Subj : Re: The universe To : JOHN WILSON From : TODD HENSON Date : Wed Nov 01 2000 12:22 am > SGID: 1:153/7715.0 39ff5020 > -=> TODD HENSON wrote to JOSEPH VOIGT <=- > > > TH> You assume that other temporal realities cannot exist outside of > TH> our own. For example, some > TH> scientists (mostly in the field of as far as I have read) believe > TH> that there are multiple universes... > > Invoking the "many worlds" theory to buttress your view is a wild stretch. You fail to see what was being said. He kept complaining about my words regarding other temporal realities other than this one. I mentioned the many worlds theory to illustrate the concept that it IS possible and certainly not illogical to speak of temporal contexts that are outside of the continuum that we live in. > TH> And, look at the language you are using. You speak of a beginning > TH> of the universe. If the > TH> universe had a beginning, then it is perfectly rational to wonder > TH> about what came before it. > > Nope. `what time was it?' before time itself started is fun > but meaningless. See above. > TH> What > TH> was it that caused the Big Bang in the first place? That is not > TH> an irrational question at all, and it > TH> is not irrational to understand. > > On the order of who gave birth to God... No, because your view of the universe is of an infant being who is growing and learning, and is therefore required to have been created by something transcendent to itself. That is not God, but God would be whatever brought the universe into existence. You're trying to replace the idea of God with the idea of a conscious universe - a way of molding God into a form that is more comfortable to you. But you're not seeing the fact that your theory creates more problems than it solves. > I believe that there are limits to human comprehension (else why be > faith? :-) > > And, just to be conterntious, I'll include Joseph's faith... > faith in Reason. > > And mine. > > In poetry. :-) > > ---------------------- > > TH> You prove my opinion of you - you are on an anti-Bible > TH> inquisition. > > Crusade, mebbie. :-) Not, surely. an inquisition. :-) > > TIME FOR UNCLE JOHN'S PSYCHO-ANALYSIS: > > I think Joseph is as muth pro bible as you are, Todd. I've been a student > for fifty years, (detailed ego-filling resume available upon obsequious > pleas) :-) If you think Joe is as "pro Bible" as I am, then I have to either question the reliability of your faculties or else assume you're just having a bit of fun with me. What does this have to do with the universe? > Joe's knowledge of the bible is evident from the rocks thrown at those > (you) that have come to the belief that the Bible is literally without > error, that it is, bad Greek and all, writ by the very Hand of God. I have yet to see any decent substantial Bible knowledge from him. Nor have I seen any that would qualify as objective. What does this have to do with the universe? > I love the bible. I read it almost every day. It is a part of my life and > a part of my society, culture, citizenship. I hate with a ferver > matching Joe's, those who use a naieve faith as a means for gaining > wealth/power/political influence. Jimmy Swaggart still wears > that $5000 watch, y'know? Hate? That's a pretty strong word. It's not healthy. But again, what does Jimmy Swaggert have to do with the universe? > Still, it's a pleasure reading Ephesians. > > .....AND the Gnostic Gospels.... :-) > > ================== > > TH> You are on a petty > TH> crusade to spew hate towards > TH> Judeochristianity. > > "spew hate" ? Whew! Hey, glad I didn't get any on *me* :-) > > To disagree with, or even to be amused by, is not > I think to "spew hate". The person in question goes far beyond mere disagreement. But, what does this have to do with the universe? > It's another way of looking at the world. There are lots of ways to look > at the world, Todd. There is your way, garnered by your experience, > education, thought, personality....et cetera.... > > That we differ is way evident...I've come to enjoy your insulting scorn > and personal attacks...(I think I've come off easy, being merely a `jerk' John, you've sent a fair share of scornful oneliners, I take issue with that, yet you put the "scornful" label on *me*. Funny. In case you haven't noticed, this conversation is now, at your hand, straying into areas that have nothing to do with the universe. > ...I admit to being shocked when you called someone a pervert; when his > response showed you clearly that such a charge was im error you didn't > have the guts to apologize. THAT I'll hold against you. I don't care if you hold that against me. Is it possible that I might have typed a bit hastily and put more bite into than I should have? Sure. However, the fact remains that regardless of how calm or hotheaded I may or may not have been, the response WAS a perverted response. But, if your purpose is to build up Joe as compared to me, feel free. If you'll notice, the conversation at the beginning of this post started out as an examination of ideas. So I figured I'd continue to respond. We could evaluate this idea or that, and that was fine. Now, as I get to the latter part of this message, you again took the conversation into a negative light, getting personal, etc, when I was trying to talk about temporal realities, not personality quirks. Don't complain about personal remarks when you keep taking the conversations to such a personal level. John, sometimes you have some ideas that I find interesting. I will consider this a final plea for you to stop taking every opportunity to "get personal". The fact that you keep doing that says more about you than it does me. I don't want to just ignore your posts altogether, because I'm sure you'll come up with a gem that I might want to engage. But, if you keep this up, opportunities will be lost. And PHIL becomes HOLYSMOKE II. You need to develop a thicker skin. Someone criticizes something you say and you go overboard with them. If you have a disagreement, then voice it, explain it. Some may believe it, some may debate it, and some may not care either way. I do not think you are a jerk simpky because we disagree, but some of the treatment you've given me does fit that category. I guess we'll just remain in disagreement in that area. That's fine. I know I said that I wouldn't entertain this line of conversation with you already, but I thought that you at least deserved one more open attempt. This was my final plea. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Get all your fido mail here: www.docsplace.org (1:18/140) .