Teleology of the Universe

[nightbringer]

What was the purpose of the universe? The ultimate heat death is a staggering amount of years away. If earth was what was meant to be the sole place of our existence had we behaved, it still would eventually burn out in a finite amount of years, no matter what humanity did on earth.

I find this the most interesting conundrums of western religion, particularly Christianity. If the ultimate environment for which we are destined is another supernatural dimension , not earth, then the only conclusion we can reach is that earth is a kind of "pre-stage" for humanity. If earth was always meant to be the pre-stage for humanity, then the fall of human beings seems inevitable to set the stage for whatever God planned for after the death of the sun (which, if we're alive at the time, will end us) and ultimate death of the WHOLE physical universe.

I said this to my Christian aunt-in-law this morning. My wife and I went to church with her and the pastor was preaching on Eden being the location of humanity's biggest blunder. After church, she reiterated that humanity screwed up in Eden, and that everything would be alright forever if that blunder hadn't occured. I patiently explained why that makes no sense, but she didn't get it.

Hi Whag,

Granting that, left to its natural course, the universe will eventually be inhospitable, it does not follow that God's intent for humankind would be for them to leave this universe. After all, God might intervene in the universe and prevent that natural course from occurring.

[Carrikature]

Hi Whag,

Granting that, left to its natural course, the universe will eventually be inhospitable, it does not follow that God's intent for humankind would be for them to leave this universe. After all, God might intervene in the universe and prevent that natural course from occurring.

You'd think that a being that could create out of divine fiat wouldn't have a problem giving the system a little boost now and then.

[Carrikature]

If earth was always meant to be the pre-stage for humanity, then the fall of human beings seems inevitable to set the stage for whatever God planned for after the death of the sun (which, if we're alive at the time, will end us) and ultimate death of the WHOLE physical universe.

I think this is where you go off track. Some clearly do claim this, but it's not necessary for Christian belief.

[Carrikature]

Hi Whag, first I would say that there is no way you would ever fully understand the answer given to this question by a Christian if you are not one yourself. I would say if you are sincerely seeking the Truth, then don't bother with your aunt’s faith and make it your own. Invite Jesus into your life and he will light the path for you.

On to your question, you stated "The ultimate heat death is a staggering amount of years away. If earth was what was meant to be the sole place of our existence had we behaved, it still would eventually burn out in a finite amount of years, no matter what humanity did on earth.". I think this first sentence displays a few misunderstandings you have given Christian theology and this comes through later when your aunt states "After church, she reiterated that humanity screwed up in Eden, and that everything would be alright forever if that blunder hadn't occurred.".

I think we can summarize your assumption this way ‘the Earth is where humans were meant to live forever if they never sinned’. Now, I don’t see why that is true. First, the idea ‘if humanity never sinned’ is foreign to orthodox Christianity. Here is why; in orthodox Christianity, there is ‘no possible world’ where humanity never sins. It is inevitable. Why is that? This mostly lends to speculation among Christians as to why there is no possible world in which free creatures never sin. The answer I am sympathetic too is in the question itself. Free creatures will always inevitably choose to reject God and his love. Now, your response to this will lend to your bias as a believer or not. He wants you to repent. He wants you to ask for forgiveness. He wants you to trust Him. If you are not a believer your response is going to be more accusative, like ‘how could God load the deck and give me a losing hand, then make me ask for forgiveness?’, and at this point I would sincerely ask you to evaluate your own heart. Jesus wants your heart. Further, Jesus didn’t actually load the deck, because you have free choice. Humanity freely chose to reject him.

To answer the second idea of whether we are meant to live on Earth forever I would say that the bible never says we were meant to live on Earth forever. Although in Genesis, God says what he created is ‘good’, it is not indicative of his final purposes for humanity. When God blesses Adam all he tells them is to multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Further, death is apparent from the beginning when God tells Adam “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”. I don’t think God meant for us to live on earth forever if death was possible from the get-go.

Finally, it sounds like the pastor is correct in saying that Eden is the location of humanities biggest blunder, but there is no reason for your aunt to then say, 'if humanity never sinned, then we would all be good on Earth'. Mostly because it is a pointless statement given the appropriate understanding of Christian theology. There is no possible world where free creatures choose to not sin - or at least a world 'worth' making according to God (philosophical/theological speculation).

I could find some resources if you wish to delve deeper on this topic. Thanks

While I generally agree with your response, I think the part I've bolded is a pretty serious issue. You've made a claim and supported it by referencing speculation. That's not worth an awful lot to most people.

It also should be fairly easy to show that it's not inevitable that free creatures reject God. If this claim were true, no one would be saved. You couldn't choose to accept Christ if it's inevitable that you reject God. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Mountain Man]

What was the purpose of the universe? The ultimate heat death is a staggering amount of years away. If earth was what was meant to be the sole place of our existence had we behaved, it still would eventually burn out in a finite amount of years, no matter what humanity did on earth.

I find this the most interesting conundrums of western religion, particularly Christianity. If the ultimate environment for which we are destined is another supernatural dimension , not earth, then the only conclusion we can reach is that earth is a kind of "pre-stage" for humanity. If earth was always meant to be the pre-stage for humanity, then the fall of human beings seems inevitable to set the stage for whatever God planned for after the death of the sun (which, if we're alive at the time, will end us) and ultimate death of the WHOLE physical universe.

I said this to my Christian aunt-in-law this morning. My wife and I went to church with her and the pastor was preaching on Eden being the location of humanity's biggest blunder. After church, she reiterated that humanity screwed up in Eden, and that everything would be alright forever if that blunder hadn't occured. I patiently explained why that makes no sense, but she didn't get it.

Why do you assume that an omnipotent God who created all that exists would somehow be powerless to prevent the destruction of the universe?

