Subj : Re: The universe To : Todd Henson From : John Wilson Date : Wed Nov 01 2000 09:35 pm -=> TODD HENSON wrote to JOHN WILSON <=- TH> You fail to see what was being said. He kept complaining about my TH> words regarding other TH> temporal realities other than this one. I mentioned the many TH> worlds theory to illustrate the TH> concept that it IS possible and certainly not illogical to speak TH> of temporal contexts that are TH> outside of the continuum that we live in. An awkward solution to indeterminancy, at best. Liebentz had the idea: refuted with humour by Voltaire in "Candide" Certainly not illigical to speak of heaven. (Which is I think `outseide of temporal contexts' :-) ...but to think in this wise is to think in terms of science fiction or theological constructions. I do confess, I cannot imagine `other temporal' constructs... Unless you mean my thinking, for example, that I am eternal. (Which I only believe on Tuesdays and Thursdays :-) > 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. TH> See above. Oh, nuts to you! And your repeatedly used and often irritating and seemingly smug: "See Above" !! As if you made a point that was beyond comment! The word "before" in your sentence is meaningless in the context of what was there "before" time. See Previous. :-) > 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... TH> No, because your view of the universe is of an infant being who TH> is growing and learning, and is TH> therefore required to have been created by something transcendent TH> to itself. That is not God, TH> but God would be whatever brought the universe into existence. TH> You're trying to replace the idea TH> of God with the idea of a conscious universe - a way of molding TH> God into a form that is more TH> comfortable to you. But you're not seeing the fact that your TH> theory creates more problems than TH> 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) :-) TH> If you think Joe is as "pro Bible" as I am, then I have to either TH> question the reliability of your TH> faculties or else assume you're just having a bit of fun with me. TH> 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. TH> I have yet to see any decent substantial Bible knowledge from TH> him. Nor have I seen any that TH> would qualify as objective. TH> 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? TH> Hate? That's a pretty strong word. It's not healthy. TH> 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". TH> The person in question goes far beyond mere disagreement. TH> 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' TH> John, you've sent a fair share of scornful oneliners, I take TH> issue with that, yet you put the TH> "scornful" label on *me*. Funny. TH> In case you haven't noticed, this conversation is now, at your TH> hand, straying into areas that have TH> 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. TH> I don't care if you hold that against me. Is it possible that I TH> might have typed a bit hastily and TH> put more bite into than I should have? Sure. However, the fact TH> remains that regardless of how TH> calm or hotheaded I may or may not have been, the response WAS a TH> perverted response. But, TH> if your purpose is to build up Joe as compared to me, feel free. TH> If you'll notice, the conversation at the beginning of this post TH> started out as an examination of TH> ideas. So I figured I'd continue to respond. We could evaluate TH> this idea or that, and that was TH> fine. Now, as I get to the latter part of this message, you again TH> took the conversation into a TH> negative light, getting personal, etc, when I was trying to talk TH> about temporal realities, not TH> personality quirks. Don't complain about personal remarks when TH> you keep taking the TH> conversations to such a personal level. TH> John, sometimes you have some ideas that I find interesting. I TH> will consider this a final plea for TH> you to stop taking every opportunity to "get personal". The fact TH> that you keep doing that says TH> more about you than it does me. I don't want to just ignore your TH> posts altogether, because I'm TH> sure you'll come up with a gem that I might want to engage. But, TH> if you keep this up, TH> opportunities will be lost. And PHIL becomes HOLYSMOKE II. TH> You need to develop a thicker skin. Someone criticizes something TH> you say and you go TH> overboard with them. If you have a disagreement, then voice it, TH> explain it. Some may believe it, TH> some may debate it, and some may not care either way. I do not TH> think you are a jerk simpky TH> because we disagree, but some of the treatment you've given me TH> does fit that category. I guess TH> we'll just remain in disagreement in that area. That's fine. TH> I know I said that I wouldn't entertain this line of conversation TH> with you already, but I thought that TH> you at least deserved one more open attempt. TH> This was my final plea. TH> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 TH> * Origin: Get all your fido mail here: www.docsplace.org TH> (1:18/140) .... "No! You can't have any of my lobster," said Tom, shellfishly. ___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (1:153/7715) .