so the question is "why"

ollagram88 · Post by **ollagram88** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:20 pm

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.

byofrcs · Post by **byofrcs** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:07 am

ken1burton wrote:.....

Did they not find out that FIRST, There was Background radiation coming from everywhere in the sky? Which no one predicted before Ma Bell picked it up while testing a powerful listening device for a communication satellite.

Then searching this out to find out why the galaxies are not equally scattered, Then come up with an uneven Big Bang explosion. If that is really what causes the radiation?

First they find something, Then come up with an answer for it, They did not predict the background radiation, then prove it was there. Science seems to work quite well with HINDSIGHT. OH? There is a laser coming out of a Black Hole, Well this is WHY.

...........

Ken, you are being blatantly dishonest because if you know this much you know that the first US Telecoms satellite was Telstar in '62.

You also know that Andrew McKellar deducted the temperature of interstellar gas as 2.3 K in the mid-1940s or over 20 years before it was proven as a fact.

Get your facts right.

ken1burton · Post by **ken1burton** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:27 am

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:16 am

byofrcs · Post by **byofrcs** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:38 am

ken1burton wrote:....
Byofrcs.

It is nice to have someone tell me what I know. I might be able to use you as my memory fades.

Ken

Then I was wrong. You have avoided my raising the anisotropy of the CMB even though it is germane to the debate, not through you dishonestly misrepresenting the data but blatantly lying about what you knew.

Gee thanks.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:20 am

So let me see if I have this right. God exists, and has always been around, thus he exists outside of time. Many find this a completely plausible, acceptable explanation even though there is no proof. But to think that whatever 'caused' the big bang existed 'outside' of time is a wholly untenable position, regardless of all the proof that supports it?

At the risk of kicking a dead horse, science could be wrong about the big bang, but this does NOT prove the existence of God. If God is to be shown to have made the universe, then show your proof.

So let's just say all those who have proven the big bang are wrong, they lied, cheated and stole to prove it, and now we know better. How does this prove God? How does it prove God made the universe?

ken1burton · Post by **ken1burton** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:33 am

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:51 am

To ken1burton,

It seems I have misunderstood your position. So as to 'why the universe', I would ask you to explain.

byofrcs · Post by **byofrcs** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:49 am

ken1burton wrote:....

Did you ever consider not trying to figure out why people are saying things, and just try addressing the things said?

.....

I did. I said you had not told the truth in what you knew. I'm waiting for you to now follow your own counsel and address the things I said related to the anisotropy of the CBM. You made a claim. I found it was false and maliciously claimed, you now try to divert my conclusion and attempt to maintain this thread at all costs with equally bizarre claims.

Truthfully though I can see echoes of your style of the TimeCube in what you say. It is a tedious style with no attempt at debate.