so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[muhammad rasullah]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

You see the problem is that science dosesn't even attempt to answer the question why because they know that this cannot be answered scientifically. As someone said earlier they only address the how and what? there can be many ways to explain the how and the what of existence but when one begins to really focus in on the question of why this is what makes the answers of the how and what make sense. when you ask why it seeks to examine the purpose and reasoning behind the how and the what questions. The why questions is when the individual begins to examine there life in its entirety not just in small increments of existence. When you ask an atheist or anyone who believes in the evolution theory why did this happen? Is there a reason for evolution is so then why? why does everything that exists have a purpose but the existence of man doesn't? And if we dont have a purpose then why are we here? If we accept the evolution theory and only this we exclude all ohter aspects of thinking from ourselves because philosophy often answers the why question. Rejecting to answer this question is like not using part of our brains and our intellect. This is what science has done it has rejected the idea of even thinking critically about our existence and using the full potential of our minds. Science is not the answer to all things because all things cannot be shown mathematically in some kind of table or something. When you start to ask and really acknowledge the why question you will really see how upsurd a theory like evolution really is.

[Thought Criminal]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

You see the problem is that science dosesn't even attempt to answer the question why because they know that this cannot be answered scientifically. As someone said earlier they only address the how and what? there can be many ways to explain the how and the what of existence but when one begins to really focus in on the question of why this is what makes the answers of the how and what make sense. when you ask why it seeks to examine the purpose and reasoning behind the how and the what questions. The why questions is when the individual begins to examine there life in its entirety not just in small increments of existence. When you ask an atheist or anyone who believes in the evolution theory why did this happen? Is there a reason for evolution is so then why? why does everything that exists have a purpose but the existence of man doesn't? And if we dont have a purpose then why are we here? If we accept the evolution theory and only this we exclude all ohter aspects of thinking from ourselves because philosophy often answers the why question. Rejecting to answer this question is like not using part of our brains and our intellect. This is what science has done it has rejected the idea of even thinking critically about our existence and using the full potential of our minds. Science is not the answer to all things because all things cannot be shown mathematically in some kind of table or something. When you start to ask and really acknowledge the why question you will really see how upsurd a theory like evolution really is.

When did you stop beating your wife?

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

You see the problem is that science dosesn't even attempt to answer the question why because they know that this cannot be answered scientifically. As someone said earlier they only address the how and what?

Very good! Philosophy answers the whys.

there can be many ways to explain the how and the what of existence but when one begins to really focus in on the question of why this is what makes the answers of the how and what make sense. when you ask why it seeks to examine the purpose and reasoning behind the how and the what question.

Careful now, you just spent all that time establishing philosophy as the guide for the whys.

The why questions is when the individual begins to examine there life in its entirety not just in small increments of existence. When you ask an atheist or anyone who believes in the evolution theory why did this happen?

Remember now, philosophy for the whys, science for the evolution.

Is there a reason for evolution is so then why? why does everything that exists have a purpose but the existence of man doesn't?

Philosophically why? Many reasons, we all find our own reasons.
Scientifically why? To procreate.

And if we dont have a purpose then why are we here?

At the risk of tedium, we all must find a philosophical reason to 'be here'. Some find it in helping others. Some find it in being mean and nasty. Some find it in religion.

If we accept the evolution theory and only this we exclude all ohter aspects of thinking from ourselves because philosophy often answers the why question.

Evolution - Science - Many subsets of science used to explain
Philosophy - The study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, blah, blah, blah

Do you not have access to dictionaries or encyclopedias?

Rejecting to answer this question is like not using part of our brains and our intellect. This is what science has done it has rejected the idea of even thinking critically about our existence and using the full potential of our minds.

Really dude, WIKIPEDIA IS YOUR FRIEND!!!

WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

I'm not sure exactly why you feel the need to confuse the two, but let me see if I can help...

Philosophy is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Mind is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Science is not the answer to all things because all things cannot be shown mathematically in some kind of table or something.

Now there's something we can agree on. However, refusing to accept science, or parts thereof because it conflicts with religious belief is just as bad as trying to get science to explain everything. I fear you are trying to discredit science, instead of laying out proofs for your religious beliefs.

When you start to ask and really acknowledge the why question you will really see how upsurd a theory like evolution really is.

Dangit! The philosophical why is answered by PHILOSOPHY
Evolution is answered by SCIENCE.