[whag]

Why do you assume that an omnipotent God who created all that exists would somehow be powerless to prevent the destruction of the universe?

I don't make that assumption. Rather, my question was why do some Christians (like my mother in law and ShrimpMaster) believe that human beings initiated biological death/heat death?

It seems like those believers have an unsophisticated understanding of science. The universe was never a perpetual energy machine. Ditto human beings and all life.

[Carrikature]

It seems like those believers people have an unsophisticated understanding of science.

FIFY.

Frankly, the more I learn the more I realize how little people actually know. I include myself in that 'people'.

[whag]

FIFY.

Frankly, the more I learn the more I realize how little people actually know. I include myself in that 'people'.

Has your ignorance given way to "Screw it. We can't know anything"? I'm pretty sure we can know that human beings didn't trigger entropy.

[The Thinker]

What was the purpose of the universe? The ultimate heat death is a staggering amount of years away. If earth was what was meant to be the sole place of our existence had we behaved, it still would eventually burn out in a finite amount of years, no matter what humanity did on earth.

I find this the most interesting conundrums of western religion, particularly Christianity. If the ultimate environment for which we are destined is another supernatural dimension , not earth, then the only conclusion we can reach is that earth is a kind of "pre-stage" for humanity. If earth was always meant to be the pre-stage for humanity, then the fall of human beings seems inevitable to set the stage for whatever God planned for after the death of the sun (which, if we're alive at the time, will end us) and ultimate death of the WHOLE physical universe.

I said this to my Christian aunt-in-law this morning. My wife and I went to church with her and the pastor was preaching on Eden being the location of humanity's biggest blunder. After church, she reiterated that humanity screwed up in Eden, and that everything would be alright forever if that blunder hadn't occured. I patiently explained why that makes no sense, but she didn't get it.

Asking what is the purpose of the universe already presumes that there is a purpose. It's like asking what is the purpose of mountains? Or asking, what is the color of jealousy? It presumes that jealousy has a color right in the question. The better question would be "Does the universe have a purpose?" because that doesn't presume anything.

[Carrikature]

Has your ignorance given way to "Screw it. We can't know anything"?

It depends on how philosophical you wish to be. My epistemological conclusion is that we have no way to verify knowledge as such in part because a definition of knowledge doesn't yet exist. Thank you, Edmund Gettier, for your contribution. Good luck, everyone. Keep trying to find a solution to his problems.

In practice, we don't need to know. We can approach significant confidence levels which take us beyond reasonable doubt. I can't know you exist, but I have pretty good reasons to believe you do. That's good enough for me.

But not knowing things doesn't necessarily imply being ignorant. It's not an either/or. I know far more about most subjects than most people I interact with, but there are a lot of people that know far more than I probably ever will.

I'm pretty sure we can know that human beings didn't trigger entropy.

We have pretty good reasons to reject Christianity. Even accepting Christianity doesn't entail accepting humans triggered entropy through their actions. Extrapolations from the Fall curses are many but mostly baseless. We can't know that we didn't, but we have no reason to actually believe we did, either. That's just as true for Christians as it is for the rest of us.

[whag]

Asking what is the purpose of the universe already presumes that there is a purpose. It's like asking what is the purpose of mountains? Or asking, what is the color of jealousy? It presumes that jealousy has a color right in the question. The better question would be "Does the universe have a purpose?" because that doesn't presume anything.

The context of the thread is christian teleology, i.e., what's the purpose of a universe designed to die? That leads to the question of death literally being woven into the fabric of biology and the larger physical world. That's almost as problematic to Christian theology as no teleology at all. At least it has been with the Christians I've discussed this in person with. They struggle with it the way I present it.

[whag]

It depends on how philosophical you wish to be. My epistemological conclusion is that we have no way to verify knowledge as such in part because a definition of knowledge doesn't yet exist. Thank you, Edmund Gettier, for your contribution. Good luck, everyone. Keep trying to find a solution to his problems.

In practice, we don't need to know. We can approach significant confidence levels which take us beyond reasonable doubt. I can't know you exist, but I have pretty good reasons to believe you do. That's good enough for me.

But not knowing things doesn't necessarily imply being ignorant. It's not an either/or. I know far more about most subjects than most people I interact with, but there are a lot of people that know far more than I probably ever will.

The Gettier problem is great because it levels the playing field between religious epistemology and scientific epistemology. It emphasizes the commonality we all have with respect to beliefs and the risks they possibly carry.

[37818]

The Gettier problem is great because it levels the playing field between religious epistemology and scientific epistemology. It emphasizes the commonality we all have with respect to beliefs and the risks they possibly carry.

Knowledge is what is believed being true. If what is believed is true, but how that belief came about is not true. Then the reasons for the knowledge is not true knowledge. The reasons are false the knowledge is true. Myths believed to be true history are a false knowledge about what is real history. But a story believed to be a myth, is knowledge that the story is a myth.

Bottom line, what we know or think we know is what we believe. What we believe to be true.

Belief does not make anything true. But belief is what knowledge consists of.

[shunyadragon]

Knowledge is what is believed being true. If what is believed is true, but how that belief came about is not true. Then the reasons for the knowledge is not true knowledge. The reasons are false the knowledge is true. Myths believed to be true history are a false knowledge about what is real history. But a story believed to be a myth, is knowledge that the story is a myth.

Bottom line, what we know or think we know is what we believe. What we believe to be true.

Belief does not make anything true. But belief is what knowledge consists of.

This is the weakness in ancient religions like Christianity that base the foundation doctrines and beliefs on ancient myths in texts of weak provenance.

[Adam]

I doubt that what you quoted condemns the thinking processes of ancient religions. I think it exposes the "thinking processes" of he who wrote it.