Can critical thinking explain why we are here?

[chequita guevara]

ah, no, I fully understood what everyone was saying. But they're not answers to my question, they're answers to other questions.

Let me try and explain this to you as simply as possible. You asked for a scientific answer, but you asked a question which wasn't scientific. It was therefore, an unanswerable question, i.e., it was nonsensical. It can't be answered because it can't be asked.

Sure, you can throw words together that appear to have meaning. What's the difference between a rooster? How do you answer that question, FB? You can't, because the question is meaningless. (The answer, btw, is "One of the legs is the same.")

[KrazyHorse]

ah, no, I fully understood what everyone was saying

No, you didn't. Otherwise you would understand that:

a) your very question was premised on a false idea of what the Universe is, exactly
b) if we rephrase your question to make some sort of sense then the question answers itself, in the negative

[chequita guevara]

No, no, no. It is, therefore it is. End of discussion.

In a discussion of facts, yes.

[notyoueither]

I don't agree. I believe if science is able to make sense of all that exists, it would also find an answer to why it exists. This is my opinion. I'm not saying that finding the why is the purpose of science.

The fundamental problem for your quest is in your opinions and beliefs.

Scientists will tell you they are not interested in why.

They think that what we can know is in a box. The answer to your question would require having your head outside the box. They say it is a waste of time supposing that you can get your head outside the box.

Look for other ideas of boxes sold by other merchants.

[notyoueither]

The language of science does not have a word for 'why'. When you meet a native in his/her white coat and try to introduce the concept, they will look at you crossly and wonder why the ****** is trying to teach them something that is useless.

I understand what "why" means. I also understand how retarded a question it is to ask science in the context of life, the universe and everything.

I know you do, but I wanted to call you KrankyHorse.

[KrazyHorse]

Didn't even notice...I've only been scanning the posts in this thread. Got through your first couple of sentences.

[KrazyHorse]

Here's a challenge for you, sn00p. Define the following terms:

1) Universe
2) Why

[chequita guevara]

The fundamental problem for your quest is in your opinions and beliefs.

Scientists will tell you they are not interested in why.

It's not that scientists are not interested in "why," it's that "why" doesn't exist. Asking why the universe exists presumes that the universe could have not existed.

[notyoueither]

You can ask 'why' in other disciplines.

[chequita guevara]

Sort of.

[notyoueither]

Those other disciplines are just not very useful for getting the trains to run on time.

They also cause Asheron's head to explode.

[SlowwHand]

They're exactly what's needed to get the trains to run on time.

[notyoueither]

Well, not really, if they start out with an argument of whether there actually is a train or not.

Or if they prescribe the days on which the trains can run.

I'd rather leave it to the engineers.

[SlowwHand]

Given those questions, me too.

[FrostyBoy]

Asking why something exists as opposed to everything is a different ball game.

Is there a reason for existence? What is it? The answer to that would the be answer to why it exists and that is what 'why' is. The 'universe' is the world that encompasses everything.