Higher meaning of mankind in a dying universe?

In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people angry and was generally regarded as a bad move.. - Douglas AdamsHello, I am John, a young filmstudent from Ludwigshafen, germany and I am an evolutionist.I have a few questions for creationists and evolutionists alike.
Modern facts about the future of our earth and of the universe show the following:In roughly 600 years the earth will be to full.
In roughly 4 billion years the sun will have died. It will be too hot for life on earth long before this.Should we manage to leave our solar system and survive the death of our sun then we will have to face the future of the universe, for which there are momentarily two theories:1.at some point gravitation will win the battle against epitropy. This will eventually cause the expansion to stop and after a while turn into a contraction. Galaxies and matter as such will start moving closer together again, gaining speed as they do so. The outcome of this would be that matter is pulled together again to a size smaller than an atom. Possibly that would be the end or this might cause a new "big bang" and things might start all over again. This would then be an oscilliating universe, a universe that constantly runs through a cycle of expansion and contraction. The problem with this theory is that there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe to stop epitropy. It has been weighed quite a few times and including dark matter and dark energy there still is not enough mass to stop epitropy.
This leads us to theory 2:The epitropy wins the battle over gravitation and the universe simply continues to expand infinitely. Galaxies will drift further and further away from each other, matter will be pulled further and further apart until there is not enough matter in one point to create new suns anymore. The universe grows cold and all that is left is single neutrons drifting through space lightyears apart from each other. In either of these cases mankind or any lifeform can not exist or survive. Which in the end means that everything mankind can achieve is futile as it will have no meaning at all in the end.Now here is my question:If mankind was indeed created as the masterpiece of special creation and everything around us was created to serve humans then why is it that mankind should meet such a future? (either being squashed to death by gravitational forces or having to face death in the vastness of a cold, dead space)What meaning does the existance of mankind have if it is simply going to die out sooner or later?Is it possible that humans and life in general are just molecular "accidents", results of random movement of matter with no higher meaning whatsoever?I would like this to be a thread for creationists and evolutionists to openly discuss these longterm visions for the future of our species.This message has been edited by John Ferguson, 02-24-2006 05:53 PMThis message has been edited by John Ferguson, 02-24-2006 05:53 PM

Sounds like something to schedule for consideration maana.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If mankind was indeed created as the masterpiece of special creation and everything around us was created to serve humans then why is it that mankind should meet such a future? (either being squashed to death by gravitational forces or having to face death in the vastness of a cold, dead space)

---

My opinion in this matter is that it is extremely arrogant for man to be so certain in such an ultimate fate for the universe, considering how much we don't know. Yes, I understand that everything we know about the physical world gives us these two ends. But we were arrogant to believe that everything on earth must move in a straight line while everything in the heavens must move in circles and we are still arrogant.

quote:

---

What meaning does the existance of mankind have if it is simply going to die out sooner or later?

---

God knows what the meaning is, literally.

quote:

---

Is it possible that humans and life in general are just molecular "accidents", results of random movement of matter with no higher meaning whatsoever?

---

Good luck getting someone from the creation side to admit the possibility.

Well I believed something of the sort for most of my life. Ever since Darwin, it's been the default position as it were. Once you know God, however, everything changes. Now one has certainty and wishes everybody else did too. That being the case, of course there is no longer any possibility of even considering that randomness molecularity idea.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2006 01:13 AM

Faith

quote:

---

Ever since Darwin, it's been the default position as it were.

---

I beg to differ. The default position has always been and probably will always be the creation side. Just about every person I know or know of who sides with evolution believed in one creation story or other at one time in the past.

quote:

---

Well I believed something of the sort for most of my life.

---

Yes, Faith, I have no doubt that you had faith in chances back then just as you are having faith in creation nowadays. As far as I can see, your transition was no different than someone converting from catholicism to mormonism.This message has been edited by blueredwhite, 02-27-2006 01:53 AM

Now I beg to differ. I know and have known lots of people who never believed in any creation story and still don`t. They have been complete atheists as long as I have known them (which is since kindergarten, in fact) Well, I don't know if arrogant is the right word here. I would rather call it ignorant. Arrogant I would call the fact, that we believe to be the masterpiece of creation or the ultimate final result of evolution. Except for us claiming this there is no evidence that this indeed the case. But thats off-topic.I just think, that as long as these two possibilities seem to be the most probable at the moment, we should consider what this means to us. How can there be any higher meaning to our existence if in the end we are going to die out together with our universe anyway? The only hope science gives us at the moment would be the possibility to flee into another universe. But we are not even sure paralell universes really exist.

Why should mankind meet such a future? I think it might be because

quote:

---

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord...
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come

---

I think the entire point of Christianity would be moot if there wasn't an ending. I doubt Christians believe that the universe will ever get to heat death, God will call all in to judgement long before then. Either
a) Whatever meaning it makes for itself
b) The Glory of God, everlasting life in the Kingdom of Heaven, Amen. a) Yes
b) Yes it is possible, but it is not so.

it wont lead us anywhere if we start discussing the existence or non-existence of god now, as you can`t prove to me that he exists and there will be a judgement day, nor can I prove the opposite to you. But, assuming there is no god or there is one but it is not the christian god and mankind will survive long enough to actually have to face the cold death of space (or heat death, doesn't matter really, they are probably both pretty unpleasant), which possibilities do we have to avoid our extinction? Thoughts, anyone?

