Franek

I am also a physics undergrad I study in Austria. But I'm considering changing to IT. It appears to be more applicable in everyday life:)

@GeorgeLawson Dear George, I would even say the Objective Morality Argument and the Perfect Design Theory are two sides of one coin. As I understand it, the Perfect Design Theory states the universe abides by predefined laws which enable us to exist, and would they be just slightly off, the universe would not have evolved intelligent life. Humans have no power over these laws and we are just at their mercy. In other way, we are completely dependent on whatever has made those laws the way they are. Similarly, the objective morality argument means, there is a certain way of living that works better than others. Again, even if we wanted to, we cannot decide our morality, simply because there other types do not work. And it is in a way like a law of the universe- you can't do anything about that. I agree with you on this. It appears we have now understood that morality could have evolved, simply, by a kind of natural selection. But the question arises is: why should we survive? what's the point? I see three main ways one could answer that question: 1. The purpose is in our goal. If we decide to evolve ourselves further, understand the universe better, expand our species throughout the universe, to progress, that will be the reason we want to survive. Like you mentioned, the question is: how do you measure progress? And I believe that is exactly the core of the problem. People measure it in different ways, they have different values which results in different moralities. 2. The universe has no purpose. Just because we can ask "what is the purpose of the universe" doesn't mean it has to have one. The question "why?" might be a feature of the human language used to understand humans (humans generally do things for a purpose. Generally ). But it might not make sense to ask that question of the universe. 3. The purpose of the universe is and will be beyond our understanding. It might be within the reach of the supernatural being we were talking about, but just like there is a cosmic speed limit (speed of light) there might be a understanding limit. Nevertheless, I still think it is worth trying to get as close to that limit as possible . ANYWAY, going back to the original question: Who created the universe? I have no idea who, or if there needs to be such a being. But I am sure thinking about is fun. @GeorgeLawson I wanted to ask you: What do you believe is the purpose of living? Do you believe there is something like this?

Yea, I definitely agree with George. I believe it is generally good to stay open-minded and saying "i know FOR SURE God does not exist" is also a mistake. It is also a mistake to say you know FOR SURE what kind of of God there is, like it is done in monotheistic religions. If there really is some kind of conscious, super-intelligent being operating in the universe, then just the assumption that we CAN understand him/her/it is questionable. I would like to ask you though, George, about two of your arguments. First of all: 1. The experiential argument: although the fact that a large number of people claim to have an experience with god, does not mean "god" as they describe him actually exists. But I think it is safe to say, it does indicate that they are feeling SOMETHING, and that there exists something, but that thing is not necessarily a supernatural deity. Take for example listening to music. Imagine you walk into a hotel and you hear a band playing. If you do not know that recordings exist, you will conclude: "There is actually a real band playing somewhere in the hotel". But if you inquire further, it will actually turn out it was just a recording from some speakers. Therefore, just because something FEELS like a supernatural deity doesn't mean it literally IS a deity. 2. Objective morality: I would say morality is prone to something like natural selection eg. the kind of morality that is not unselfish simply does not survive long enough, because it is unstable. People who can cooperate actually survive better and that's why we have the morality that we have. But I would say morality is to some extent created by us. You can compare to a art: There is a lot of paintings which are beautiful, but they are all different. The might have some things in common, but not one is the same. Similarly morality can have many flavours: the catholic, atheist, buddhist, capitalist etc. The law in many well functioning countries is different. Yet they all functions well. If morality was purely objective, I believe it would be more like mathematics: there would only be ONE correct answer. But that does not appear to be the case. I am open for criticism please comment if you want to, I am interested what other people think about this