They Poked at the Shroud Again

Question from Bubsy:
I suggest you watch this video, which is a summary video that shows all the relevant articles from 2009 upwards instead of going to the articles one by one. It’s faster and easier. [2018 UPDATE! SHROUD OF TURIN REVEALS SECRETS | STRANGE END TIMES SIGNS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBycQZug8Fo) Within it at the 3:25 minute marker it has information on: The ultraviolet light necessary to do so “exceeds the maximum number release from all ultra-violet light sources available today” and It would require “pulses having durations shorter than one-forthy-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts” ***********

Back to my point: * The evidence they have found is that the image is no oil painting and it is caused by light in the UVB range at burst of several million micro seconds and energy release of everal billion kilowatts. * Science has literally confirmed it is a crucified man and that the image has been produced by no natural light but a light that is several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second. * It was highly superficial but strong enough to cause an imprint. * Christian imagines what Jesus looks like and this comes indirectly from the Shroud image that was responsible for most of the early portraits of Jesus from 300 A.D. Therefore: Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event – the resurrection of Jesus.

Answer by SmartLX:
This article by MSNBC puts this claim into perspective very well. The finding of the recent study is that if the image on the Shroud was created by UV light (as per one existing hypothesis) then it had to be the unearthly burst you describe, which is an extreme hypothetical circumstance which merely debunks the idea that it was faked with this specific method. The researchers separately argue against the idea that it was painted. It might instead have simply been an actual shroud for someone’s dead body, from anywhere and any point in a wide timespan.

My favourite part of the article is where lead researcher Paolo di Lazzaro had to email the journalist to say, “Sadly, we have seen many claims spread in the Web made by journalist/bloggers that discuss the content of a paper they never read.” I think the same applies to YouTube preachers.

Hell: Pope vs Doctrine

Question from RM:
What the hell … No hell ?? 🙂

I came across this interesting article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201803/smile-there-is-no-hell-even-the-pope-says-so
As an atheist it’s amusing to me and it’s obvious that religion (in this case, Christianity) is trying to align with modern times.
Some theists who comment on this website are, however, moving in the opposite direction.
So to the theists (although this is still ask-the-atheist) – why do you think the pope’s decided there’s no hell? Will he go to hell for this blasphemy?
Do tell. I’m eager to hear the rationalizations 🙂

Answer by SmartLX:
Few of the regulars are Catholics and therefore few may put any stock in what the Pope says, let alone have to defend the doctrine that his word is infallible and therefore accept whatever he says. Even for Catholics the concept of Hell isn’t licked yet; the Vatican has claimed that the interview is a “reconstruction” rather than a transcript, so it’s far from official at this stage.

Still, this was declared as a question for theists for a change, so feel free to comment and hold forth on Hell, the Pope, changes to doctrine over the centuries, or anything you can tie back to this interesting bit of news.

Big Ol’ Bang

Question from Call Me Static:
So, I found this looking for an answer for the Law of Biogenesis (I’m on the younger side) for school and came across this. This interested me and I thought I’d ask a question to you about what you believe with an atheistic point of view.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory and if not, what do you believe created the universe? I’m curious to see what you believe on this.

I’m doing this for pleasure, not anything for school. Just thought I’d ask out of simple curiosity.

Answer by SmartLX:
Lucky you, I just revisited the “law” of biogenesis the other day. But hopefully you found the earlier piece referenced therein.

Anyway, I do think the evidence supports the Big Bang, so I accept the theory and I just plain think that it happened. This leaves some pretty big questions, like what existed beforehand and what caused it (if time was, “at the time”, in a state where either question even makes sense) and what it implies for the future of the universe (heat death? Big Crunch?) but that particular moment in cosmic history is looking pretty solid right now.

