Mainz, Germany

Dear Kish,

It strikes me that this question is perceived as difficult, because it is easily read in two ways: 1) What is the causal origin of humankind?; 2) What would humankind best set about doing? The first question is difficult but presumably open to scientific investigation.

Aristotle reflects, in the Ethics, on the oddity that each organ of the human body seems to have a purpose or function; and that it would be strange if the human being, in spite of that, were without purpose. So, he proposes a purpose (end or telos) for human beings. This is usually translated into English as "happiness," though the translation is somewhat misleading. This idea is usually taken as a position in ethical theory--often disputed. Still, for Aristotle, Mankind is the "rational animal," and the implication is that human sociality, another crucial element, needs to be organized rationally. Aristotle warns, however, not to expect more precision in our answers than is possible in the given subject matter.  

What is open to scientific consideration is the question of what purposes we might have or adopt on a sustainable basis. There is some considerable empirical evidence that the human race is often short-sighted and has a dangerous tendency toward self-destruction. We might view this as a consequence of the various purposes human beings have actually adopted and acted on. Possible or conceivable human purposes may be considered more or less viable or reasonable. Since, in fact, people do adopt purposes and ends-in-view in their lives, that opens up the plausibility of some comparative evaluation of the alternatives in relation to their longer-range sustainability.   

H.G. Callaway

My dear Zoltan

This is a big phelosofical question which has been asked ever since the ceation of this Universe where people are divided about it. Those who believe in God(Allah) are called believers and those who do not believe in Him are called disbelievers. If you are from the first category then Allah( the Creator) said : I did create people to worship me and to obey what I revealed to prophits and you should follow stictly what was revealed to them untill you meet Me on the Day of Judgement. On that Day every one of us will judged according to what he did during his past life and then he will be either punished by going to hell where he will be tortured indefinitely or be rewarded Heavens where he will live a happy life indefinitely. The present life is very short lived and then you got to decide which group you prefer to join.

A key issue is that any humans who try to second-guess a Godhood have obviously no understanding nor knowledge of the phenomenon of emergence - which mathematically utterly prevents any human from ever being able to even begin to second-guess Infinity. So some revert to what psychologists call 'projections', and we, unsurprisingly, wind up with a ridiculous, petty, utterly limited concept of the Infinite.

As a case in point - it seems that any Godhood who would actually create people for the sole purpose of their worshiping him would be incredibly small, self-centered, narcissistic, petty-minded, in sore need to 'get a life', and just plain ridiculous. If such were a human instead, the medical and psychiatric consensus would instantly be that such a person would stand in urgent need of psychiatric evaluation - so that does not seem like a satisfactory or tenable answer....

I am sure that any Godhood would be immensely bigger than that - Infinite. 

Mainz, Germany

Dear Kish,

It strikes me that this question is perceived as difficult, because it is easily read in two ways: 1) What is the causal origin of humankind?; 2) What would humankind best set about doing? The first question is difficult but presumably open to scientific investigation.

Aristotle reflects, in the Ethics, on the oddity that each organ of the human body seems to have a purpose or function; and that it would be strange if the human being, in spite of that, were without purpose. So, he proposes a purpose (end or telos) for human beings. This is usually translated into English as "happiness," though the translation is somewhat misleading. This idea is usually taken as a position in ethical theory--often disputed. Still, for Aristotle, Mankind is the "rational animal," and the implication is that human sociality, another crucial element, needs to be organized rationally. Aristotle warns, however, not to expect more precision in our answers than is possible in the given subject matter.  

What is open to scientific consideration is the question of what purposes we might have or adopt on a sustainable basis. There is some considerable empirical evidence that the human race is often short-sighted and has a dangerous tendency toward self-destruction. We might view this as a consequence of the various purposes human beings have actually adopted and acted on. Possible or conceivable human purposes may be considered more or less viable or reasonable. Since, in fact, people do adopt purposes and ends-in-view in their lives, that opens up the plausibility of some comparative evaluation of the alternatives in relation to their longer-range sustainability.   

H.G. Callaway

Kamal, I read your answer and I can say that some of your affirmations for Allah were explained five and six centuries before, also in the country of the prophet Mahoma, by Christian apostol (St. Paul) and people of God. It is a clear copy (and paste, we would say now) of the other monoteist religions (Jew and Christian). But curiously, the true message of these religions was transformed and changed in other aspects of the faith making it other modified religion. The salvation, the purgation and the condenation were explained by Jesus and the Catholic Church before other copies modified his/its message but were not fidel to the true original Christian message and tradition.

