The Narnia Code

[JamesLast99]

I only saw a bit - but with all the God/Atheist threads here , I thought it may be of interest - particularly the guy that said science can only answer how - which seemed to make sense to me.ieHow does a kettle boil, it can answer, why it boils it doesn't concern itself with.Similarly how we came to be here - it attempts, why we are here it doesn't even concern itself with.So even if science did answer how (which it hasn't in any fullness, I dont think) we are still left with why. And thats the gap believe fills and science never can?I'm not sure how a believer or an atheist would see that idea.The show is on the bbc iplayer for those interested and are in or can pretend to be in the UK i beleive.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Well i'm Lost......

 

[JamesLast99]

I can't beleive noone else watched it - or has no opinion on the validity or otherwise of the statement that science can only answer how, not why. And so a scientific explanation of existence being impossible.Best to stick with unfounded fundamental opionion of believers/ non belivers slagging each other off.

 

[scott-atkinson]

I can't beleive noone else watched it - or has no opinion on the validity or otherwise of the statement that science can only answer how, not why. And so a scientific explanation of existence being impossible.Best to stick with unfounded fundamental opionion of believers/ non belivers slagging each other off.

I haven't watched the program but I do agree with your statement, Science will never be able to answer any question that needs the answer of Why? but will pretty much if not now but certainly one day be able to answer the question that begins How?

Looking back at Darwin for example and the subject of evolution, he pretty much answered most of the How's, and tried to allude to the Why's. But that really is the exception.

And in my opinion we will all have our own interpretation as to the Why's.

The only difference is as each opinion of Why? is disproved by the realistaion of How?, in the immortal words of Sherlock Holmes, when every theory except one has been elliminated what remains, however illogical or improbable must be the truth.

 

[JamesLast99]

Seems reasonable to me Scott!

 

[Alc]

even if science did answer how (which it hasn't in any fullness, I dont think) we are still left with why. And thats the gap believe fills and science never can? I'm not sure how a believer or an atheist would see that idea.

As an atheist, I think that's only a question that needs answering if you start from the assumption that there is a reason.

If you can accept the idea that most of the universe exists simply because it does, then there is no 'gap' to be filled. The 'gap' has only been created because some people can't accept that idea.

 

[JamesLast99]

Absolutely true! Theres two ifs though which are fundamental to your point of view.


(i never answered your last logical reasoning point in another thread ,frankly you lost me!)

 

[Alc]

Absolutely true! Theres two ifs though which are fundamental to your point of view.

And to yours.

(i never answered your last logical reasoning point in another thread ,frankly you lost me!)

There wasn't a point, beyond pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments coming from those on the forum taking the creationist perspective.

But nor did you answer at least one of the other questions, asked some time ago, so I didn't take it personally.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Are we right though, even to imagine that there must be a 'why' behind everything? - or that the 'why' isn't really just another 'how'?

For example: 'Why' do things fall when dropped? - science can tell us 'why' (actually, 'how'), or at least begin to explain it - acknowledging perhaps that there are gaps in the explanation, or that there are several different competing theories for some of the deeply underlying 'how/why' questions.

And maybe that's all there is. Maybe there is only 'how', and that 'why?' is either a meaningless, irrelevant question, or that it's answered: "well, why not?"

 

[Alc]

Are we right though, even to imagine that there must be a 'why' behind everything? - or that the 'why' isn't really just another 'how'?

If you're religious, you must ask why, or at least insist that there must be a reason, even if you don't want to know the answer.

To admit that there may be no reason at all for anything existing would be to admit that the omnipotent being that supposedly created everything did so for no reason at all. Not as an experiment, not as a form of art, not to see if he could, not even because he was bored. For no reason.

Since no being ever does anything without some reason (whether or not we know what it is at the time or could even understand it if we did), the idea that everything exists entirely without one greatly weakens, if not destroys, the idea of intelligent design.

 

[Rabbie]

If you're religious, you must ask why, or at least insist that there must be a reason, even if you don't want to know the answer.

To admit that there may be no reason at all for anything existing would be to admit that the omnipotent being that supposedly created everything did so for no reason at all. Not as an experiment, not as a form of art, not to see if he could, not even because he was bored. For no reason.

Since no being ever does anything without some reason (whether or not we know what it is at the time or could even understand it if we did), the idea that everything exists entirely without one greatly weakens, if not destroys, the idea of intelligent design.

A very strong argument against religion.

 

[Alc]

A very strong argument against religion.

But countered by:

There is a reason: but it is known by God and God alone, and it's not for us to question him.
Good answer, as it has absolutely no evidence to support it, but is impossible to disprove.
Akin to 'Every time I close my eyes a dog appears behind me, when I open them, he vanishes'.

There is a reason: to worship/praise him.
Another good one. He created us and everything else precisely so we'd say how cool he is. Suggests one hell of an ego, which could explain the temper tantrums mentioned in the old testament, I suppose.

