In another thread FaithNoMore wrote "we have to go where the evidence leads us."

So, if we look at the evidence in nature, where does the evidence lead us? How does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?

(Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

I promise it wasn't all leading up to you.

It leads us to naturalistic answers. Metaphysics is a philosophical construct, and therefore, not a scientific concern.

(September 4, 2013 at 11:19 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: In another thread FaithNoMore wrote "we have to go where the evidence leads us."

So, if we look at the evidence in nature, where does the evidence lead us? How does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?

(Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

Obviously evidence can tell us how things got here, but the tone I got from your question was in implied 'why things are here' question, which unjustifiably draws in teleology.

(September 4, 2013 at 11:43 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 11:19 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: In another thread FaithNoMore wrote "we have to go where the evidence leads us."

So, if we look at the evidence in nature, where does the evidence lead us? How does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?

(Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

Obviously evidence can tell us how things got here, but the tone I got from your question was in implied 'why things are here' question, which unjustifiably draws in teleology.

No, there was no tone. I just thought of the metaphysical question after my first.

So the question is, what does the evidence tell us about how everything got here? Do we have enough evidence to answer that question?

---

(September 4, 2013 at 11:31 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: I promise it wasn't all leading up to you.

I like to think it was.

So much for the "sin" of pride.

(September 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: No, there was no tone. I just thought of the metaphysical question after my first.

So the question is, what does the evidence tell us about how everything got here? Do we have enough evidence to answer that question?

Yes. Now sure, in some respects it's limited and open to change. For example, most of the Big Bang theory is fairly solid with (possibly) the beginning of time being about 13.81 billion years ago, with the universe being a tenselessly existing 4-dimensional block of spacetime prior (if the word is even applicable here) under the B-theory of time. Likewise is fairly well understood is the development of stars, solar systems, planets and so on. You hit a speed bump at the origin of life question, though progress is being made on abiogenesis. After that, you've got evolution which has some issues in the more complex details, but that it happened and, to a large extent, how it happened, is very well understood.

Seems an okay overview. :p

(September 4, 2013 at 11:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So much for the "sin" of pride.

Or the pride of sin.

(September 4, 2013 at 11:19 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: In another thread FaithNoMore wrote "we have to go where the evidence leads us."

So, if we look at the evidence in nature, where does the evidence lead us? How does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?

(Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

I think it is safe to say we are making steady progress on the how question - in all its aspects. If we can nail down the how - from the initiation and formation of the universe to the evolution of us then the why might fall out at the end.

Of course this pre-supposes that there is a "Why?" in the sense that you mean it, or that the answer is one you find palatable as a Christian.

Generally speaking science doesn't ask the question why? It rarely gives a useful answer. How? In contrast, does.

Right now it appears to me that the best answer the question why is the deeply philosophical:

"Shit happens."

Even if we were to determine the minutiae of 'how everything got here', we wouldn't be at all closer to the 'why'. By way of analogy, I go to my local quite a bit. The 'how' is on foot, the 'why' is indeterminate.

As has been pointed out, 'why' is not even an evidentiary question. You specifically asked us to 'look at the evidence in nature'. Our knowledge of 'how' is growing by leaps and bounds, the 'why' is as elusive as ever.

Come to think on it, I'm not even convinced that 'why' is a valid question at all, either naturalistic or metaphysical. That things exist is a brute fact, thus 'how' is a valid question. 'Why' presupposes a reason for existence, and it is not immediately obvious that this presupposition is even valid.

If it comforts you, feel free to assign any answer you like to 'why' - The Universe exists to produce YOU; the Universe is here to permit you to ask why the Universe is here; the Universe is here because the Creator likes black currant jelly; anything at all.

But bear in mind that, because 'why' is a non-evidentiary question, any answer you come up with will be for the reason just stated - because it comforts you. It's the metaphysical equivalent of snuggling under the covers with your paddington bear.

Boru