---

"I refuse to give proof",said god. "Because proof evades faith and without faith I am nothing." - "But the babelfish is a dead giveaway!",says the scientist. "Something so mindbogglinly practical could never have evolved by itself.It is a perfect proof that you exist ans so you don't" - "I hadn't thought of that.",says god and vanishes in a puff of logic.

Indeed. I wasn't discussing either, so I don't expect you to. Quite. Let me remind you of the question you asked: Translated: If we were created by God why is that mankind should meat such a future.I answered your question, as you worded it. I am not asking you to prove that we were created as the masterpiece, I am merely answering the question giving your hypothetical scenario vis special creation. Move universe.

blueredwhite (who really should be called rgb [redgreenblue] which can be fixed by adding an alias in his profile) responded this way to the following quotation

quote:

---

If mankind was indeed created as the masterpiece of special creation and everything around us was created to serve humans then why is it that mankind should meet such a future? (either being squashed to death by gravitational forces or having to face death in the vastness of a cold, dead space)

---

Actually Science does't claim either of those two ends to be foreordained. What science says is that there are three posibilities, that things will expand forever, they will collapse or that they will stay pretty much the same. Then science looks at the evidence available and says that right now, the evidence available seems to point towrds expansion.Science is not arrogant. In fact, it is based on doubt, not surety.If you want to see an arrogant statement in the quotation it is "...mankind was indeed created as the masterpiece of special creation and everything around us was created to serve humans..."Now that is arrogant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello, John...I am Phat from Denver...and I am what some of my colleagues label as a "quasi-creationist! Which means that I believ that God created everything initially and is involved in some measure constantly--yet I do not rule out biological evolution as one of the ways He operates. That long? Unfortunately, the nasty evolutionary habit of war will take care of any excessive "fullness", I believe. If that is what will happen, than I take a fatalist approach....one cannot change the behavior of the Sun. 4 billion years is a long time to worry about it, however! What about doing the best we can on a daily basis? Do you honestly believe these literalist interpretations of Mans place in the universe? If so, consider that Mans main goal is communion with God and each other. If we do the best we can at those two things, we all may one day die together (if the sun dies) and it will be mean't to be! We can die happy! Lets take this as an individual question: What is the meaning of MY existance if I am one day going to die? My answer is to love God, do the best I can each day in relating to Him and to others, and leave the BIGGER question of death alone. Technically it is possible. If so, however, what can and/or should be done about it?

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Jar

quote:

---

blueredwhite (who really should be called rgb [redgreenblue]

---

Are you referring to the order of the visible light spectrum?

quote:

---

which can be fixed by adding an alias in his profile)

---

Actually, it does sound better somehow. Thanks.This message has been edited by blueredwhite, 02-27-2006 11:38 AM

Sounds like a tempting idea. Do you know of any actual theories on how this could work? Do we have any good evidence that there are parallel universes? This would really interest me.

---

"I refuse to give proof",said god. "Because proof evades faith and without faith I am nothing." - "But the babelfish is a dead giveaway!",says the scientist. "Something so mindbogglinly practical could never have evolved by itself.It is a perfect proof that you exist ans so you don't" - "I hadn't thought of that.",says god and vanishes in a puff of logic.

I was referring to this part where he uses arrogance regarding things we believed about science. I only thought ignorant might be more appropriate here. I fully agree. That is why I put an "if" in front of that.

---

"I refuse to give proof",said god. "Because proof evades faith and without faith I am nothing." - "But the babelfish is a dead giveaway!",says the scientist. "Something so mindbogglinly practical could never have evolved by itself.It is a perfect proof that you exist ans so you don't" - "I hadn't thought of that.",says god and vanishes in a puff of logic.

If we manage to pull ourselves together and stop fighting each other by then we mustn't necessarily die with our sun. I think we might very well be able to leave the earth and even our solar system and move to another planet somewhere else (maybe beetlegeuze?). We need to do more research in the direction of terraforming and similiar technologies. No, it was just a hypothetical question. I believe we are no more important or more of a masterpiece than any other part of nature and it would be very nice if we could save a lot of this diversity on our planet and take it with us, when (and if) we make the big move.I guess you are right, we should simply lead a worthwhile life that we feel is good and even if we only are molecular accidents with no higher meaning initially we can give ourselves this higher meaning by what we do.

---

"I refuse to give proof",said god. "Because proof evades faith and without faith I am nothing." - "But the babelfish is a dead giveaway!",says the scientist. "Something so mindbogglinly practical could never have evolved by itself.It is a perfect proof that you exist ans so you don't" - "I hadn't thought of that.",says god and vanishes in a puff of logic.