First, I thank collectively all people who have given good answers to my questions. In my follow-up to Jason Smith's posting, I will address some issues that have caused misunderstanding:  Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:  > In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:  > 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?  Yes, to some degree. There was an excellent discussion in sci.skeptic on the nature of scientific work two weeks ago, I hope it did not escape your notice.   The correct word is 'likely'. There is no way to be sure our models and theories are absolutely correct. Theories are backed up by evidence, but not proved - no theory can be 'true' in a mathematical sense.  However, theories are not mere descriptions or rationalisations of phenomena. It is extremely important to test whether theories can _predict_ something new or not yet observed. All successful theories science has come up with have passed this test, including the Big Bang theory of cosmic evolution, the theory of natural selection etc. It does not mean they _must_ be correct, but they are not mere 'best fits' for the data.   > = 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''.  Well, yes, if you want to _believe_ in them. This is not what science requires - take a good look at the theory and the evidence, see if the theory has made any successful predictions, and use your reason. Disbelievers are not punished.   > The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.   > With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.  This is what puzzles me - why do we need to have faith in _anything_? My fellow atheists would call me a weak atheist - someone who is unable to believe, ie, fails to entertain any belief in God.   Yes, I know that one can't believe without God's help; Luther makes this quite clear in his letter to Erasmus. I'm afraid this does not change my situation.   > [ 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?  (deletions)  > = 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.   No, it is not, although it does look like one. This is a true dichotomy, either something exists, or nothing exists. If nothing exists, nobody would ask why. If something exists, it is possible to ask why, but actually no existing being could give an answer.   Imagine, for a moment, that the nobodies in non-existence could also ask: "Why nothing exists?" This is equivalent to my counter-question, "why nothing exists in nothingness".   Now, "why anything exists" is equivalent to "why something exists in somethingness".  _This_ is what I meant with my tautology, my apologies for the poor wording in my previous post.  > 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.  I do indeed think there probably _is_ no reason for being, or existence, in general, for reasons I stated above. However, they will still leave open the question "why this, and not that", and this is where theistic explanations come in.  Science cannot give reasons for any _particular_ human being's existence.  > We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."  This is a deep philosophical question - is determinism true, or not? Also, is God deterministic or not? I tend to think this question has no meaning in His case.   If I am for a reason, I've yet failed to see what it would be.  From our perspective, it looks like 'I' exist for truly random reasons. I just rolled two dice - why did I get 6 and 1? How can I believe there is any better reason for my existence?  > 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.    Yes, I am satisfied with this reason, until I find something better. My 15 years of Christianity were of no help in this respect, I have to admit, but I am patient.  > = 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).  No, it doesn't, but I think an existing God cannot know why He exists, for an answer to this question is not knowable. Of course, this should not be any obstacle to belief in His existence.  > 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.    It is impossible to know unknowable things. However, the question  "why do I exist, in particular" is _not_ an invalid question - this is not what I said. But from our perspective, it is impossible to tell, and I can't just believe in any given explanation instead of another, especially since I found I was deluding myself.   > 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.  I think "pre-existence" is an oxymoron. There is no time 'outside' of this spacetime (except in some other universe), and from that  perspective, our universe never was. It exists only for those who are inside it.   > 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?  No. The validity of the question has to be discussed separately; I think philosophy is of great help here. What can be known, and what is not knowable?  > 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?  This is a very good question. In trying to answer this, and numerous other questions that bothered me, I finally found nothing to base my faith on.   I think it would be honest if we all asked ourselves, "why do I believe" or "why I don't believe".   Petri