Back to the Origin of Life

Question from Kenneth:
The answer by Truk regarding the Law of Biogenesis is extremely simplistic. Pasteur is not the only one to come to this conclusion. Many eminent scientists since have tried but failed to disprove it, but have had to admit that spontaneous generation as virtually impossible. The complexity of a cell, the smallest self-replicating unit of life, is so overwhelming that regardless of the amount of time it is impossible. Truk’s answer that we know it happened because life exists, does not speak of science. It speaks of faith! The very thing Creationists are always ridiculed for. The whole of Evolutionary Biology rises or falls on abiogenesis. If you can’t show that to be true, it all collapses like a ‘house of cards’.

Answer by SmartLX:
The question by Truk is here and it may have more comments than any article on this site. Religious and particularly Christian apologists make much of the fact that there isn’t an established scientific theory of abiogenesis like there is for evolution. It’s the answer atheists just don’t have. What they never seem to realise is how little this matters to the god debate.

I’ve addressed Pasteur in the other article, so we’ll speak generally here. Spontaneous generation, which came to be called abiogenesis, need only have happened once to produce all known life. It is evidently unlikely in the present day, because it is not happening all around us. (The existence of established life may have a lot to do with this; see this other article.) In the ancient world 3-4 billion years ago, perhaps it was slightly less unlikely or perhaps it wasn’t, but that you felt you had to include the word “virtually” belies that there’s no way to unambiguously say it was impossible. And if it was possible, it could happen once as a fluke, which would explain why it’s only happened on Earth as far as we can see.

That said, there are detailed and quite old rebuttals to the claim that the formation of the first proteins, enzymes, etc. were impossibly unlikely, which focus on the assertions and assumptions inherent in such claims. See whether that particular link addresses a point or two that you’ve read. Regardless, to argue that it’s impossible because we don’t know how it happened is the standard and ubiquitous argument from ignorance.

We know that before an undefined point in time there was no life, and some time later there was life. If one does not believe in a god to begin with, one does not seriously consider a god as a reason for the emergence of that life, though one cannot rule it out entirely. All possible natural mechanisms of abiogenesis would need to be ruled out before a designer could be established by elimination, and that includes mechanisms not yet thought of so you won’t get far there. Science may give one confidence that a theory of abiogenesis will emerge, but even if it doesn’t in our lifetime it remains nothing more than an unanswered question, with a hard but present road to possibly finding the answer.

Finally, even if abiogenesis didn’t happen and life was deliberately created, that may have been the last point the creator intervened. Evolutionary biology needs nothing more than an imperfect self-replicator, which perhaps a creator provided, to explain the entire diversity of life. Therefore it does not fall like cards or anything else without abiogenesis, but you think it does because you think all of evolutionary biology has been erected solely as a barrier to the certitude of divine creation, and a gap in it represents total failure in that regard. Science does not require that we be as certain of a particular hypothesis as you are of your god in order to compete with that god.

From Infinity To Certainty?

Question from Blake (lost, then recovered – sorry Blake!):
If there is an unlimited number of universes with an unlimited number of possibilities, then would there be a universe in which there doesn’t exist other universes?

Answer by SmartLX:
No.

Unlimited possibilities do not necessarily mean every possibility. The set of multiples of two (2, 4, 6, 8…) has infinite numbers, but no odd numbers because odd numbers are not multiples of two. The question uses the premise that there is an unlimited number of universes, and with that established the infinite universes you are not in are not negated by the one you are in, no matter what kind of universe it is. The basic qualities of the set of universes make a solitary universe impossible.

A similar argument is sometimes used to establish the existence of a god. See the piece that just went up. (That piece is the reason I found your question, due to similar subject matter.)

The Great Big Arguments #9: Infinity

Basic form of the argument:
For all we know, the universe is infinite. There might even be infinite universes. However small the chance of a god existing in any given way, place or universe, the infinite possibilities make it practically certain that a god is out there somewhere.

Answer by SmartLX:
This one crops up a great deal, but I have yet to see it formalised. A possible reason for this is that it doesn’t hold up very well when even basic mathematics are applied to it.

