Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Why? is a subjective question. It can be roughly translated as 'What was the motivation of the person who decided to do this?'. If your question is about events that do not involve a consciousness then the question literally doesn't make sense.

How?, a conjunction of What?, Where? and When?, is objective and will make sense when asked of events that do not involve a consciousness.

>> ^L0cky:

How does the universe exist and how did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?


Now the question makes sense, and we can continue to try to answer it.

>> ^deathcow:

Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

>> ^deathcow:

Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?


Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.

At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.
And even this is overstating it, I think. The universe is neither encouraging nor discouraging to the development of life, except in one aspect:



Systems that perpetuate themselves have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. Systems that perpetuate themselves more effectively have a tendency to perpetuate themselves more effectively. Life is not particularly mysterious.

And I believe when it comes to the Universe, "Why" and "How" are the exact same question, and it seems like we're a long way from being able to answer that.

>> ^deathcow:

Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?


This question by any good physicist or scientist can always be reduced down to something akin to this:

Why are numbers sequential?

What if the answer is as simple as the very structure of the mathematics you DO know; which CAN mean that the question of the ultimate origin of the Universe may never be answered or if it is, it will lead into an endless fractal of dimensions.

>> ^deathcow:

Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?


We don't know yet, and may never.

Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?

I'm just asking... don't read into my beliefs... I have none

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

We don't know yet, and may never.
Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?


Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.

>> ^deathcow:

I'm just asking... don't read into my beliefs... I have none


Do you believe in me?

>> ^deathcow:

Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?


In the event that the universe is cyclical, or that there are many universes, here's another thought: how much "time" has there been in which, given the conditions of the universe, life has been impossible? What fraction of total time has progressed in universes conducive to life?

Nothing gives me vertigo quite like the idea that there has been a series of dead universes so long that it's practically indistinguishable from infinity.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

We don't know yet, and may never.
Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?

Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.
I've always found Dawkins to be a relatively mild and reasoned debater. He loses his cool sometimes, but I don't understand why people claim he's a "dick", unless calmly arguing away people's cherished belief in imaginary friends that provide easy answers to big questions makes you a dick. Neil deGrasse Tyson probably thinks Dawkins is a dick because Tyson is a pussy who feels the need to sugar-coat his science and his atheism to avoid offending people. And dicks, as we all know, fuck pussies.

If it werent for dawkings and dicks like him, degrasse would still be hiding beneath his science table. We shouldnt tip toe around forced ignorance

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

We don't know yet, and may never.
Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?

Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.


He is! I freely admit that. But he's a dick with facts and rationality on his side. The other side just wants to stop thinking and call it magic. And I know which approach I prefer... :🤷:

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

We don't know yet, and may never.
Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?

Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.

He is! I freely admit that. But he's a dick with facts and rationality on his side. The other side just wants to stop thinking and call it magic. And I know which approach I prefer... :🤷:


I prefer Tysons approach, he seems like a great guy. He explains things and is patient like a good teacher. The bad teachers are the ones that yell at you and call you stupid if you disagree.

>> ^G-bar:

If it werent for dawkings and dicks like him, degrasse would still be hiding beneath his science table. We shouldnt tip toe around forced ignorance


Really? You think deGrasse would be scared? The big black college wrestler needs to be protected by fucking Richard Dawkins really?!

And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.

@Yogi, Tyson's approach is great, for anyone who actually cares to learn. The creationists don't. They actively fight against facts and rationality, precisely so they can keep their "magic" story. Even worse, they want to destroy the teaching of facts, so that nobody else can be rational and make things that actually work, either. If it was up to them, we'd still be living in skin tents, and cowering from the thunder.

Fuck 'em. We'll be better off when they all die of their own stupidity.

>> ^swedishfriend:

And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.



No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.

But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.

People who so easily eschew others sacred belief systems are often labeled as a dick by those who are offended.

I say be a giant dick over and over again, because it's not someone's dickishness that has brought so much suffering to this planet and the myriad of species inhabiting it.

And I'm not sure what Tyson's views of Dawkins matter.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

We don't know yet, and may never.
Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?

Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^G-bar:
If it werent for dawkings and dicks like him, degrasse would still be hiding beneath his science table. We shouldnt tip toe around forced ignorance

Really? You think deGrasse would be scared? The big black college wrestler needs to be protected by fucking Richard Dawkins really?!


