Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC




Date/Time 28 Dec 2014 7:13:04pm
First off, the New Scientist point you make is bizarre. The point of the article to which you refer is that 'why is there something...' is a question that would remain if science continues its progress in explaining the birth of (our?)cosmos. The hard truth is that every one of the 'big' questions that leads up to this question has been, or is on the way to being, answered by science. As for 'why is there something rather than nothing?', first off, no-one knows. Not science and certainly not religion. Secondly it's very unclear as to whether the question makes any sense - if there wasn't something what would there be? Nothing according to the implicit logic of the question, but then you're stuck with saying 'nothing' would 'be'. Where would it 'be'? When would it 'be'? I can't see how the question works. Moving on, unfortunately for your argument the multiverse is a natural result of following the maths in theoretical physics to its necessary conclusion. Most unfortunately for your argument it is a natural result that is derived from at least five different cosmological models, none of which scientists expected would have a connection with the multiverse when they set out. As for the rest of your post, I make a point of not getting sucked into long, drawn-out arguments with creationists. Suffice to say there is nothing in your post that requires a rebuttal - most of your arguments have been answered by science long ago(all I've done is point out the the bald inaccuracies). As for the rest, If science hasn't answered them then religion certainly hasn't. WDTD(Who Designed The Designer) and all that.