Bill O'Reilly: God Causes Tides, Not Moon

[dgmort19]

Not to divert from the revelry of Bill-bashing, but if we were to take his point to its ultimate conclusion, we might find that it somewhat resembles Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" postulate. That is, "why is there anything at all?" Before the Big Bang, we have X, before that, we have Y, etc.  But at some point, we reach an inability to provide further explanation. This inability may ultimately be eradicated by science, or it may not.

But to jump to the conclusion that "God" did it, and that we know exactly who God is, what he wants, and what flavor of jellybean he prefers, is ludicrous.

Fact: The universe contains abundant mysteries yet.

From whence has the reality of material existence come? Why is there something, as opposed to nothing? Nobody has the answers to these questions (yet), if I'm not mistaken. But the pseudo-explanation of an androcentric God is not something that we need to complicate matters.

[Sophus]

Okay! Back to the Bill bashing!  

Did anyone see this sign



.....in this video?

[youtube:3o66yms2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuT9Wgv218s[/youtube:3o66yms2]

[Recusant]

Why is there something, as opposed to nothing?

I would say that the "why" question can be easily disposed of.  Why is there something?  Because if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask such a question.  That may seem a flippant or trivial answer, but really I don't think it is. No more than the "why" question is flippant or trivial, anyway. (See "weak anthropic principle.") I admit that I may be dismissive of this "why" question because it seems to me that if people want to take it beyond the weak anthropic principle it's only amenable to subjective answers. That's fine, but then people take their subjective answers and try to act as if they were objective. ("You can't explain that!"  The inference being; "I can: God did it!")

The answer to the question of "how is there something?" is beyond our current science. However I consider it a question that makes sense to ask, which is neither flippant nor trivial; the answer (if it's ever arrived at) would make an objective statement.

[dgmort19]

Interesting, but I do not find the question so easily dismissed.

Why is there something? Because if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask such a question.

While I accept the Weak Anthropic Principle's sound reasoning (indeed, were it not for our existence, we would be unable to remark on said existence), I do not find that it answers the question of why there exists anything at all. Using it in this way might be akin to answering the question,

"Why am I wearing clothes?"

with

"Because if you were not wearing clothes, you would not be in the proper state for asking the question."

Yes, of course I would not be asking the question, but this does not explain the reason that the clothes have been placed on my body. And while the question of how it happened may be solved, we may still be unable to understand why.

Science may discover the principles behind existence, but what old Bill might like to know is "why" these principles exist in the first place. Once again, on the note of my earlier post, one may find that the addition of God is an extraneous convolution.