What about people who don't worship him? Ah, that's the old 'free will' cop-out. He wants to be worshipped but wants you to choose to do so.

So this all-powerful being, who knows everything, past present and future, creates people specifically to say he's great. Some people don't do it. He knew they wouldn't, so why create them? Why get all tetchy and call down plagues, etc. It's all his fault for not designing them properly.

Or was it a mistake? Can't be. He's infallible. So he's getting annoyed with people for not doing something he designed them to not do, in spite of the fact that he knew before building them that they wouldn't do it. If that's the kind of workmanship that deserves worship there's a plumber in Croydon who deserves at least demi-god status.

 

[JamesLast99]

And to yours.

There wasn't a point, beyond pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments coming from those on the forum taking the creationist perspective.

But nor did you answer at least one of the other questions, asked some time ago, so I didn't take it personally.

I don't have all the answers ??? I am amused that you base you conclusions on the fact that I don't.What was the question I didn't answer some time ago - if its the same one you are refering to as I referred to - I lost you in the logic of an assumption which seemingly disproved everything?

 

[Rabbie]

Now you have successfully demolished god

 

[Alc]

I don't have all the answers ??? I am amused that you base you conclusions on the fact that I don't.What was the question I didn't answer some time ago - if its the same one you are refering to as I referred to - I lost you in the logic of an assumption which seemingly disproved everything?

It was a straight-forward question that you answered with a few 'If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you' type responses, then ignored.

To someone who doesn't believe in either, what is the difference between one fictional being and another? For example, God and a dragon.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

If you're religious, you must ask why, or at least insist that there must be a reason, even if you don't want to know the answer.

Hmmm... maybe not for all religions - Buddhism is pretty comfy with things that don't have answers, for example.

To admit that there may be no reason at all for anything existing would be to admit that the omnipotent being that supposedly created everything did so for no reason at all. Not as an experiment, not as a form of art, not to see if he could, not even because he was bored. For no reason.

Since no being ever does anything without some reason (whether or not we know what it is at the time or could even understand it if we did), the idea that everything exists entirely without one greatly weakens, if not destroys, the idea of intelligent design.

I think it could probably be argued that a supreme being could be capable of being perfectly arbitrary, when it wanted to, and somehow leaving values (or reasons) explicitly as null. Not sure. But I sometimes get twitchy when someone says what a group MUST have to do, when they're not a member of that group...

 

[JamesLast99]

If you're religious, you must ask why, or at least insist that there must be a reason, even if you don't want to know the answer.

To admit that there may be no reason at all for anything existing would be to admit that the omnipotent being that supposedly created everything did so for no reason at all. Not as an experiment, not as a form of art, not to see if he could, not even because he was bored. For no reason.

Since no being ever does anything without some reason (whether or not we know what it is at the time or could even understand it if we did), the idea that everything exists entirely without one greatly weakens, if not destroys, the idea of intelligent design.

Your staring to speak for those with religion now too? How do you do that?

 

[Alc]

I think it could probably be argued that a supreme being could be capable of being perfectly arbitrary, when it wanted to, and somehow leaving values (or reasons explicitly as null. Not sure. But I sometimes get twitchy when someone says what a group MUST have to do, when they're not a member of that group...

I was speaking soley as a being capable of intelligent thought. I count myself as a member of that group, as are creationists.
Everything done by everything capable of reasoning is done for a reason.

Either God created everything for a reason OR he didn't.
If he is infinitely intelligent and knows everything that will happen, it would be impossible for him to not know the outcome of his actions well in advance, so impossible for there not to be a reason behind them. Accordingly, he couldn't act in an arbitrary way if he wanted to.

 

[dan-cat]

Are we right though, even to imagine that there must be a 'why' behind everything? - or that the 'why' isn't really just another 'how'?

For example: 'Why' do things fall when dropped? - science can tell us 'why' (actually, 'how'), or at least begin to explain it - acknowledging perhaps that there are gaps in the explanation, or that there are several different competing theories for some of the deeply underlying 'how/why' questions.

The fact that mechanisms like gravity are not fully understood but still 'glue' our universe together practically forces us to question why.

There is order in the universe. There are mechanisms that exist that allow concepts (shape, color, rotation etc) to exist in a way that we can perceive.

Though we may never know the answer, the order that we see everyday attracts us to the question why. Doesn't order on a scale of such magnitude attract you to question why though it may be prove fruitless?

 

[JamesLast99]

The fact that mechanisms like gravity are not fully understood but still 'glue' our universe together practically forces us to question why.

There is order in the universe. There are mechanisms that exist that allow concepts (shape, color, rotation etc) to exist in a way that we can perceive.

Though we may never know the answer, the order that we see everyday attracts us to the question why. Doesn't order on a scale of such magnitude attract you to question why though it may be prove fruitless?

Over several thousand posts on or around this subject - thats the most eloquent one I have read. But hey what do I know.