Firstly, the universe may not be infinite in whatever way matters. There may have been nothing of consequence before the Big Bang, or even no time so that “before” doesn’t even make sense. The multiverse may merely be a useful way of modelling the phenomena we see in the field of quantum mechanics, while not actually being real. Therefore the possibilities may not be infinite either, and a god may have only one chance to exist.

Secondly, the presence of an infinite element in a calculation does not automatically take the result to 100% or probability 1. The set of even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8…) is infinite but contains absolutely no odd numbers. You can calculate the digits in pi forever but they will never repeat themselves. The sum of an infinite set will be a finite number if each new number is a smaller percentage of the previous one, e.g. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … = 2.

To speak more practically, if the multiverse is real there may well be things all universes have in common which preclude the existence of uncreated omnipotent beings. Super-advanced beings who have acquired godlike powers through evolution and technology over aeons, sure, possibly out there somewhere, but this supposition is an extrapolation of our own status and the technology we’ve developed so far, not a guess unrelated to anything we’ve ever seen before.

To make my answer as general as possible, there are any number of reasons why the probability of the existence of a god might be zero, making the number of different universes irrelevant. (Try to roll a 13 with two standard dice – you’d be there a while.) Even if it’s not zero, there are any number of reasons why a non-zero probability is not brute-forced to certainty by an infinite universe/multiverse. Infinite possibilities just mean there are things we can’t rule out, but I’ve never claimed to be certain that there are no gods.

One NDE Question Left Over

Question from Kamil (sent before I answered his previous one):
Hello there, a few weeks ago I asked about NDEs with many faces aka Jesus. I just wanted to give you only a few of about the 160-200 accounts I have found online of NDE meetings with Jesus, they are all pretty consistent, and I wanted to see if these convince you.

Here are a few descriptions of meeting him:

“Someone was waiting for me where the path ended. I knew it was Jesus. He was tall and strong, with long dark hair and a wonderful tender smile. His eyes were unforgettable, immense, dark, so loving and full of wisdom… He was wearing a long white tunic, and sandals. He was there all by himself and smiling, just waiting for ME. He welcomed me. He didn’t say a word, I didn’t either, but we were communicating without talking.”

” I felt someone pick me up in their arms and I was surrounded by light. I looked in the smiling face of a man, who said his name was Jesus. He told me not to be frightened; he was here to take me back. He had shoulder length brown hair and dark brown eyes. He was wearing leather sandals on his feet with straps that went between his toes and tied around his ankles. He had on a long white gown with long gig sleeves, with a long light blue tunic over it. There was a gold color rope tied around his waist. His voice was very soft and kind, almost musical, and I felt a feeling of pure love, complete safety and trust.”

” I felt a presence in there and tried to clarify whom it was. I could not see a face but felt the presence of Jesus on a throne. I said ‘who are you?’ He replied ‘I am your Lord Jesus’ and I fell to my knees. Jesus said ‘Don’t be afraid, I love you’. I do not have the words to express the feeling of his presence. He had unconditional love towards me and said ‘what do you think of your life so far?’ I had a strong sense I had not completed what I need to learn as a human being. Jesus said ’You may stay with me or return to being a human being”

” Jesus Christ was seated next to God. The throne room was pure white. Then I stood there in absolute awe at the beauty of Jesus. Jesus was wearing a white robe with a purple sash and had flames in his eyes. His golden crown had many bright jewels in it. The jewels were purple, green, and red. I looked back at Jesus and his sash. Then the sash turned red. I was looking into His eyes. I saw forever in them: He was so beautiful.”

“I only had a clear sight of a man that stood to the far right of me. I knew immediately that this man was Jesus. I never saw him before, but I knew that he was the master and my lord. I understood that he knew every fine detail about me. Jesus wore a white roman like cloak from his neck to his feet with long arm sleeves that were very loose. A red loose ban of clothing stretched from his left shoulder across the chest to his right waist. He had long brown curly hair that dangled to his shoulder length. Everything happened so fast that I didn’t see his wounds in his hands, face, nor see the color of his eyes.”

