Posted by ryan on November 20, 1999 at 20:56:55:
Curious that the energy from the big bang didn't just remain in its
original state as it expanded outward, slowly dissipating into eternity.
Of all the theoretically possible scenarios, the one happened where
something possesed the energy to form into pleasant little building blocks
which work nicely together, capable of initiating consciousness when
arranged a certain way.
Then, they began assembling themselves into beings which utilize the
trait of awareness...what a coincidence. So, here we are.
Why does the very nature of existance encourage and fascilitate
basic compatability and improvement?
Why, if existance started out with nothing, then moved to having
massive quantities of basic energy, did it move on to anything more?
I am talking about the very nature of everything. My experience has
been that nothing usually doesn't breed at all, let alone does it breed
complexity.
Where did all of the natural laws come from, which enable change?
Why protons, neutrons and electrons? Even if something was formed right
after the big bang which could combine with itself, what are the odds of
it being able to do anything other than sit there? Instead, we have a
very proactive universe around us. You could say that it stems from energy
being the way that it is---but that is my point. Why is energy so
proactive? My studies of quanta have led me to the conclusion that science
is just too afraid of the possibility of God (and all the uncertain factors
He brings with him)to include him in the study. They will come up with all
sorts of interesting names for inconsistant and amazing phenomenon, but
they never include the possibility of God.
If humans don't know how the universe got here, is it not truly scientific
to include all possibilities? To exclude a major possibility and then base
life on the best of what is left seems strange to me. I know, the old argument
that if something is truly out of whack, it doesn't need to be examined
at all. But, realistically,we are intelligent. Does it make more sense
to assume that we must have come from an unintelligent source, or to say
that, being intelligent, we may have come from an intelligent one?
Considering the fact that science doesn't even know what energy is,
it can not answer these questions (respond, yes. answer, no.) Maybe you can.