- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 25,128
- Reaction score
- 30,327
I can't explain it because I simply don't know, and neither do you, and neither does any scientist, that's really my whole point.There is no scientific theory that claims something came from nothing. There is no widely accepted science that claims there was ever a situation where there was or needed to be “nothing” then existence followed nor is there evidence that points to this.
You and a half dozen other people in this thread made that claim up. So why don’t you explain where it comes from and what evidence supports it since you’re making that claim and not science.
Because to me it seems you’re projecting the human condition of not being alive and then living on things that aren’t human. “I at one point didn’t exist and then I did so existence in all matters must be the same” is bad logic.
This is science's explanation:
"According to the big bang theory, the universe began as an infinitely small, hot, and dense point, which rapidly expanded and continued to stretch over 13.7 billion years. This initial period of rapid inflation set the stage for the vast and still-growing cosmos we observe today."
Ok, if you're happy with this explanation and this settles it for you, then that's cool. For me it says nothing and it explains nothing about where it all came from, why, or how... to me it's still a big mystery, and unless someone can replicate this process on some scale I have no reason to believe that this is possible.
What if there was only two tribes, your tribe which was large and vastly more powerful, and one other tribe that was much weaker but had a ton of resources that would be useful to your tribe. You could conquer and wipe them out completely, reap all the benefits and have zero repercussions... would you concede that it would still be morally wrong to do so?I might not do something that directly helps my tribe because as an intelligent being I can ascertain that action can set a precedent for how my tribe could be treated. Species who survive off social structures don’t seem to have morally wrong actions that in all cases only bring benefit to them without also adding risks.
an intelligent social species can agree on the preference life is better than death as a vast majority of living things do and from there agree on being in a social structure is better than not because that equal death and continue from there on exploring preferences that become our moral framework.
At no point in this process do we need an outside entity who has predetermined these morals for us.
Yes life is better than death for you and your inner circle, but you lose zero sleep over someone's child dying on the other side of the world.... it's happening right now and it has zero effect on your life because you don't even see it or know about it. Yet if you did see it it would effect you and you would acknowledge it's a tragedy and you would wish it was not happening. There is clearly a moral compass in you that goes beyond what betters your own life and your social structure, it transcends mere practicality, and whether you like to admit it or not you are not living your life as if there is no meaning or purpose.