@ Dexter

i thought i clarifed my position on religion.

regarding evolution;
i think it is a resonable hypothesis that life's origin in watery.

Tulip's questions are secondary compared to the question:
"Why is there something rather than nothing"

and


"is the realm of possible existence larger than the realm of what actually exists?"

these are questions that are considered impolite to ask. they are not able to be reckoned with by Science.
science is useless in these matters.
science is great at explaining the workings of natural phenomena.
it can not answer questions a child would ask.

ant wrote:"Why is there something rather than nothing"

Much as I hesitate to converse with ant, his slight here deserves comment. "Why is there something rather than nothing" is taken by Martin Heidegger in his book An Introduction to Metaphysics as the fundamental question of philosophy. But like the megaverse, it has no answer, except "dunno" or "meh". Lets stick to questions that have answers.

ant wrote:@ Dexter

i thought i clarifed my position on religion.

Your position seems to be that all religions are just a vague notion of some kind of higher power, so that you don't have to take a position on all the false claims they are making. But when Dawkins talks about all the false claims, you're very offended.

ant wrote: regarding evolution;
i think it is a resonable hypothesis that life's origin in watery.

And yet you unleashed a tirade of insults and accusations against Dawkins for "indoctrinating" people about what you and 100% of biologists believe about evolution.

I'm reading Lawrence Krause's book called "Why is there something rather than nothing" right now actually!

Turns out quantum mechanics says that nothing cannot exist for long.

ant wrote:Tulip's questions are secondary compared to the question:
"Why is there something rather than nothing"

and


"is the realm of possible existence larger than the realm of what actually exists?"

these are questions that are considered impolite to ask. they are not able to be reckoned with by Science.
science is useless in these matters.
science is great at explaining the workings of natural phenomena.
it can not answer questions a child would ask.

More iPhone posting?

Some of the profound philosophical questions of life are unanswerable by their very nature. Though I wonder what child would wonder if the realm of possible existence is larger than the realm of what actually exists.

Our knowledge is necessarily limited to the realm of human experience. Beyond that lies speculation. We may never know if life exists in other star systems, but we can imagine that it does, and we can wonder what extraterrestrial life would look like. Such speculation is never pointless. This metaphysical impulse can lead us to seek knowledge where none can be had, but it also can expand realms previously not known to exist.

Heidegger's question—why is there something rather than nothing?—doesn't have a definitive answer, but pondering such questions is a very human quest. We must always push onward, forever expanding the scope of human knowledge and experience. There's never a point where we say that's as far as we can go, let's give up.

Saying science is useless in these matters seems a rather vapid and apathetic statement. (It's also a non sequitur, like saying a car is great for getting from Point A to Point B, but I can't sew clothes with it, can I?) So right, science can't answer all of our questions. That's understood. No one ever said it could. But certainly science has expanded our horizons and will continue to do so.

Robert Tulip wrote:

ant wrote:"Why is there something rather than nothing"

Much as I hesitate to converse with ant, his slight here deserves comment. "Why is there something rather than nothing" is taken by Martin Heidegger in his book An Introduction to Metaphysics as the fundamental question of philosophy. But like the megaverse, it has no answer, except "dunno" or "meh". Lets stick to questions that have answers.

Gentlemen;

We have something interesting here.
Robert considers philosophical "Why" questions as somehow impolite.
It is impolite to ask some questions, right, Robert?

We can compare Robert's directive "Let's stick to questions that have answers" to that of a parent who, when a child asks too many "why" questions, becomes frustrated and flustered, and as a result discourages questions that make him or her uncomfortable. Hence, "Oh stop asking such nonsensical questions, Little Billy, it is what it is, and that's all there's too it, I reckon!"

When we hear responses that discourage questions developed by our minds, questions worth considering for their simplicity and profundity, inquisitive minds become unimaginative, uncreative receptacles that are satisfied with being filled with data and "fact" and nothing more. These become the minds of intellectual dullards - aka the common college student who becomes an inflexible, dogmatic, close minded automaton. A robot that mistakenly believes information and knowledge is the same as understanding and wisdom

Robert apparently has forgotten that history is filled with men/women who developed questions many people thought unanswerable, and yet.., (you fill in the rest here).

What else shall we think and not think, Robert?

I didn't expect you or anyone to have an answer to that question.
You apparently are highly offended when a question out of the reach of science is asked. That much is obvious.
Why else would you essentially say "oh don't ask those questions. they aren't worth it."

And I suppose I'm an enemy of science because I believe reason alone can provide answers to questions, beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.
But you want science to handle everything, right, Robert?
You want the answer to come from the almighty Atheistic Oracle that Science is.

Thanks for the laugh.
Has anyone ever pointed out that you have a religious like fervor for science?
My god..,

Consistently tedious.

ant wrote: Robert apparently has forgotten that history is filled with men/women who developed questions many people thought unanswerable, and yet.., (you fill in the rest here).

I'll fill in the rest: science.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how vague belief in the possibility of a higher power can help us answer such questions. Or any question.

If you want to defend religion as a source of comfort to many people, that is not controversial. But if you want to defend it as a source of knowledge, you'll have to defend some actual claims about the world.

ant wrote: . . . Thanks for the laugh.
Has anyone ever pointed out that you have a religious like fervor for science?
My god..,

Ant, for god's sake, get some therapy. We haven't even started the book yet and you're going off the rails. Take your rants elsewhere. Start a new thread and call it "Ant's rants." This thread is reserved for Dawkins' first chapter about the nature of reality. If you want to participate, fine. Otherwise, take your bluster elsewhere.