The Zoltan Kish question (I think) is answered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Dear Zoltan,

Any serious tentative to answer your question requires large theological knowledge. A major problem of nowadays is that the prestige of theology is so low, that the number (and, to tell the truth, also the quality/talent) of theologians is steeply decreasing. Science addresses inestimable amount of questions (of invaluable difficulty) to theology and this gave rise to a bias similar to that of 600 years ago, just in the opposite direction: in the 15th century there were nearly no scientists, but theologians, and now there are nearly no theologians but scientists, a situation not less dangerous than the one 600 years ago. The demand for theologians who follow the advancement of science is so strong, that, for example in Hungary, there is a 'Pal Feri Phenomenon' named after a priest (Pál Ferenc, www.palferi.hu) who does his best to follow science and gives lectures for a thousand people every week. There must be some good theologians also nowadays, but the most recent work I know that partially deals with your question is the book of Paul Tillich entitled 'The Courage to Be'. Tillich was professor of theology at Harvard University in the 50's who always had to face 'hyper rational' harvard students debating the existence of God. One of his students, Jared Diamond recalls in his book 'The World Until Yesterday' that Tillich dared them to provide a scientific answer for a question similar to yours: 'Why is there something, when there could have been nothing?'. I agree with those saying that Diamond overestimates the number of questions that can be answered with a scientific approach, and I therefore encourage everybody who is interested in such questions to read 'The Courage to Be'. However, I have to admit that I did not feel familiar with the theoretical background of the book with 'ontology, existencialism, misticism' and such heavy keywords. When reading it, I had a feeling of being in high moutains where I have never been before with a map that I nearly don't understand at all. It is not easy for us, children of a 'hyper rational century' to enjoy the landscape when you don't know where you are, but give it a try. Certainly, the air is fresh in high mountains.

I do not believe in the chance (azar in Spanish) for the existence of the man in the universe, I believe in the will and act of God as it is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Mariano

I agree with you that the true message of God was transformed and changed and modified as you said. That was why God kept sending prophets since Adam. I agree also that the real message from God was one and all these prophets kept on bringing the same copy and pase message as you said as it is coming from the same source.But unfortunately the spirit of Evil is imbedded in some human beings who dis-obeyed and distorted the One message from God that he is the Creator of the Universe and that he is Unique and  the Only One God with no Equal. By the way the last of the series of these prophets was Mohammed who came with the last Book(Quran) of God(Allah) which is merely  the true message revealed to prophets before him. If you are interested to read through it you will find a lot of mentioning to prophets like : Moses, Jesus, Ibraham, ...........more than 25 of them up to Adam.

Thank you, Kamal, for your explanation. For the Christians, Jesus was not only a prophet, he was Son of God, and his resurrection without corruption is a proof of this. He is the only man who lives now eternally after his resurrection. The (true or false) prophets did not resurrect. The word of Jesus said that all ones will resurrect the last day before the Judgement day before God father and the Son as intercessor of us. Ones (the just and good) will resurrect for the eternal life, others (the inicuous and bad) for judgement and eternal condemnation.

Allah is not God and God is not Allah. If they are the same, they would teach the same doctrine, but this is not true. Contradiction which comes of supposing they are the same thing. For the Christians, Adan was our first human father, but I believe he was not a prophet. There are much differences between the original revelations and the message of Mahoma. I think Allah is a recreation of Mahoma which does not surpass the rules and necessary conditions to be a prophet according to the tradition of Jews, Jesus and Christians.

Why was it necessary these changes in the revelation to create other religion? In this manner, the subsequent Mahoma message was not original, nor true according with the tradition of milleniums. And Mahoma did not conserve the tradition of Moses, Jesus, etc. in many precepts which come from God for the men. Abrahan was our father in the faith, he confided in God and knew that from his descendence would come Jesus and he was happy for this.

If one dissagrees with this post, I would grateful an explanation of why.