“Our conversation differed from a typical face-to-face speech. Somehow, I was able to communicate with the choice by mouth or the mind. Jesus spoke to me with his lips and spread his arms and said, “It is not time for you to die yet.”

“I had the pleasure of having a discussion with Jesus. I knew it was him and that I can never deny. I also received a wonderful hug from him. I felt his body with my spirit and there are times, especially when I do have occasional bouts of depression, I can still feel his physical body with my fingertips and I know he was real and that what he brought to the world was wonderful.”

” He was more beautiful outside. This was like the Jesus images I saw in the Bible. His face was shining and he was smiling. His eyes were so deep. I felt that he could sent me lights of love. I wished to stay like that forever. It was the most amazing experience in my whole life! It was like he was taking me to heaven with him and I was happy to follow him. ”

“There was Jesus standing there about one hundred feet tall, with his right arm extended. He was glowing, with long brown hair, copper skin, and a long white robe.”

“Next to me on my right side was a presence. They were similar to the ‘light beings’ I had seen when I was three years old. But this time, the presence turned into a likeness of Jesus. He stood next to me and looked in my eyes. Then he touched/rubbed my right cheek. I immediately was able to breath and was free of pain and fear.”

“Then, Jesus walked up to me. He was tall and so beautiful! His hair was dark and wavy, and very long down to his waist. His skin was dark and his eyes were a warm, liquid-brown. Jesus had a smile that melted my heart. He told me that He loved me, that He had walked beside me every day of my life. He told me that He had never left my side and never would leave my side, not ever.”

“”I saw a pinpoint of light in the distance. As I approached it, I noticed the figure of a man standing in it, with the light radiating all around him. As I got closer the light became brilliant – brilliant beyond any description, far more brilliant than the sun. I saw that the light immediately around him was golden, as if his whole body had a golden halo around it, and I could see that the golden halo burst out from around him and spread into a brilliant, magnificent whiteness that extended out for some distance. I felt his light blending into mine. And as our lights merged, I felt as if I had stepped into his countenance, and I felt an utter explosion of love. It was the most unconditional love I have ever felt, and as I saw his arms open to receive me I went to him and received his complete embrace. There was no questioning who he was. I knew that he was my Savior, and friend, and God. He was Jesus Christ, who had always loved me, even when I thought he hated me.”

There are many more accounts like this all over the internet, I counted about 160 accounts I could find. They just tend to be so deep. Many describe Jesus as having dark hair, while his pictures in the USA make him look almost blond, so the American paintings don’t usually mesh with the description of him.
These experiences like I said seem so deep, the people have personal conversations with Jesus, and they know its him, there are not any NDEs I can find from other faiths where people have such deep experiences with other deities. Do these accounts not mean anything to you???
Even Kreps who studies Muslim NDEs says other faith NDEs seem much more sketchy than the Christian ones, the Christian ones are so vast and detailed.

Answer by SmartLX:
Normally I try to take every question at face value, but it’s especially interesting to come back to this subject after you finally got down to your own motivations in your previous post. You’re still convinced by all this after we’ve covered all the probable reasons why, simply because that is how it strikes your brain – or did once, before you had even learned about the extent of this, and now you’re collecting this stuff to shore it up.

The more or less consistent depictions of Jesus in these quotes may be cherry-picked specifically in order to be consistent, firstly. Even if they are properly representative, though, the culturally accepted image of Jesus has been in place since the 6th century and it’s there in the subconscious of every Christian. What they expect to see is either what they conjure in their mind’s eye or what they gradually nudge the memory towards after the fact.

The emotional impact or “deep”-ness of these experiences is also cherry-picked just by the nature of the fact that they were documented. People who saw Jesus in a much less affecting context in a dream or other state of unconsciousness might not bother to tell people. But again, having got the idea that they saw Jesus triggers subsequent emotions that can be projected backwards into the experience. One’s wedding day is often remembered as uniformly blissful despite a large proportion of it actually being spent adjusting clothes and wrangling family members, because of its significance to one’s life.

