impossible,
20 Jun '08 21:47Originally posted by Bosse de NageI had some brief exposure to Kierkegaard in the distant past. I don't recall what his thing was about, so I can't comment.
You should read Kierkegaard too.
21 Jun '08 16:241 editOriginally posted by twhiteheadI've been told (by Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'😉 that the answer to your question #3 would be yes, there IS more, but if we can never know about it, it is unimportant. I admit, this is an extrapolation of Mr. Sagan's words. What he actually said (which I disagree with heartily) is that whatever happened before the Big Bang is of no consequence or concern to us. By that, I take it he didn't care if time is infinite (which it is) and/or he wasn't much of a scientist, not to want to investigate EVERYTHING, even what went on prior to this naked singularity he worshipped so.
There are much bigger questions too. Like:
1. What does 'forever' mean? ie is time infinite or finite? did time have a beginning? Was that beginning at the big bang or before?
2. What defines what is 'possible' or 'impossible'? You are making judgements based on the rules of the known universe yet those rules may be confined to only a subset of reality. ...[text shortened]... observable universe and if there is but we can never know about it, does it really exist?
22 Jun '08 00:282 editsOriginally posted by PinkFloydI believe that what Dr Sagan would have been alluding to is that no information could have been transmitted through the Big Bang singularity, anything which happenned before could have no consequence for the development of our universe.
I've been told (by Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'😉 that the answer to your question #3 would be yes, there IS more, but if we can never know about it, it is unimportant. I admit, this is an extrapolation of Mr. Sagan's words. What he actually said (which I disagree with heartily) is that whatever happened before the Big Bang is of no consequence or conc vestigate EVERYTHING, even what went on prior to this naked singularity he worshipped so.
22 Jun '08 07:06Originally posted by scottishinnzAww, Man!! We were getting along so well, scotti. You had made good points, and I had acknowledged them, etc. And now you gotta go and get smartmouthed and uppity.
I believe that what Dr Sagan would have been alluding to is that no information could have been transmitted through the Big Bang singularity, anything which happenned before could have no consequence for the development of our universe.
Nobody "worships" the Big Bang. Quit with trying to make false stereotypes of people.
22 Jun '08 07:11Originally posted by PinkFloydOne; hyperbole. Fine, but sarcasm doesn't transmit well through a written media. A winking smiley or similar would have made this clearer.
Aww, Man!! We were getting along so well, scotti. You had made good points, and I had acknowledged them, etc. And now you gotta go and get smartmouthed and uppity.
First: It was hyperbole--you know thatstuff Ann Coulter, and that crazy Senator who challenged Chris Matthews to a duel, love to throw out in their missives? The man was in awe of the ...[text shortened]... to pick? Just how do you know that NO ONE, anywhere, ever, worshipped/worships the BB? 😀
22 Jun '08 07:261 editOriginally posted by scottishinnzIt makes YOU wrong. You said "Nobody worships the big bang."
One; hyperbole. Fine, but sarcasm doesn't transmit well through a written media. A winking smiley or similar would have made this clearer.
Two; I absolutely DO have the right to tell you anything I please. You also have the right to ignore me, should you choose to.
Three; Of course, someone theoretically could worship the Big Bang, I'm sure pe ...[text shortened]... umber things, in fact, I KNOW thats true.... It just doesn't make any kind of sense however.
22 Jun '08 07:48Originally posted by PinkFloydOkay, how about a qualifier? No sensible person worships the Big Bang.
It makes YOU wrong. You said "Nobody worships the big bang."
And no, you have the right to say anything as long as you are not impressing upon someone an act they do not wish to do. You cannot say to someone "take that hat off" or "stop speaking French" or "Quit making stereotypes."
22 Jun '08 22:52Originally posted by scottishinnzYou have just been censured. {click}
Okay, how about a qualifier? No sensible person worships the Big Bang.
And actually yes, I have a perfect right to say anything I want to anyone. It's called freedom of speech. You have the right to ignore me, you have the right to shout and scream and go nuts about it, but I absolutely DO have the right to say what I want. I just don't have any right to enforce it. I will not be censured by you.
22 Jun '08 23:17Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFaith is not “a way of knowing” as you put it. Faith is delusional belief without premise and therefore an unreliable source of ‘knowledge’ to say the least. You cannot “know” anything with faith.--hamilton---------------------------------------------
[b]“…you will be free to look at faith as a way of knowing …”
Faith is not “a way of knowing” as you put it. Faith is delusional belief without premise and therefore an unreliable source of ‘knowledge’ to say the least. You cannot “know” anything with faith.
“…rather than relying on your intellect”
So are you actually saying we s ...[text shortened]... re all evidence?
That is just stupid. Not using your intellect is, by definition, being stupid.[/b]
Back to Top