"It is an either/or argument. Either there is a god, or gods, or not. If not, then there is no intelligent guidance behind the emergence of intelligent life on this little speck of dust we call Earth."
It is not an either or argument since there is not even a shred of evidence that there is some omnipotent entity running things. The entire notion violates the laws of thermodynamics.
"Sure, it's possible that natural selection led to human civilization all by itself. It's also possible that human beings are not the apex of evolution. It's quite possible that intelligence will become an evolutionary dead end."
Possible? It's nearly as close to a certainty as science ever gets. Whether or not human beings are the apex of evolution is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
"It's also possible that there is some purpose behind it all."
It's also possible that there are flying spaghetti monsters, but that doesn't mean that they actually do exist.
"Science can not prove that either or argument one way or another. Yes, evolution and natural selection shows how live came to be the way it is. it does nothing to show why."
Why does fire spontaneously erupt from a solution of sodium hypochlorite and calcium carbide?
"Or, is there no reason? Is there no meaning to life? Do we just live for a while, then die, then there is nothing? One day, humans will die out, and intelligent life will be over, nothing left but an uncaring universe? How do you know?"
Maybe that is how it is. If so, then mankind does not matter. My life and yours does not matter. One day, we will be gone, and no one will be left to care. Maybe I don't believe that because it is too hard to accept, but there is no scientific proof either way.
One day, the sun goes nova, the Earth is no more than a dust mote that has drifted into a campfire, and it's over. No one is left to know or care.
If intelligent life did not perceive the universe, would it still exist?"
None of that truly matters, and here is why. Something I read that Einstein said once struck me as being very profound, and difficult, and yet conceptually simple. He said:
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Although no one can acheive this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”
I get more meaning from trying to live up to that ideal than anything I've ever read before or since.
I'll finish up here with another Carl Sagan video:
[media=youtube]MnFMrNdj1yY[/media]
