Not so much 'why are we here' rather what is the point of the universe? If there was nothing then why would something come into being?
just finished the 2nd programme John but found it far more difficult to consume than the first and parts of it seemed (dare I say it) a little far fetched and lacking in thread and binding logic to this wet behind the ears yet over the hill 'scholar'. Will probably make more sense after a second viewing - wish i'd had Mr Al-Khalili as a teacher when younger as you can't help but get swept along by his passion for his subject(s).
You are thinking of the Universe from the standpoint of a human being. Human beings want to see reason, they want to see order so they look for a purpose to the Universe. Instead, try and think of the Universe from the standpoint of a housecat. See all those people running around looking after you? Seeing to your comfort ... there, feel better now?
Yes, this whole idea of "there has to be a reason" - I don't really get it. Why should there be a reason? This joins nirvana and some hallucinogenic drug experience: there is no reason. Things just are, maaan.
I think you may be missing my point. It s not seeking a purpose, rather what tipped the universe into being from nothing? Humans seeking reason look to religion to reassure them that they mean something and are not just a momentary arrangement of atoms that will soon dissipate leaving nothing
Very good Andy i'm sure you sussed how he did it and there's even evidence on the vid :- I think it's possible he kept the filming quality low to help disguise a possible slip of the hand (literally) but toward the end of 0.03 seconds you can just make out the fake knife stuck to the back of his right hand - it isn't the knife that he is about to place on the rotating plinth as this has been transferred to his left hand by now.
"Why", is a pointless question when talking about inanimate objects. Why does the sun shine ?, for instance. What mechanism causes sunlight to be generated is a valid question.
I see your point but asking the question "what tipped the universe into being from nothing?" seems to indicate that you believe that before the universe, there was nothing. As far as I am aware, no one has put a convincing case in support of any assumptions about what existed "before". There's speculation but there is no mathematics that covers "what came before the current universe". Most serious physicists I've read (a few years ago now, admittedly) duck or dodge questions about "before" on the basis that the conditions of "before" are unknowable at this time, and possibly forever. Serious science, physics, concerns itself with this universe here and now, from the big bang onwards. No one cannot answer your central question scientifically ... philosophers might have a go, though. Do we have any of those here? And as you seem to be hinting, if you want feel that you have "a purpose" in life, sure, why not religion? Or humanism. or hedonism. Or Ducatism. Or whatever bloats your foot.
Why are the rules of the universe, rules? Some religions would argue that if there was nothing before, then something, then the reason for this happening could be called a God.
Possibly, even with the arrogance of humans, there are somethings we are not meant ,or be able, to understand. In a non religious way
Another misuse of language, "argue" argument noun (REASON) A reason or reasons why you support or oppose an idea or suggestion, or the process of explaining these reasons: An argument is not what religion does as it does not put forward anything to support the idea. Unless of course you regard " i dont believe such and such explanation so god did it" as an example of an argument.
Science doesn't need to as it's so ridiculous to pretend or preach he does it's just plain daft. Now stop being silly on this sensible thread and stick to the more sensible discussion point
At last someone who gets it. You get it, right, that they are both the same depending on the point from which you view them?
Witnesses in courts sometimes tell lies, or more usually exaggerate, distort or suppress what they know to some degree. Some are mistaken, or have forgotten, or have some incentive to lie. Before each witness starts to testify, they are expected to make a formal declaration that they are going to tell the truth. This helps to focus their minds on the seriousness of the business, to engage their honour, reputation and self-respect, and to confirm that they are liable to be punished for perjury if they lie. So far so good, and so necessary. Dragging religion into it at this point muddies the waters. It draws the attention of the judge and jury to the person's beliefs as a christian, jew, atheist or whatever, beliefs with which they may agree or disagree perhaps strongly. Thus a risk arises of prejudice being needlessly introduced into the trial process. It is an arrangement which I, and a lot of people, are unhappy with.
