[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

[farmelantj at juno.com]

Notice also that the question as to why there is something rather than nothing can also be applied to God.  If there is a God, then why does He exist rather than not exist?  The usual answer is that God is said to be a self-existent being.  But one could ask, why cannot the universe, taken as a totality, likewise be self-existent (See Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion").  And in any case this raises all the questions concerning the notion of Necessary Being and along with it, the problems associated with the ontological argument, etc.

Jim F.

-- "Charles Brown" <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
This is true, though only of questions that are meaningful. 
Meaningless
"questions" like "Why is there something instead of nothing?" cannot  
yield a meaningful answer to scientific, or any other, technique.

Shane Mage

^^^^^^^
CB: I agree with you, because the answer those who pose the question
"why is there something instead of nothing ? " seems to say the answer
is to the question "is" God; and "God" is an unknowable mystery. In
other words, they seem to say the answer to the question is unknowable
to us. They don't really answer the question.  It's sort of  the
ultimate rhetorical question, considered unanswerable by its poser. It
is really an assertion, not a question. The assertion is "there is
God."

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_____________________________________________________________
Beauty Product Reviews
Read unbiased beauty product reviews and join our product review team!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/JKFkuJi7GiX4PXq6ENgv0E37VWV85UtcSG2OvfyBdIGQHMoQN7Mlq1/