It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?

Religion at its best does do that. Rarely is religion at its best, unfortunately. Historically and currently it has been used more as a policy to control the masses. You better be good or you won't get your afterlife reward. You may be downtrodden in life but don't sweat it, you will be so much better off when you get to the afterlife.

A tad cynical perhaps.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Religion at its best does do that. Rarely is religion at its best, unfortunately. Historically and currently it has been used more as a policy to control the masses. You better be good or you won't get your afterlife reward. You may be downtrodden in life but don't sweat it, you will be so much better off when you get to the afterlife.

A tad cynical perhaps.
Click to expand...
I believe the difference in the theory of it controls the masses and life is a test is simply the belief in a God. For instance I doubt many believers would look at life and think religion is controlling them, but rather that they are following an example that leads to a better life in this world and the next...
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Religion at its best does do that. Rarely is religion at its best, unfortunately. Historically and currently it has been used more as a policy to control the masses. You better be good or you won't get your afterlife reward. You may be downtrodden in life but don't sweat it, you will be so much better off when you get to the afterlife.

A tad cynical perhaps.
Click to expand...

I think that what most people forget is there really isn't "religion" as such. It, like all the things we argue about is a mental construct with which we play around and have our experience. One Christian is a Thomas Merton, another is like Fred Phelps. Nothing can exist without its opposite, there is no wave without a trough, no up without a down, so it is with everything. Yet we talk about things as if they exist by themselves, and we ask, "is this a good thing or a bad thing". The only logical and precise answer is "yes".
 
Devils' Advocate said:
If I remember correctly I believe Thomas, in another thread, was arguing that opposites were not necessary. That good is possible without a bad to compare it to. I'll try to find the exact quote.
Click to expand...

Well, if anyone could craft an argument like that it would be Thomas :)
 
I think Thomas and Nasruddin are talking about different things? Thomas is saying that a good is not dependent on a bad, but Nasruddin is saying that good things can be other things as wall as good, and that defining it as either or is a mistake. I don't think either statement is mutually exclusive.
 
There are two words here that can cause confusion I think: "necessary" and "dependent". Those two words carry with them an entire thought frame. Often, misunderstanding, like ACOT intimates, happens when different frames or modes of thinking collide. So, in my own view, for example, these two concepts are interesting, but meaningless. Everything hinges on everything else, in what the Buddha referred to as "dependent co-arising" and what the Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh called "interbeing". In short, if we view things existing in and of themselves, we have a much different world view than if we view things as being interdependent.
 
And Thomas is interested in, and not unfamiliar with, Buddhist though and I should probably just be a bit more patient and let him do his own talking. I'm looking forward to possible exchanges between the two of you.
 
Nasruddin said:
In short, if we view things existing in and of themselves, we have a much different world view than if we view things as being interdependent.
Click to expand...

Similarly, people tend to take occurrences in life and treat them as a static event. Thus allowing them to be labeled a 'good' experience or a 'bad' experience. Life, of course, is not but a sequence of static events. It is a stream of events that flows seamlessly and continually from the moment we are born to the moment we die. (For the moment I am leaving the possibility of an afterlife out of the equation).

A 'bad' occurrence today could lead to a wonderful occurrence 10 years down the road. Without that static bad moment happening now, the wonderful moment in the future would not have happened. We seem programed by modern society to take the short view about everything that happens to us. When we should be doing quite the opposite.
 
Mr C said:
Hello,

I'm working on a theory for some time in trying to combine science with religion, looking for an answer to the question "What is the purpose of life in Creation?" Finally thanks to science and space exploration in the universe, we got all to agree on the fact that we are not the only planet that is hosting life. Einstein studied very much the universe, we know it all and came to the conclusion that it is too big and too complex, not be governed by something like a higher energy "From nothing you can not do anything he was saying" Big Bang could not be created from nothing so simply out of nowhere and give rise to a complex mechanism so full of laws that creates (suns, planets, solar systems etc etc)In my opinion something above our understanding govern, lead, use, observe the universe,So helped by logic I suppose that we have solved one of the mysteries of mankind.

Of course, as in any mechanism at some point unpredictable errors may occur. From here starts a series of questions more or less strange ..

It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?
The existence of life be allowed, because we can not affect, interact with the true purpose of the universe?In conclusion we feed from details provided by religion,religious books etc Living just a big illusion, (Heaven, hell, afterlife, judgment day etc) ?? When the Great Architect actually has nothing to do with us?I ask you now, there is perfection? Universe,Creation itself is perfect?
If yes, then my theory is wrong.
Click to expand...

Your loading up this question with too many different questions.

First, "It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?"

No, whether God(s) exist or not, life could not be likely described as an 'error.' It is the result of natural processes and Natural Laws, and not errors.

Other questions are more reasonable such: Is life unique on earth to the universe?

This is unlikely given other planets with similar conditions as the earth will likely also produce life. The question of intelligent life is more complex, but nonetheless the answer is the same, but the conditions would likely have to be more specific to produce this result.

A better question would be to discuss the likelyhood of life and intelligent life on other planets based on our scientific knowledge.
Or He sent (prophets like Abraham, Solomon, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) on all habitable planets in the entire universe possible multiverse?From here another series of questions that lead always other and other questions.
Click to expand...
This is not a good either or question. You could have simply a natural sequence of environments, and circumstances that result in intelligent life on different planets if God Created our existence 'as it is' and life and intelligent life naturally results. Primitive hands on God(s) with special specific Creation with us at the center of the universe is not necessarily the relationship between humanity and God, is not the only option. The Baha'i view of God and Creation is likely more viable IF God exists.

God is not a chess player
with the white pieces.
God is the sea
and we are the fishes.

go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank
 
Last edited:
Nasruddin said:
People tend to use all kinds of things to avoid looking into the void :)
Click to expand...

Most religious belief falls into that category, it's a glorified coping mechanism.

But it does seem quite likely that the emergence of life was just an accident. And what is the problem with that? We are just a bunch of intelligent apes on a tiny rock, it is what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top