(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?

From my limited understanding, the evidence leads us into extremely esoteric theoretical areas that are currently beyond our ability to confirm experimentally, like the brane-world scenario. None of which has indicated that we are anywhere near finding or understanding the initial cause.

(September 4, 2013 at 11:19 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: (Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

As the poster above me pointed out, this appears to be a presupposing question in that it assumes that there is a "why" to find out. Unless we can determine that there could be a reason we are all here, I'm not sure it is a valid question to ask. Unfortunately, we tend to be heavily coddled with anthropocentric bias when seeking these types of answers, and every attempt to answer them that I have heard presupposes that human beings are the end to which the means of the universe have been striving towards.

(September 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote:

(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.

That's irrelevant to the reality of the situation isn't it?

As far as 'why is there something?'; until 'why wouldn't there be?' is overcome as the alternative hypothesis, it can't be shown to be a meaningful question.

(September 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: As far as 'why is there something?'; until 'why wouldn't there be?' is overcome as the alternative hypothesis, it can't be shown to be a meaningful question.

That's a rather different question from the OP's I think.

It appears that in Quantum Physics nothing (or nothingness more precisely) is unstable.

The best explanation I have seen is in the example of matter and anti-matter colliding. They totally eliminate each other and nothing remains.

The birth of the universe is that process in reverse.

As long as the net energy state of the universe is zero you don't need a first cause. Its another example of: "Shit happens" (which seems to be my phrase of the day today).

The question of "why this universe?" is harder other than the trite - why not?

What you've described is exactly a universe that exists because there is no reason why it shouldn't. The 'how' is complex, the 'why' not so much. Universes happen.

(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?)

As to "How did this all get here" We certainly have a large part of that question answered. We have good theories on the Big Bang, the formation of the Galaxy, the formation of the solar system, the evolution of life on earth. So the evidence does in fact answer an enormous part of that question.

If your complaint is that not every single facet of information is known, it never will be. But think of the amount of information we have learned in just the last 150 years. It's staggering. The rate that we are learning new stuff about the universe and it's origins, the origins of life and it's subsequent evolution is accelerating. The gaps that believers use God to fill are shrinking constantly. We aren't capable of knowing everything. That is not a good reason to believe in God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qML5yrVFxQ

What is it about our evolution as humans (I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution) that we can even ask the question "why."

Is there a difference between "why do the stars move that way" and "how do the stars move that way." Aren't scientists moved to investigate by asking why, not just how?

(By the way, my wife sometimes says to me when I ask her a question, "why do you ask?" And I answer, "in order to find out." So my questions are just those, questions. I have no other motive than to learn from other people's answers).

---

(September 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If your complaint is that not every single facet of information is known, it never will be. But think of the amount of information we have learned in just the last 150 years. It's staggering. The rate that we are learning new stuff about the universe and it's origins, the origins of life and it's subsequent evolution is accelerating. The gaps that believers use God to fill are shrinking constantly. We aren't capable of knowing everything. That is not a good reason to believe in God.

No complaint. Only questions.

(September 8, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: What is it about our evolution as humans (I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution) that we can even ask the question "why."

I think the answer offered by evolutionary psychologists seems apt. It essentially boils down to our evolutionary ingrained disposition towards associating agency behind things, which at times is a false positive, but has no negative impact with regards to reproduction. The usual analogy is that of a pre-human species who sees/hears the grass rustle. If they think it's a tiger in the grass and run away even though it was just the grass, they've had a false positive.

Quote:Is there a difference between "why do the stars move that way" and "how do the stars move that way." Aren't scientists moved to investigate by asking why, not just how?

There's a difference. Asking 'why' the stars move the way they do is fundamentally unanswerable, because there's no logically necessary reason why things behave the way they do at all (see David Hume's Adam and billiards analogy). That things behave as they do doesn't seem amenable to any necessity and can be infinitely be pushed back.

I don't think science (in a case like this) deals in 'whys'.

(September 8, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote: What is it about our evolution as humans (I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution) that we can even ask the question "why."

Is there a difference between "why do the stars move that way" and "how do the stars move that way." Aren't scientists moved to investigate by asking why, not just how?

No complaint. Only questions.

I think in certain cases, 'how?' answers also answer 'why?' questions. The stars move the way they do because of gravity.