|
Well you are entitled to your beliefs Zen_tom. I was merely pointing out that they are contrary to current scientific thinking. (And the fact that they are unfalisifiable ensures that they will remain that way).
As for B, I simply have to disagree with you that randomness is counter to the scientific spirit. Don't confuse "random" with "arbitrary". There are distinct probabilites assinged to each event. Even when things are random, we can still make incredibly accurate predictions. The predictions made by Quantum mechanics are among the most useful and accurate in all of science.
Also, the fact that things appear non-random on the macro scale is due to statistics. (If you go to a casino, you can say with a good deal of confidence that at the end of the day, the house will win overall, even if you cannot say which way any particular game is going to go). hence the order on the large scale of the universe.
Further more, that some things have to be ultimately be accepted as brute fact is a sad fact of life. You can keep explaining things in terms of smaller simpler things, but ultimately in the end you have to say, well things are this way, just because. Say for instance science were to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, with, just say, strings as the ultimate "stuff of stuff". What then? How do you explain why this exists. An intractible mystery if ever there was one! (I am normally a vigourous defender of the potential of science, but I also know a brick wall when I see it).
__________________
|