RE: The following is not a question: Can something come from nothing?
April 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm
(April 12, 2014 at 9:58 am)bennyboy Wrote:(April 12, 2014 at 7:16 am)whateverist Wrote: One of my pet peeves is using "why" where "how" will do.You're right, and I guess you caught on that my use of "why" was deliberate, not coincidental. My reason for the word change is this: I think "how" questions imply a brute-force end that is equivalent to "shut up and stop asking."
How do I exist? Well, son, there are birds and bees, DNA, proteins, evolution, primordial soup. . . and there you go. How did the primordial soup exist? Well, son, there was a Big Bang and stars, and star deaths, and clouds of gas. . . and there you go. How did the Big Bang happen? Well, son, there's no how, because the Big Bang arose out of a condition in which even time did not exist. . .
Why do I exist? Well, son, there are birds and bees, DNA, proteins, evolution, primordial soup, dead stars, the Big Bang, and in the end, we still have no idea why any of it exists. No matter what we learn, son, there will always be another why to ask, even if we might not be able to answer it.
No, I'm missing it. If you admit you don't know whether the reason we exist at all is adequately accounted for by a how-answer, why choose to ask the why-question? It seems to me that the how question allows for the possibility that it was the intent of a cosmic genie, etc. But the why-question seems, to me at least, to carry the assumption of intent. Does this reflect your intent, or do we just have a semantic difference concerning the baggage entailed by the how-why decision?