Thanks Mariano

But as you can see there are many bibles around and most of them are completely different from each other as if written by ordinary people. You can hardly find the original revelations you are talking about. I wish you could spare some time to read the translation of the Book revealed to Prophet Mohammed and then as a scientist to point out those differences between the message of Islam and the true Christianity and Judism. You will be astonished to find that Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses and you will find that they are mentioned more than ten times in the Quran( the Book of Islam) while prophet Mohammed was mentioned in name about 3 times in the whole Book of about 600 pages. By the way you will never find a different copy of Quran throughout history and throughout the world.

Kamal, the text of the Bible of the Catholic Church is unique (in big letters it has aproximately 2700 pages). You can read the text of your Catholic bishop or the text he advices also in your language by the bishops of your country. The correct interpretation of the Bible is reserved to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Certainly there are other texts, for example, of Christian protestants, etc. but the authentic apostolic fidelity is in the Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Jesus.

You say that Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses, but it is of word, not of acts. If you would believe in Jesus, you would be Catholic, because Jesus gave authority only to St. Peter and apostols and some disciples around him; and their successors, the Pope and bishops and some disciples.

You see Mariano now you are pointing out the differences between Catholics and Protestants although they all believe in Jesus. I told you we believe in the true message revealed to Jesus Christ which is contained in the message of Islam which is a total religion. By the way a Muslim does not need a priest, a bishop or even the Pope to ask God for forgiveness. You as an individual can directly pray to Him and ask whatever in your mind from Him.

Thank you, Kamal, for your answer.

A Catholic person can pray directly to God, as a protestant, a Jew or a Muslim, but resurrected Jesus only gave the power of forgiving the sins in his name to St. Peter and other of his apostols and certain disciples of him (priests now) who received the Holy Spirit 50 days after his resurrection, and they were present in the same ubi where he instituyed the Eucharistic sacrament 53 days before.

This forgiveness of sins via confession of the sins is a secure way to receive the forgiveness of our sins before a priest in the name of the Trinity (God father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). No protestant, Jew or Muslim can be forgiven of his/her sins for the sacrament of the confession if he/she is not Baptished previously in the Catholic Church which is the sensible sign of the union with the Catholic Church. There is an exception with protestant Baptisms when they are convalidated by the Catholic Church.

The true message of Jesus Christ was written in the four Gospels of St. Matthews, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John which are included in the Bible. Matthews and John were apostols and visual, contact and audio withnesses of the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Luke and Mark were disciples of the apostols.

Certainly God father can forgive sins without sacrament of the confession, but it is His decision, not of us. But the Catholic sacrament of confession is a secure via for the forgiveness of sins according to the words of resurrected Jesus.

The purpose of the humankind is to love to God over all the things and to our neighbourgs. The humankind exists in the universe for will of God. It is revealed that the universe will have an end. Many scientific theories are according with this. The true question would be, from my viewpoint, am I going to change me in the created universe by God? Am I conversing to these truths?

Our universe is beautiful because of the existence of human race .It is the human race which become model for their scientific discovery -invention ,flow of literature which offers human kind the message of their thinking & mind power - the beauty of nature under the fine arts join painting ,design, dance, & music & such other related areas of activities .

Human race is the regular flow of existence .There is no limit as human race has to be survived for their Noble & worthy course of action.  

It is the fact that our universe comes under a dark shadow due to the political disturbance ,Global environment & disturbance from the certain rough & rude of individual residing every where in the world .

Accept the above situation , the universe become beautiful worthy to live for human race.

This is my personal opinion 

Hi,

Your question contains different aspects. Lets take this part where you asked:

Are we going to change the universe?

We must consider:

1. As you said we are composed of matter, energy and consciousness; so does the universe, but in much much greater magnitude compared to the total mass of humanity. Therefore, we can not have any significant effect on universe, unless somehow Human race destroy the planet Earth, in which case, a chain event will  definitely impact the galaxy and universe.

2. Majority of Humans prefer to be peaceful, generate beauty and live in tranquility in the global Human society (as our friend Rohit mentioned). Unfortunately, very minor number of selfish, egoist individuals who want everything for themselves are in positions to influence movements and destiny of Human societies.

3. Here the key point is the third element you mentioned in your question, i.e. "consciousness" whose importance is far more than matter and energy combined. If we elucidate the exact nature of consciousness, awareness and wisdom, we then have made a very very significant impact on the whole movement of life far beyond the universe. Should we take  consciousness, awareness and wisdom on individual basis and look at them in each individual form of intelligent life, or do we need to take consciousness, awareness and wisdom as a whole?

INTERUNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS