Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
I guess the best I have to offer is a (very lame) counter example: You can marvel at a sunrise or give me a lecture on how the earth is changing its spatial relation towards a giant gas blob that is fusioning away and whose electromagnetic radiation is being fractured (is that the right word here?) by the differnent layers of blablabla. Both describe reality, yet I'd much rather live in a world of sunrises than one of gas blobs (by which I'm not saying that, say, mitosis is not a mindblowingly amazing process once one ponders how THAT is supposed to have come to be by evolution).
But I'm sure you can see the false dichotomy. A sunrise
is a gas blob (if you follow me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwocwoc
He's wrong of course. If you know how it works there's no sense of wonder. His questions are to do with scientific analysis not aesthetics. It's like a card trick. If you know how it's done then it loses its mystery.
You should note that it is, in fact, the theistic universe which promises to explain everything. I mean, one assumes that p=np finds a solution in the mind of god, right? And would communion with that mind not imply access to such? Even if not, the all-bracketing 'Because god willed it so' can explain literally everything. It's only the atheist universe that offers permanent, insoluble mystery.
Food for thought?