Posted by Amanda on January 09, 1997 at 20:47:44:
In Reply to: Re: GOD...defined posted by Tyler Bradley on January 09, 1997 at 10:35:10:
: Well, generally agreed. But I would challenge you to either explain or outline a path to same to address the questions that I'd posed.
Uh, well, I don't think I have the answers Tyler - did I once say I that I did? If so - you're welcome to call me a liar.
: "Why is there life, as opposed to none?"
I'm not sure if this is an answer but there are a few hypotheses out there as to why life originated on this planet. There is the 'primordial soup' idea and also the thought that a meteorite may have been successful in landing with organic substances in tact.
Then we could pick out the necessary ingredients needed for life to arise - sunlight etc...
: "Why is there anything at all?"
A mixture of chance, accident, luck, time - maybe some more things.
: And the additional questions of:
: "If the universe is the answer, what is the question?", as Leon Lederman puts it.
I've never heard anyone saying the universe is the answer so I have nothing to say here.
: "Why are there only two charges in the universe (+ and -), as opposed to one or three?" For that matter, just what is a charge in an operational sense?
: "Why the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the sciences?"
: "Why is life, as we define the concept, inherently biological?" Why not mechanical, or even non-corporeal?
John Casti brings up a few of these questions in his book "Paradigm Lost" - obviously there are still some big questions left to answer and perhaps some aren't even answerable.
: I do agree that history has demonstrated repeatedly that what one day is considered to be unexplainable, magical or unthinkable is thinned as time goes by. And I do think that science is far reaching, but is not the endpoint of all knowledge. Science will never be able to predict emotional, interpersonal, and creative thought. Science will not explain how Beethoven would have finished his 9th Symphony, or Mozart his Requiem. It just will not ultimately explain all, as Richard Dawkins would have it. I am skeptical.
I have never believed that science and science alone will explain everything - but I do believe that the scientific outlook (which is used by most a lot of skeptics) could be adopted into several areas. Even Bethoven! Just about every field imaginable and all else that is here in reality can in some way contribute to a better understanding of the Cosmos that we're a part of - and a better understanding of ourselves. My money is on using the scientific method to do this.