In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes: = Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote: =   = : [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ] =   = : One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate  = : (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No = : reasonable alternative exists. =  = I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime;  = causes precede their effects.   And I must concede here.  Cause *before* effect, implies time, time is part of spacetime.  Hense, the argument would be valid.  I could return and say  that this does not infer the cause and effect relationship being *unique* to *this* spacetime, but I won't 8^), because the point is moot.  Doesn't address why (which Petri Pikho addresses below).    I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one that could  be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the scientist).  I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of the phenomena in question.  Am I mistaken with this understanding?  = But if you claim that there must be = an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from  = "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.  All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.  The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.   With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.  It could even be argued that one of these hypotheses may one day be proven (as best as a non-repeatable event can be "proven").  But I ask, what holds   someone *today* to the belief that any or all of them are correct, except by  faith?  [ a couple of paragraphs deleted.  Summary: we ask "Why does the universe exist" ]  = I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely =  = 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists? =  = and =  = 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing? =  = It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However, = is it a meaningful question, after all? = = I would say it isn't. Consider the following:  Apparently it *is* for many persons.  Hence, we *have* religions.  = The question "why anything exists" can be countered by = demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness, = or in non-existence".  Actually, both questions turn out to be = devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist = don't exist. Tautology at its best.  Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question".  The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition.  It  doesn't address why something does or does not exist, but asks to define  the lack of existence.  The second question is unanswerable indeed, for how do we identify something as "nothing" (aren't they mutually exclusive terms)?.  How do we identify a state of non-existence (again, this is nearing the limits of this simple layman's ability to comprehend, and I would appreciate an explanation).   I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable, as does the theist's belief in God.  It is based on the assumption that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately (un)supportable as the position of there being a reason.  Its very foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a reason.  We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason." If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are satisfied, and need not a doctor.  If the latter, your search is just beginning.    = I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.  Time will tell. 8^)  =  = Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is = Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this = answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is = actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and = them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.  Agreed.  It would lead me to question their definition of Christianity as well.  = Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence. = This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God = Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence, = it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always = existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.  This does not preclude His existence.  It only seeks to identify His *qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).  = The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable = of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not = accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.  Like the theist, we come to a statement of faith, for this position assumes  that the evidence at hand is conclusive.  Note, I am not arguing against  scientific endeavor, for science is useful for understanding the universe in which we exist. But I differ from the atheist in a matter of perspective.  I seek to understand what exists to understand and appreciate the art of the Creator.  I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why".   It appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see).  But because a tool is inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question.  Asserting that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.    = : As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't = : true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural). =  = This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how", = not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why" = questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the = supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is = as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.  My apologies.  I was using why as "why did this come to be".  Why did pre-existence become existence.  Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.  But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?".  Because it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the question invalid? = : I don't believe *any* = : technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite = : having all of the parts available. Just my opinion. =  = This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are = somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians = in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce = they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?  I suppose we would do the same thing as when Galileo or Capernicus was  *vindicated*  (before someone starts jumping up and down screaming "Inquisition!", note I said *vindicated*.  I certainly hope we've gotten beyond the "shooting the messenger" stage).  M. Pihko does present a good point though.  We may need to ask "What do I  as an individual Christian base my faith on?"  Will it be shaken by the production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and continues to say) in his Word?  "Why do I ask why?" (apologies to Budweiser and company 8^]).  Jason.