Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah To : CHUCK PIERSON From : TODD HENSON Date : Thu Oct 26 2000 02:19 am > > I read this message three or four times before I began this reply, and keep > > getting a mental image of discussions I've had with my 11 year old daughter. > > > TH> Change your attitude and perhaps I might feel the motivation to offer > TH> something better. Silly statements like that aren't necessary. > > You're reply of "Oh well." to my previous response is a definate brush off > remark. What sort of attitude do I seem to be showing? I've attempted to > make bonifide comments to things you've said. I explained to why I used the language I did, given the context and the givens of the original assertion. You persisted. It got silly, and no longer worth further discussion, as it was only veering off from the original topic anyway. You then countered with the child remark, and the discussion then decayed totally. It is now moot. > > > > TH> And how long has the universe been around? > > > > Forever? If so, then it > > > > TH> would already have had enough time to get to know > > > > TH> itself. If it hasn't > > > > TH> been around forever, then where did it come > > > > from, and who made it? A > > > > TH> momma universe? > > > > > > > > Time is very much a relative thing. Much as some forms of animal life > > > > register their life in days compared to our years, > > > > something as vast as the > > > > universe a few billion years could seem like merely > > > > weeks or months would to > > > > us. You're assumption that the universe could know it > > > > self well in the time > > > > it has existed based on another assumption that the workings of the > > > > intelligence of the universe works in the same manner > > > > as human intelligence, > > > > > > > > > TH> If the universe increases the knowledge of itself > > > TH> over time, and if it > > > TH> has had an INFINITE amount of time to accomplish this task, > > > TH> then the conclusion I made is pretty clear. That was the > > > TH> specific scenario I mentioned. > > > > > > Again, time is relative. I'm 30 years old, probably one of the younger > > > people in this forum. So in this case I'm young and still have a long > > > way to go. But if you ask my children, I'm as old as dirt and have been > > > around forever. Personally, I think I've learned a > > > lot in my life, but I > > > also know that I have a lot more to learn. Right there you've got three > > > different viewpoints of the same length of time. > > > > > > TH> Human perceptions of what they think is a long life are irrelevant, and > > TH> are in a completely different category altogether than what I was > > TH> referring to. > > > > How is it different? You're projecting the way humans perceive time in you > > assumption that the universe has had an INFINITE amount of time to increase > > it's self-knowledge. > > > TH> You're committing the error of mixing two different categories here. I > TH> was speaking of the length of time, and you injected human QUALITY > TH> opinions regarding a given stretch of time. If I say > TH> that a particular length of time is one year, then citing that one > TH> person thinks that is "short" and that another person thinks it's > TH> "long" is not relevant. > > But dealing with such matters as self-learning and reflection involve such > opinions, as it takes each individual a different amount of time to reach > self-understanding. Something which might take you a short time to realize > might take me a while longer, and vice versa. Irrelevant to the topic of a length of time, rather than how different people "feel" about said length of time. Again, you're off on all kinds of tangents. Not much more to say. > > TH> I'm all ears. > > > > Then why was my earlier comment summarily dismissed? > > > TH> For reasons that just explained in this very reply. And, they weren't > TH> mere "summary" dismissals. > > So they weren't summary dismissals. Just dismissed because of a supposed > as yet unexplained attitude of mine with a minimal reason given. If that's how you choose to interpret it - I'll not argue with you over it. That wouldn't be productive. I'm sorry you feel that way. > > TH> And as you can see, this line of thought is getting somewhat silly, > > TH> fast. I'd say it'se related to the original premise. > > > > And I see your instincts are working well. > > > TH> As are yours, unfortunately. Man, you really can't take criticism of > TH> ideas without getting hostile, can you? > > How have I gotten hostile? In fact, I think I've shown pretty good > restraint. I've replied to your sarcasm in kind, and left things at that. > I have no reason to get hostile, since I've said before I'm dealing in > hypothetical situations. Your intent with: > > And I see your instincts are working well. is quite obvious. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345) .