Finally (for now, though I think comments will add to the counterpoints), if any of these stories are made up completely, of course Jesus is exactly as people expect him to look, and of course each is a profound spiritual experience. Even the stories that are based on an unexplained vision and embellished later will be shaped in one’s head unerringly towards the expected experience, not away.

So yes, the accounts do mean something to me. They are indicative of a great many social, psychological and memetic phenomena whether or not they are true. But they are very unlikely to mean that apparently the most common type of NDE is genuinely supernatural. You probably knew I’d say that at the end, but maybe just read it a couple of times to let yourself get past some of the emotion and see it through my eyes. It’s a good exercise, according to Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

NDEs: One Man’s Last Bastion of Belief

Question from Kamil:
Is it worth it to believe in religion if the only reason I have to believe is NDEs? I mean, I know you might say no one can tell me what to believe, and I can’t choose what to believe, but the thing is, the nearest NDE study coming out that is supposed to be really large isn’t coming out until probably 2021, which is a long time.

The ONLY thing that compels me, as obvious from my posts, to believe is the NDEs, I see many of hell, many of Jesus, and I fear rejecting fully, in case I do end up getting punished for it. However, if I knew for a 100% fact NDEs were not really the soul leaving the body, I would have absolutely no reason at all to believe, nothing else is compelling at all, or makes any sense. The religious texts don’t make sense, filled with inconsistencies, and contradictions. The idea of “something can’t come from nothing” is not compelling, because then where did God come from? If God can always exist, then why can’t a few particles or even the smallest amount of energy exist? Even if that were debunked, it still wouldn’t mean a God exists. The story of Jesus at surface level seems like a fabrication, or at least part of it.

I believe a man named Jesus existed, and walked on earth, and gave advice/help to people. However, I find it hard to believe that he performed real miracles (maybe he was a good magician), that he came from a virgin birth, or that he really rose from the dead. However, then I am somewhat afraid to question that out of fear. I also find religion somewhat annoying, so when I first started questioning things, I was a tad rebellious. I am afraid that this may partially be contributing to my view to “want” to dump religion, sadly. I know that is biased, and that is also why I am not sure fully where I stand. However, honestly, it is probably 70% the fact that I don’t believe most of it, 10% of me is somewhat stubborn and wants to forget religion, and 20% is just this fear of what if, and in that it is the NDEs that make me uneasy of dropping it.

Should I really wait until 2021 before I can (potentially depending on the results) sincerely call myself an atheist, or should I take everyone else’s word and say “NDEs are just in the brain” and reject it? I know I keep asking this, but it really does seem that NDEs prove Jesus over other deities, I know I live in a Christian part of the world, and maybe other NDEs haven’t been recorded, or people just don’t post them. People from other faiths just say NDEs are not real, but that’s not tackling the issue. If NDEs are hallucinations which are culturally based, then a Muslim should report seeing Muhammad, as their brain would pull from their knowledge of religion. However, getting beside the point, what should I do? Should I wait for 2021 or should I not?

Answer by SmartLX:
After all the arguments for the supernatural or divine nature of near death experiences presented by you, a few other determined repeat contributors and a host of one-offs, the case for this still appears to be very poor. Therefore I wouldn’t judge NDEs to be a worthy reason to believe in gods and an afterlife. That’s not really how it works though; you didn’t decide to believe in them for good reasons or otherwise, you were convinced by what you had read and all our exchanges have been attempts to rationalise this after the fact.

You reject major Christian doctrine and the divinity of Jesus on an intellectual level, and yet you fear to deny Jesus out loud. This nakedly baseless fear is part a seldom discussed but very common phenomenon which I’ve named faithdrawal. Faith is maintained far more by emotion than by intellect, so this is the element of it that dies hardest. Fortunately, without constant reinforcement it fades inexorably.

