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:




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. 



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. 


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. 




(deletions)



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 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.


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?


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.



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.


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. 


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. 


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?


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