I wasn't expecting Degrasse to punch Creationism out of existence
But you know what I meant. It was the Harsh words of people such as Hitchens and Dawkings that led the way to let Atheism out of its closet.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.



You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.

As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.


You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.
As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.


you seem to be quantifying "life" in terms of your own perceptions of space and time.
just saying.

Yeah, the last couple of times I've seen Dawkins in debates (here in Australia on our Q&A show in particular) he came across as a bullish dick. I really felt that he was doing more harm than good towards his own cause by the harsh way he was treating members of the audience who were asking questions and the way he responded to things.

I used to love him, now I wish he'd step aside and let someone with better people skills take over for public appearances as he's not doing the atheist cause any good. I'd be more happy with Sam Harris.

>> ^Yogi:

Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.


Eh? I've seen several instances of Dawkins and NdGT sharing a stage and there seems to be a lot of mutual respect there. Do you have a source for NdGTs opinion?

As for the accusation that Dawkins is a dick, I assume that's because he has a pretty low tolerance for bullshit and doesn't tip toe around people feelings while debating them.

Not unlike you.

However, Dawkins has had a concerted and well funded campaign to discredit his lifes work from a bunch of lunatics who haven't a clue what he's talking about. What's your excuse?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.

Eh? I've seen several instances of Dawkins and NdGT sharing a stage and there seems to be a lot of mutual respect there. Do you have a source for NdGTs opinion?
As for the accusation that Dawkins is a dick, I assume that's because he has a pretty low tolerance for bullshit and doesn't tip toe around people feelings while debating them.
Not unlike you.
However, Dawkins has had a concerted and well funded campaign to discredit his lifes work from a bunch of lunatics who haven't a clue what he's talking about. What's your excuse?


http://videosift.com/video/Why-hasnt-Richard-Dawkins-converted-more-Atheists

This is the video where Tyson Rebukes Dawkins. Some people say it's just a criticism. I am the son of two teachers, and what I hear is one educator telling another that they're not educating, they're haranguing and generally being a dick about it.

I understand the arguments of leaving people who don't want to learn behind but I honestly don't feel that the majority of creationists are people who have left education or learning behind. And when you approach them by calling them an idiot at the off, you're not an educator and you're not helping anything. Dawkins has a higher bar than us idiots on the internet set for him. He isn't reaching it and Tyson rightly calls him out on it, Dawkins responds with a joke which while funny, is also telling.

My Excuse? I think he's doing more harm than good. He's drawing battle lines. Also I'll point out that I commented on that video over 2 years 9 months ago, and I said he could be a dick then. I think I've been consistent and so has Dawkins.

I disagree

Religion has plenty to teach us. It appropriately mirrors the evolution of the consciousness...the development of species-wide psychological tendencies throughout the history of humanity.

In order to understand where we are now, we need to understand where we've been, and why.

What religion teaches us is exactly where we are in the development of the consciousness -- and in short, we're idiots, a mere 10,000 years into cognition. We're evolutionary infants. Much, much dumber than we like to think we are.

Dawkin's would probably agree that he's dickish when it comes to religion. No qualms with that: religion is quite deserving of reactionary spite.

However where Dawkin's plays the fool is in being just as arrogant in his steadfastness that there is no "God". Just as arrogant as any relig-idiot with his iron belief system.

Where he could remedy the situation is to allow for a different concept of "God" - one not based on the idea that God is a being, like you and I. This primitive conceptualization is retarded on the surface, and self-serving at best.

To many, "evolution" is GOD - a beautiful process of life and continuing intellectual complexity that is potentially infinite.

This concept of God is inclusive, not exclusive and divisive.

Well I agree with that. "Holy" books are literature, and religions are cults built up around certain interpretations of those books. Literature has always had the power to inform us of the cultural attitudes of past times, which is something that science can often struggle to capture.
>> ^criticalthud:

I disagree
Religion has plenty to teach us. It appropriately mirrors the evolution of the consciousness...the development of species-wide psychological tendencies throughout the history of humanity.
In order to understand where we are now, we need to understand where we've been, and why.
What religion teaches us is exactly where we are in the development of the consciousness -- and in short, we're idiots, a mere 10,000 years into cognition.

ECHO... Echo... echo...

CHAMBER... Chamber... chamber...

The sound is much better in this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9uhE4CT2xM

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.

Thanks, fixed.