I may have confused your past writings with those of others, but regardless there are discussions here of all the components of your summary argument for Christian NDEs. You do not understand why Christian NDE claims are so common and other types are almost non-existent if the experiences aren’t really caused by Yahweh and Jesus, but this is your inner argument from ignorance and the core fallacy you ignore through cognitive dissonance. Explanations have been presented, such as the Muslim doctrine that NDEs of Muhammad don’t happen which keeps Muslims from reporting theirs, and the runaway success of the Christian NDE meme in our culture which invites mistaken claims and outright lies, so there is no argument from elimination to be made, but since the alternatives don’t resonate with you the completely undemonstrated supernatural explanation still seems likely to you.

Don’t wait until 2021, because nothing will change as a result of that study. If it supports NDEs as an almost uniquely Christian phenomenon, you will allow it to renew your latent faith and ignore other explanations. If it does not, you will focus on any unanswered questions, of which there will be many. Think through this now and get it over with.

Focus on this, if you will: if there is no God and no afterlife, there is no punishment waiting after death, and if you are confident that religion is wrong then you have nothing to fear. If you did not want or need NDEs to be genuine, if you thought about them through my eyes or those of another indifferent person you’ve discussed them with, how likely would they look? How much of all this is just you holding on for literally no good reason that anyone else can see?

Spoiler: the first time you really ponder this, whether now or later, you will get angry. Let it happen, go think about something else, and come back to it, multiple times if you must. Accept that there are things about your own way of thinking that you do not understand, and take it slow.

A Universe With A Mission?

Question from The Devil’s Advocate:
This question is going to be different. That is to say, I’m inclined to think that it should be interpreted and processed in a somewhat different manner than most of the emails you receive. It’s about what might be, rather than what is. In my experience, a significant minority, if not the majority, of atheists tend to take the position that there’s no point in exploring a possibility unless there’s evidence in support of that possibility. Most of the time, that makes a lot of sense. Are reptilian fairies from the seventh dimension kidnapping homeless people and prodding them with rectal probes? Well, if there’s no scientifically credible empirical evidence in support of the possibilities, why even pursue that possibility?

However, there are conceptual frameworks in which what might be can be almost as illuminating as what is. Science fiction literature is all about what MIGHT be, as opposed to what is or what will be. Exploring what MIGHT be (with the rigor and scientific literacy of someone like Issac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke) can be extremely illuminating.

I’m going to make this as brief as possible on the assumption that you’re smart enough to appreciate the full implications of the possibilities that I’m alluding to here.

Consider the power of technology. Consider the exponential rate at which that power has grown over the course of only a few generations. If we don’t kill ourselves off as a result of our animalistic instincts, consider the power that human technology will wield a thousand years from now. Imagine a civilization that has been fully technological, as we presently are, for a hundred thousand years. Or a million years. Can you grasp that intuitively? The scale at least? The mind-numbing scale?

Okay. Here’s the deal. It appears to me that there are no forces in the known universe even remotely as potentially powerful as technology (applied science). What are the most powerful natural forces we know of? A supernova? The mega black holes at the center of most galaxies? I don’t know if you’re a futurist or a science fiction fan, but if you are, you KNOW that a supernova or a mega black hole doesn’t even BEGIN to compare to the technological power that a civilization ten thousand years more technologically advanced than us could conceivably wield. So, here’s the paradigm that I hope to communicate…

Given the mind-numbing, breathtaking power of advanced technology… and by that I don’t mean Star Wars or Star Trek because mainstream science fiction only depicts technologies a hair’s breath more advanced than our own, for utterly pragmatic reasons. (If a mainstream science fiction film were to depict a technology ten thousand years more advanced than our own it, watching it would be like having an acid trip– nothing in it would be at all comprehensible– therefore there’s no financial motivation to produce such a film. The technologies in Star Wars and Star Trek are JUST BARELY more advanced than our own, by necessity.)

