"The ultimate triumph of science"

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Well, we had to exist before we could ask "how," as well. We had to exist, period, before we could make any observation, whether outward (science) or inward (philosophy/spirituality). And if we as a species have the ability to look inward, and define our existential role in reality, then I believe "why" is a very important question. Remember, we all see reality from the same lens, and reality is only what we see through this lens, and we as a species must define this lens, so to speak. And IMO science and spirituality both make up sides of said lens. The lens is incomplete without either side of this lens, but together, they make a whole picture of reality that we see.*

I believe you have misunderstood me. I only meant that "how" has to exist before we do, since cause precedes effect. "Why" is not as necessary; something does not have to happen for a defined reason, unless the reason merges with the "how" (much like Clarke's example, how did the vase fall onto the ground? I pushed it. Why did the vase fall onto the ground? Because I pushed it.)

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

And, well, there are some theories that intention plays a role in the universe. The many-worlds interpretation, for example. The universe splits every time we commit an action, consciously or unconsciously (and when every other thing in the universe acts, as well).

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this example, intention would arguably only play a role in the number of universes, and in this theory, a number of universes equal to the number of atoms or even subatomic particles in the universe is created every moment that an event or even the particle itself could have taken a different path through space. Therefore, the vast majority of these universes would not be created due to an action which was caused by intention at all, so intention does not cause this effect; it is happening anyway regardless of intention.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

My $0.02. <-Should add this, to avoid risk of turning this into a debate.

You shouldn't feel you need to step so cautiously around calling something a debate, and I'm sorry you and many others do. I am not afraid of minor conflict should it arise, but I'll continue to do my best not to start it or even carry on with it, you have my word. The primary definition of "debate" is a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. I personally do not see anything wrong with this, as it promotes the synthesis of ideas and expansion of understanding.