Your post shows either a dishonest attempt to merge two separate classes of knowledge in order to prove a religious viewpoint, or it shows you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever about which you are writing.

Just as science does not have all the answers, your religion has no lock on all the answers either.

[muhammad rasullah]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

You see the problem is that science dosesn't even attempt to answer the question why because they know that this cannot be answered scientifically. As someone said earlier they only address the how and what? there can be many ways to explain the how and the what of existence but when one begins to really focus in on the question of why this is what makes the answers of the how and what make sense. when you ask why it seeks to examine the purpose and reasoning behind the how and the what questions. The why questions is when the individual begins to examine there life in its entirety not just in small increments of existence. When you ask an atheist or anyone who believes in the evolution theory why did this happen? Is there a reason for evolution is so then why? why does everything that exists have a purpose but the existence of man doesn't? And if we dont have a purpose then why are we here? If we accept the evolution theory and only this we exclude all ohter aspects of thinking from ourselves because philosophy often answers the why question. Rejecting to answer this question is like not using part of our brains and our intellect. This is what science has done it has rejected the idea of even thinking critically about our existence and using the full potential of our minds. Science is not the answer to all things because all things cannot be shown mathematically in some kind of table or something. When you start to ask and really acknowledge the why question you will really see how upsurd a theory like evolution really is.

When did you stop beating your wife?

TC

I have never beat my wife. The quran does not tell us to beat our wives. If you have something intellectual to add then do so. Show me your talking monkey or how order comes from chaos this big explosion and knowone designed it perfectly the way it is and has been for centuries.

[Thought Criminal]

I have never beat my wife. The quran does not tell us to beat our wives. If you have something intellectual to add then do so. Show me your talking monkey or how order comes from chaos this big explosion and knowone designed it perfectly the way it is and has been for centuries.

I note that you were unable to answer my question. This is because, by asking you when you stopped beating your wife, I falsely implied that you started and then stopped. This is called a loaded question and it is a fallacy.

When you demand to know why the universe exists, you are doing the same thing as asking me when I stopped beating my spouse. In specific, you are asking a loaded question by assuming that there is a "why" that exists independently of our attempt to create meaning in our lives.

TC

[muhammad rasullah]

You see the problem is that science dosesn't even attempt to answer the question why because they know that this cannot be answered scientifically. As someone said earlier they only address the how and what?

Very good! Philosophy answers the whys.

there can be many ways to explain the how and the what of existence but when one begins to really focus in on the question of why this is what makes the answers of the how and what make sense. when you ask why it seeks to examine the purpose and reasoning behind the how and the what question.

Careful now, you just spent all that time establishing philosophy as the guide for the whys.

The why questions is when the individual begins to examine there life in its entirety not just in small increments of existence. When you ask an atheist or anyone who believes in the evolution theory why did this happen?

Remember now, philosophy for the whys, science for the evolution.

Is there a reason for evolution is so then why? why does everything that exists have a purpose but the existence of man doesn't?

Philosophically why? Many reasons, we all find our own reasons.
Scientifically why? To procreate.

And if we dont have a purpose then why are we here?

At the risk of tedium, we all must find a philosophical reason to 'be here'. Some find it in helping others. Some find it in being mean and nasty. Some find it in religion.

If we accept the evolution theory and only this we exclude all ohter aspects of thinking from ourselves because philosophy often answers the why question.

Evolution - Science - Many subsets of science used to explain
Philosophy - The study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, blah, blah, blah

Do you not have access to dictionaries or encyclopedias?

Rejecting to answer this question is like not using part of our brains and our intellect. This is what science has done it has rejected the idea of even thinking critically about our existence and using the full potential of our minds.

Really dude, WIKIPEDIA IS YOUR FRIEND!!!

WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

I'm not sure exactly why you feel the need to confuse the two, but let me see if I can help...

Philosophy is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Mind is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Science is not the answer to all things because all things cannot be shown mathematically in some kind of table or something.

Now there's something we can agree on. However, refusing to accept science, or parts thereof because it conflicts with religious belief is just as bad as trying to get science to explain everything. I fear you are trying to discredit science, instead of laying out proofs for your religious beliefs.

When you start to ask and really acknowledge the why question you will really see how upsurd a theory like evolution really is.

Dangit! The philosophical why is answered by PHILOSOPHY
Evolution is answered by SCIENCE.

Your post shows either a dishonest attempt to merge two separate classes of knowledge in order to prove a religious viewpoint, or it shows you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever about which you are writing.

