Why God? - Light's view.

[The Magic Pudding]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.    

I consider the inability to not know a flaw, a big ugly leading to foolishness and worse flaw.

[Davin]

The scientist said "we're" (at least in the quote you provided), and being that many a scientist are working on it, no matter when the scientist made the statement, it's still true. The scientist did not make the claim that science could find the answer, only that they were working on it. So your statements still don't make sense in terms of arrogance or denial.

Why would anyone actually believe they can answer such a question with science?  Science is not concerned with such questions as why the universe exists.  So, people are either in denial of this , or it was just an expression of arrogance.

There is no reason to beleive one can answer the question, either answer it or keep trying to answer it, no need for belief. Repeating that it is arrogance (in spite of what arrogance means) or denial (in spite of what denial means), without actually addressing the problems I pointed out, is useless.

Is it arrogance to say that one might be able to figure something out, or is it arrogance to say that something cannot be figured out without even trying? I think you'll find that by all definitions of arrogance and denial, that your statements saying that it's impossible to know are far more arrogant and in denial than the quote you provided.

[Tank]

I remember hearing a scientist say once,  'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh.  You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science?  Either that's arrogance or denial.

If I actually posted what I thought whilst reading that I would have been banned outright. In fact I am finding it very hard not to break the civility rule recently.

[Light]

There is no reason to beleive one can answer the question, either answer it or keep trying to answer it, no need for belief. Repeating that it is arrogance (in spite of what arrogance means) or denial (in spite of what denial means), without actually addressing the problems I pointed out, is useless.

Is it arrogance to say that one might be able to figure something out, or is it arrogance to say that something cannot be figured out without even trying? I think you'll find that by all definitions of arrogance and denial, that your statements saying that it's impossible to know are far more arrogant and in denial than the quote you provided.

Ok.  How about, maybe not arrogance or denial,  but a misunderstanding of the limits of sciences applications?

[Light]

BTW it was Richard Dawkins who made the comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGZyhLgZ5f8   24:13

[Davin]

There is no reason to beleive one can answer the question, either answer it or keep trying to answer it, no need for belief. Repeating that it is arrogance (in spite of what arrogance means) or denial (in spite of what denial means), without actually addressing the problems I pointed out, is useless.

Is it arrogance to say that one might be able to figure something out, or is it arrogance to say that something cannot be figured out without even trying? I think you'll find that by all definitions of arrogance and denial, that your statements saying that it's impossible to know are far more arrogant and in denial than the quote you provided.

Ok.  How about, maybe not arrogance or denial,  but a misunderstanding of the limits of sciences applications?

At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.

[The Magic Pudding]

If I actually posted what I thought whilst reading that I would have been banned outright. In fact I am finding it very hard not to break the civility rule recently.

Ye, I pity you plain spoken folk.

[Light]

At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.

When trying to describe how things work, yes, I agree, that can be a useful application of science.  But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.

[The Magic Pudding]

But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.

I always had a problem with the the world is big where did it come from - god - so where did god come from?
A game of wordplay between philosophers? na it still doesn't satisfy.

[Light]

And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'.  Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it.  But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions.  Not something science will ever answer.

[Tank]

At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.

When trying to describe how things work, yes, I agree, that can be a useful application of science.  But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.

At the moment. But there is no reason to dismiss the possibility that rigorous observation (science) cannot answer the 'why' of some questions. In the past (and some primitive places even today) people  explain illness as possession by spirits. We now know this is not the case. But at the time that this 'belief' was firmly held to be true, the people who believed it would have said the 'why' was beyond their understanding and would be forever. They were wrong.

Scientific investigation has proved itself capable of answering 'why' questions in the past by simply observing, hypothesising, testing and refinement. There is no reason to exclude scientific investigation from 'why' questions, unless one is personally worried what might be found. If one believes in God science is simply the investigation of His creation and can therefore not damage our understanding of Him only enhance it. This view was the foundation of the early triumphs of scientists that were Muslims. Their particular world view held that to discover how the world worked was a good thing. If something they found contradicted doctrine, the doctrine was wrong because the doctrine was a human creation and thus subject to potential error. However in the Christian world doctrine was held to be infallible, hence the persecution of the likes of Galileo.

[Davin]

At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.

When trying to describe how things work, yes, I agree, that can be a useful application of science.  But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.

Then it all depends on how the person you quoted meant with the "why" word doesn't it? To just suppose the person meant it the way that you have decided it meant just because of this one problem you have falls into a Straw Man fallacy. When someone asks, "why did that apple fall to the ground?" they're most likely not looking for a philosophical answer. At least not in all the conversations I've had with people, most of the time when people ask such a question, they're asking because they want to know the answer or they know (or at least think they know) the answer.

[Davin]

And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'.  Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it.  But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions.  Not something science will ever answer.

I agree that with the normal uses of "how" and "why" in this context that it doesn't matter much, but I don't agree with you that science will never find an answer to the question. How do you know that science will never find the answer?

[The Magic Pudding]

But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions.  Not something science will ever answer.

Maybe not.

[Tank]

And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'.  Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it.  But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions.  Not something science will ever answer.

So now you are claiming infallibility, premonition and/or omniscience? The only thing one can claim about the ability of institutionalised curiosity (science) is that at the moment it has no solid theory of what preceded the 'Big Bang'. That's it, end of story, one can't presume to know what one don't know through evidence.