Why Is The Universe Meaningless

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

The fine-tuning argument by Collins highlights a universe which has been perfectly created for suitable life and that the smallest miscalculation would have been unbearable to sustain life. According to the first premise, the reality of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism, while premise two states, the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. The conclusion is that fine-tuning data support robust evidence to support the design hypothesis over the atheistic singe-universe hypothesis. As already noted, most critics would reject the fine tuning-argument by making a compelling argument that there are likely many other big bang that we are probably unaware of and that it is highly probable the universe

1. The cosmos as we know it demands that there be an intelligent designer behind it.

Hence: it is likely that the universe is an outcome of intelligent design and has an aim.

Another reason I do not believe that the universe has a purpose is due to the brutality of nature, rather than peaceful harmony. As put forward by Herbert Spencer, a 19th century

David states that the widely accepted cause of the universe, which consists of a very large explosion whose aftermath was the universe, “doesn’t really account for that original… something that exploded.” (Woody 14). This quotes demonstrates how even though it explains the universe’s beginning, the big bang theory does not explain how the things that caused it, which is the quantum vacuum and a singularity in it, came to be. David thus

Moreover, he disagrees with Parfit and states that one substance (God) can cause all the other substances to exist. Swinburne believes that the existence of our universe makes the existence of God more probable, and continues by arguing that the simplest explanation “compatible with observed events” (Swinburne p. 2) is the most believable one. He states that his explanation is simpler than Parfit’s theory that there are many worlds and therefore is the more likely

The purpose of David Christian’s lecture is to answer the following question: “In a universe ruled by the second law of thermodynamics, how is it possible to generate the sort of complexity... represented by you and me?” To answer this question, Christian had to establish what a universe – our universe – ruled by the law of entropy looks like, and according to him, “...the general tendency of the universe is to move from order and structure to lack of order...” Christian then explains how in a universe that naturally “returns to mush”, complexity can form in pockets of perfect environments – Goldilocks zones – places in the universe where various factors that would usually cause a decline in the chance of the growth instead cause an increase,

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God” (Adams 97)

“Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir D. Aczel appeared in the April 27, 2014, issue of Time magazine. In this article, Aczel asserts that science shows that the universe is so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life science. According to Aczel “All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form” (paragraph 6). Aczel also writes “the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God” (paragraph 8). Finally, he states “that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123” (paragraph 7). There are a multitude of

It is popular belief and largely debated upon, that our full functioning universe became or existed out of pure nothingness. The idea that nothing(non -being) can become something (being), goes against the law of noncontradiction.The antonym of nothing is something which goes against this law. For nothing to become, transform, or evolve into something, it would mean it would have to already exist. For something to create itself, that would mean it would have to exist (be) before it existed. If the universe was a random phenomenon, than our whole lives and morality itself, is random.

In the search to answer the question of how many universes there are, more questions arise. Questions regarding the technology needed to find an answer or if an answer is even possible comes into play. Therefore, it is not known how many universes there are due to there simply being a lack of information. There are too many unknowns to find an answer, which leads to the many different theories. For example, having parallel universes, a single universe, or a multiverse, as it is believed today, leads to an endless string of questions. The only conclusive answer is that at least one universe exists, but there is a possibility of infinite universes also existing.

Over time people have made the future their own by expanding human understanding of the earth, and looking beyond what is thought impossible. Although the Oxford Dictionary defines impossible as not able to exist, or be done, the word impossible can't be defined in a single definition , because the definition changes as people’s ideas change, people's beliefs change, and life in general passes on.

If you took a deck of 52 cards and dealt our four hands of 13 cards like you find in the game of bridge, the odds of you getting 13 spades are the exact same odds of you getting 13 cards that a player would consider complete a junk hand. The only reason that the 13 spades appear to have significance is because we imbue it with significance. We care about getting this good hand and the same thing goes for the universe. The only reason we look around and say “Wow, this is remarkable and this seems all made for me” is because we have this big fat bias towards order.

Throughout human existence, people have often contemplated about the meaning of life. Why do we exist? What purpose do we serve as human beings? Who created us? Is there a mission that humans are supposed to complete while alive? Richard Taylor sought out to answer these questions through his paper The Meaning of Life. He particularly uses the myth on Sisyphus and his life throughout the paper to help prove his point.