Posted by Stephen Charchuk on January 09, 1997 at 11:09:58:
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.
: "Why is there life, as opposed to none?"
: "Why is there anything at all?"
: And the additional questions of:
: "If the universe is the answer, what is the question?", as Leon Lederman puts it.
: "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?
Why not? We are seeing the universe from this end of time. It could have easily been completely different. We only have an example of one right now, who knows, once we move out into the universe we may find out that things are not exactly as we perceive them.
The Universe doesn't exist for our benefit.
: 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.
Eventually it may do just that once we learn how RNA is encoded.
All creativity is is an effective neuro-net.