Given the mind-numbing, breathtaking power of advanced technology… and the fact that nothing that we currently know about anywhere in the multiverse can even begin to compare with that potential power— is it so outrageous to think that LIFE (which is the source of such technology) could possibly be an even bigger influence in the configuration of the cosmos as gravity? What if– and mind you, this isn’t random speculation– this is in the broader context of the mind-numbing potential power to which I am referring– what if LIFE (both biological and silicon-based) is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, forces defining the form that the multiverse takes?

That could very well include universes designed and created for a particular purpose (or something not completely unlike “purpose”) by intelligent entities. The particular (unexpected and rather surprising) delicately balanced configuration of natural laws in our own universe, which seems unexpectedly predisposed towards allowing for the evolution of life– could, in principle, be explained by such forces.

There is, to be sure, some speculation embedded in the above. But the mind-numbing potential power of technology, which seems to vastly exceed all other known forces in potential, isn’t speculation. That’s concrete, and unavoidable. Is there anything that we know of in the universe/multiverse at the moment that could conceivably compete with a technology 500, 000 years more advanced than our own? If not, wouldn’t that imply a possibility that entire universes might be purposefully and intentionally designed and created for a purpose?

Note, what I’m eluding to here is the empirical potential POWER of applied science, relative to the potential power of other, puny, natural forces like supernova explosions. That’s the empirical reality to which I’m referring. Not blind speculation– but that potential power, and how much greater it is than any other natural power we know of.

My Question: What do you think about the possibility, implied above, that we might live in a universe– or rather a multiverse– in which universes are created intentionally for a particular purpose or in a search for existential meaning? And, do you appreciate the EMPIRICAL reality of this paradigm? The EMPIRICAL foundational reality that inspires the speculation?

Answer by SmartLX:
Yes, there is a possibility that we are in a universe that was created for a purpose. Not really with you on the rest of this.

I’m a huge sci-fi fan, but the power of technology in science fiction is speculation by definition and very little about it is empirical. There are any number of potential roadblocks to the mind-boggling progress you describe. The seemingly most likely two are:
1. Some of the critical technologies common to futuristic stories, like faster-than-light travel, may simply be impossible to make practical according to the laws of physics.
2. Due to social and psychological factors, a civilisation may be incapable of maintaining a discipline of scientific advancement long enough (or even surviving long enough) to reach speculated levels. We may be fated to destroy ourselves with present-day technology, or to repeat a cycle of dark ages and renaissances.

Even if life and technology are as unthinkably powerful as sci-fi makes them look, just the possibility of creating a universe does not mean every universe is created. Life may have to evolve and develop technology at least once in a natural universe, and this may be it. Or there may only be one universe, or all universes exist concurrently, so that there was no “before” for a creator to exist in. Or the universe may not have begun to exist at all, if the Big Bang was merely a transitional event.

The more you imagine, just as sci-fi authors do, the more possible explanations you come up with, and the less likely any given scenario seems with the sole supporting argument that it seems plausible.

On Purpose, After the Fact (my bad)

Question from Yui:
Hello, this topic I searched but seem to find no direct answer.

What is the purpose/meaning of life for a person who the supreme law is reason? How can we rationally explain life as a human species? If we can, what is our objective purpose as a whole?

Answer by SmartLX:
I just covered purpose yesterday here, but you did write this two days ago. Do check the previous answer, but here I’ll apply my perspective to the specifics of your wording.

To someone who values reason and doesn’t think an intelligent supreme being handed out any laws governing human behaviour, a human being is a product of what has happened before rather than a means to any predetermined end. Without a prescribed purpose one is free to choose one’s own, and that can vary greatly depending on the person but many come out roughly the same based on our shared human desires and empathy for other humans. That about covers it. If you don’t like that a prime universal goal like “please your god” is not replaced with something similarly monolithic, consider that your preferences for the nature of reality do not affect reality itself beyond your own actions.