Posted by Tyler Bradley on January 10, 1997 at 09:48:05:
In Reply to: Re: GOD...defined posted by Amanda on January 09, 1997 at 20:47:44:
: : "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...
I'm not asking about life on Earth, I am asking about life in the most general sense. Why is there life period?
===============================
: : "Why is there anything at all?"
: A mixture of chance, accident, luck, time - maybe some more things.
"Chance", "accident" and "luck" are terms that describe the possibilities of arriving at an endpoint. That necessarily requires a set of events/objects/concepts/whatever behind the outcome being described by chance occurrence. Those are the things that I'm wondering about.
===============================
: : 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.
Although music can be expressed in numbers, and has been done with Bach's Keyboard works for example, the numbers are reflecting what that artist had already composed. We just cannot add to the string of numbers that convert Mozart's Requiem and expect to come up with what the composer would have done had he finished it himself.
Also, define this term "reality" for me if you will.