise 2. 'Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.'

It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that...

 

So who caused god to exist? If he doesn't need a "first cause" then why does the universe need one? Also, as I mentioned before, the idea that time doesn't extend infinitely in both directions has not been established.

 

I will not develop these. Rather, I will simply point them out.

1. Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a beginning, but it supports this claim.
   
2. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the universe had a beginning but it also supports this claim.

 

Ummmm, a lot of physicists who have in the past said there was no "before the big bang" have been changing their minds. In regards to the second law of thermodynamics, it might depend on the nature of time on the other side of the big bang. All these causes for various things since the big bang may simply be a result of the expansion of space as one moves in whatever direction away from the moment of the big bang.

 

Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause. This cause existed eternally.

 

Ok, did the writer of this page REALLY say that? Isn't accepting the concept of eternal as used here an admission that time extends infinitely in both directions?

 

Morality is subjective. There is some combination of personal morality and societal morality. The instincts that drive morality are a part of our means of survival and passing on genes.

 

The problem with this is that we do not need morality to survive today. In fact, if you and I know that morality has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it is valid, we can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, robbery and murder.

 

If you do not accept that the lives and well being of others has value, you still have reasons not to harm others. That's what the justice system is for. Morality for survival is about people generally being moral.

 

I could go on with this, and may in a bit if I have time.

 

 

Also from the page you linked to.

 

About the Universe, there are only three alternatives:

• 1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
  
• The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
  
• The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.
  

 

How about the universe simply existed. It wasn't caused to exist. If it's existence does in fact only extend to the moment of the big bang, then so what (though I think it might extend to prior to the big bang). That's no different that any object only extending so far in any other direction. No one is really discussing the possiblity of a universe popping into existence from nothing. If there was no "before the big bang", then there wasn't any "nothing" before the big bang. The consensus seems to be that there is ether an infinite density or a very high density at the moment of the big bang. You don't have high or infinite density if you're starting out with nothing.

[Astreja]

Sorry, folks... I may have been the one who inadvertently tipped B.I.G. off as to the existence of Ex-C, by linking to one of My essays. He just flounced out of the Why Won't God Heal Amputees? forum in high dudgeon after the moderators there put him on a short leash.

 

B.I.G., why should we believe that your god created the universe, rather than some other god? Why not this version of the creation myth:

 

Originally there was a chasm, Ginnungagap, bounded on either side by fire (from the world known as Muspelheim) and ice (from the world known as Niflheim). When fire and ice met, they combined to form a giant, named Ymir, and a cow, named Audhumbla (Auðhumla), who nourished Ymir. She survived by licking the salty ice blocks. From her licking emerged Bur (Búri), the grandfather of the Aesir. Ymir, father of the frost giants, employed equally unusual procreative techniques. He sweated a male and a female from under his left arm.

 

- From Creation of the World - Norse Mythology

[MagickMonkey]

Sorry, folks... I may have been the one who inadvertently tipped B.I.G. off as to the existence of Ex-C, by linking to one of My essays.

 

Hehehe, no problem. It's been entertaining. I think perhaps good for our self-esteem, as well!

[midniterider]

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

 

 

Everyday you open your eyes and create the universe you see. And 'day' is just a familiar point of reference for conversation sake. You are neither young nor old. You are eternal. You are without beginning and without end. You were never born nor will you ever die. There is a false identity amongst a group of thoughts and a bag of skin that has been labelled 'you.' At the end of the day 'you' will cease to exist for a while as you fall asleep. Then once again you will create the universe upon waking up. At this time you will log on to Ex-C and harass us all again about Jebus.

 

Now lets see, if I woke up and created the universe at about 10 am today, then the universe is about 7 hours old. This version, anyway. I'll destroy the whole thing about 2 am Pacific time when I go to bed.

 

That's not really creating the universe. It's simply percieving the universe as best we can.

 

Is the universe subjective or objective? And what about dreams? Are the people in my dream real or just my own creation?

 

The universe is objective. Dreams are a simulation of reality that occurs when we sleep. They are a result of neurological activity when we sleep. The people in your dream are simulations of real people, or if they are people who actually exist, they are simulations of actions by those people.

 

If neurological activity is the key to awareness how do I know which universe is the real one and which one is the dream one? It's all processed in the same place, right? If neurological activity can create a whole world of experience, how do I know that what is frequently called the objective universe is really not just my invention (like the dream world)? If I ask someone in the waking world if they are real, they tell me in no uncertain terms they are real. But then again so do dream characters. Maybe this is the dream and the other silliness I go through every night is the real objective universe. And thank you for the debate.

[MagickMonkey]

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

 

 

Everyday you open your eyes and create the universe you see. And 'day' is just a familiar point of reference for conversation sake. You are neither young nor old. You are eternal. You are without beginning and without end. You were never born nor will you ever die. There is a false identity amongst a group of thoughts and a bag of skin that has been labelled 'you.' At the end of the day 'you' will cease to exist for a while as you fall asleep. Then once again you will create the universe upon waking up. At this time you will log on to Ex-C and harass us all again about Jebus.

 

Now lets see, if I woke up and created the universe at about 10 am today, then the universe is about 7 hours old. This version, anyway. I'll destroy the whole thing about 2 am Pacific time when I go to bed.

 

That's not really creating the universe. It's simply percieving the universe as best we can.

 

Is the universe subjective or objective? And what about dreams? Are the people in my dream real or just my own creation?

 

The universe is objective. Dreams are a simulation of reality that occurs when we sleep. They are a result of neurological activity when we sleep. The people in your dream are simulations of real people, or if they are people who actually exist, they are simulations of actions by those people.

 

If neurological activity is the key to awareness how do I know which universe is the real one and which one is the dream one? It's all processed in the same place, right? If neurological activity can create a whole world of experience, how do I know that what is frequently called the objective universe is really not just my invention (like the dream world)? If I ask someone in the waking world if they are real, they tell me in no uncertain terms they are real. But then again so do dream characters. Maybe this is the dream and the other silliness I go through every night is the real objective universe.

 

Well, while our observations and simulations of reality are processed in the same place, I know for me, I see more consistency in the system of facts and memories acquired and experienced in what I perceive to be the time I'm awake. I see almost no consistent story in my dreams, even within the dreams themselves.

 

And thank you for the debate.

 

Hell yeah, and thank you for the same. You know what's great about our debate? Regardless of whether you're wrong, or I'm wrong, or we're both wrong, neither of us are going to hell for being wrong. Neither of us have a reason to take the debate too seriously. It can simply be an excersize in fun!