Just as science does not have all the answers, your religion has no lock on all the answers either.

Logic deals with patterns of thinking that lead from true premises to true conclusions. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians such as Frege began a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.

Within any arguement logic exists if a person is not logical then there arguement cannot be valid from it's premises to its conclusions.
You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

[muhammad rasullah]

I have never beat my wife. The quran does not tell us to beat our wives. If you have something intellectual to add then do so. Show me your talking monkey or how order comes from chaos this big explosion and knowone designed it perfectly the way it is and has been for centuries.

I note that you were unable to answer my question. This is because, by asking you when you stopped beating your wife, I falsely implied that you started and then stopped. This is called a loaded question and it is a fallacy.

When you demand to know why the universe exists, you are doing the same thing as asking me when I stopped beating my spouse. In specific, you are asking a loaded question by assuming that there is a "why" that exists independently of our attempt to create meaning in our lives.

TC

I did answer your question when I said I never beat my wife. That means I never started beating my wife and I never stopped beating my wife because I NEVER BEAT HER!!!!! So i corrected your false assumption. We can create meaning in anything we do because it is us who are initially doing or attempting that thing. But when we have no initial involvement of the beginning of our existence then where does that why come from then. Or where does the purpose come from then and who gives it that purpose? When you look at everything in existence you can find the answer the to why questions about its purposes if we examine close enought. So why not with our own lives? Everything that man creates has a purpose and man is the most knowledgeable of creators on earth so why not examine ourselves the same way we examine other things that exists?

[Thought Criminal]

You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

If you'd done the research that was requested, you'd know that the closest non-marine relative of the whale is the hippo. The hippo is semi-aquatic, capable of pinching closed its nostrils and even sleeping underwater, automatically surfacing to breath every five minutes or so. Its skin is likewise adapted to water, being hairless and well-insulated, and it is very large. Despite this, it can walk on land and outrun a human. It is, in and of itself, a fine example of an intermediate species.

Now, we have a fairly complete fossil chain from the common ancestor of both the whale and the hippo, and we can see the steps along the way, including whales with legs. Modern whales show the vestiges of these legs if you look at their skeleton.

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false. But asking you when you've done the research is as much begging the question as asking when you stopped beating your wife.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

I did answer your question when I said I never beat my wife. That means I never started beating my wife and I never stopped beating my wife because I NEVER BEAT HER!!!!! So i corrected your false assumption. We can create meaning in anything we do because it is us who are initially doing or attempting that thing. But when we have no initial involvement of the beginning of our existence then where does that why come from then. Or where does the purpose come from then and who gives it that purpose? When you look at everything in existence you can find the answer the to why questions about its purposes if we examine close enought. So why not with our own lives? Everything that man creates has a purpose and man is the most knowledgeable of creators on earth so why not examine ourselves the same way we examine other things that exists?

The answer to "What is the purpose of the universe?" the answer is "There is no purpose. It's just the universe. Purpose is something that living things have, and the universe is not alive."

Now, if you're paying attention, you'll ask where living things got purpose from. The answer is that purpose evolved.

TC

[muhammad rasullah]

You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

If you'd done the research that was requested, you'd know that the closest non-marine relative of the whale is the hippo. The hippo is semi-aquatic, capable of pinching closed its nostrils and even sleeping underwater, automatically surfacing to breath every five minutes or so. Its skin is likewise adapted to water, being hairless and well-insulated, and it is very large. Despite this, it can walk on land and outrun a human. It is, in and of itself, a fine example of an intermediate species.

Now, we have a fairly complete fossil chain from the common ancestor of both the whale and the hippo, and we can see the steps along the way, including whales with legs. Modern whales show the vestiges of these legs if you look at their skeleton.

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false. But asking you when you've done the research is as much begging the question as asking when you stopped beating your wife.

TC

Look as I said you are side stepping the question here. What I am asking is not for the closest ancestor I didnt say anything about that in my line of questioning. What I asked was...
According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals.
1. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water?
2. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen?
3. How long would it take?
4. And where is the evidence for all of these changes?
Not the closest relative to the whale. Because if the closest relative to the whale is the hippo then you have a really big problem in accounting for the rest of the morphical changes that occured between the hippo and the whale!

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false

Well I didnt claim anything at all I simply asked a question which I am waiting still for the answer. Like I said I just want science to explain itself. So if you have the answers please tell me.