No....Science explains how the Universe works, not how or why it is here.
If you are looking for an explanation, you never needed a supernatural one. The belief that the whole thing is just a massively unlikely (almost statistically impossible) sequence of bizarre coincidences* without any spritual reason is just as old as any theistic beliefs. But there's still no evidence for it.
* Which it may well be but also the only possibility that leads to us being here to observe that particular fact - Google the Strong Anthropic Principle.
(If you are looking for an explanation, you never needed a supernatural one. The belief that the whole thing is just a massively unlikely (almost statistically impossible) sequence of bizarre coincidences* without any spritual reason is just as old as any theistic beliefs. But there's still no evidence for it.
* Which it may well be but also the only possibility that leads to us being here to observe that particular fact - Google the Strong Anthropic Principle.
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 20 Jul 2007, 16:48,
archived)
who needs a why?the universe happened, deal with it. The rest is just chance. It may be unlikley to get intelligent life on Earth but the place is big enough....
And incidentally the anthropic principle is based on a load of poor assumptions and dubious maths.
(,
Fri 20 Jul 2007, 19:25,
archived)
And incidentally the anthropic principle is based on a load of poor assumptions and dubious maths.
I suspect Afinkawan......has in fact NOT read the book, as the 'it's unfeasibly unlikely' argument is dealt with completely in The God Delusion (and of course by Douglas Adams, with the rather elegantly phrased cereal box about just how big Space is...). The purpose of The God Delusion is not to prove 100% that God does not exist, it is to explain the reasons why a belief in God is so strong and enduring in society, and to put across the scientifically rigorous point of view that it's pretty unlikely that there is a God, and that the common arguments in favour of God are bunk. Dawkins says copiously that there is no proof that God does not exist, but nor could there be such proof. The statement 'X exists' where X is an independent entity is possible to prove but never to disprove (see also abominable snowmen, Harry Potter, planets shaped like Felicity Kendal's bottom, etc...).
Dawkins' point is that a belief in God is arbitrary and baseless, and that we might as well believe that we are remote controlled by giant, undetectable space rabbits. After all, you can't prove we're not...
(,
Tue 24 Jul 2007, 13:56,
archived)
Dawkins' point is that a belief in God is arbitrary and baseless, and that we might as well believe that we are remote controlled by giant, undetectable space rabbits. After all, you can't prove we're not...