I still prefer nominalism.... it allows for ... expansion of knowledge... in all respects.... nominal9
On May 2, 9:40 am, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 maio, 15:33, Robert Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Not to jump in here but I was alarmed by the statement of certain > > ancient texts as fiction...which begs the question what is your > > definition of fiction and is it necessarily the case that all ancient > > texts are entirely fictitious, partially or not at all? And if only > > partial how does one distinguish between what is fiction and what > > isn't? > > Is there any text which is not fictitious. Are there words which are > not either. Do words consist of something not fictitious. Are ancient > books "partially" fictitious, which one, the bible, quran, so many > other "sacred" texts? > > Is not a fiction a triple monster father, son and ghost > Why do you think fiction is less important than its opposite. What is > that opposite for that matter. Why do you think science is not fiction > oriented. > > IMO world is driven by fiction, this same space in front of you did > not exist 50 years ago, and the world would colapse today if turned > off. Space is just another category of...? > > A bunch of maniacs moved by delusions already changed the world many > times, the list is huge, and that happens now as well, world can be > destroyed and created as you see, within fictional word chains > > So I dont say your Intelligent Designer is not able to "design", what > I say he/she/it is a fiction > > It is a human condition to "think" the "world" is "real" > > There is nothing like "world", "real", or "thinking", all these > "ideas" like you like to say have nothing to do with that "thing" you > call the "Universe" and its "principles" > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It is not a bad idea at all. > > > Another good idea is to revert gravity, entropy, time travel, also to > > > stop the oil spill with my mind. > > > There are a lot of good ideas, and there are a lot of bad ideas. And > > > there are even ideas which are neither good or bad, and also ideas on > > > which people disagree if they are good or bad. > > > > So we come to the point that there are a lot of ideas good and bad. > > > You are a good writer, and I say.. so? > > > > Talking about literature you brought The Bible to the table, a master > > > piece like The Iliad, also Thousand Nights and One Night. > > > The triple monster divinity Father, Son and Ghost is fantastic. > > > I confess I also liked "Matrix" the most, and lately "Avatar" as well. > > > > Fiction is a serious part of our lives, but be aware, it is fiction > > > > On 1 maio, 14:11, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists than > > >> the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > > >> supreme being. > > > >> In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at history, > > >> and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. > > >> Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the time > > >> of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > > >> Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In the > > >> steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > > >> Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > > >> Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > > >> It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > > >> opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." The > > >> Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > > >> suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit that > > >> they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > > >> thought! > > > >> Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. Just > > >> present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific method. > > >> If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to admitting > > >> your theory into the science text books. > > > >> But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after truth > > >> that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal gain > > >> as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include egotistical > > >> and ideological factors as well. > > > >> The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > > >> who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the universe > > >> have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also appeared > > >> that WE are at the center of the universe. > > > >> A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless universe > > >> was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the idea > > >> of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point particle > > >> seemed safely agnostic once more. > > > >> With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > > >> meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences of > > >> Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > > >> membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse of > > >> universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > > >> philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, the > > >> philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > > >> material or matter. > > > >> But there is a problem. > > > >> According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned forever > > >> to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > > >> progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- and > > >> must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the box. > > > >> We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might be > > >> outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > > >> outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. > > > >> Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > > >> reality called God, the first response is to say that we must measure > > >> God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > > >> If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > > >> places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been created. > > >> You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality with > > >> no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It is > > >> not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > > >> Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. Why, > > >> just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > > >> that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > > >> universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need be > > >> no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > > >> organization. > > > >> And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have their > > >> own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is uncreated, > > >> self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. > > > >> The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature can > > >> produce intelligent designers. > > >> The little g god has no purpose, although it can produce purposeful > > >> creatures. > > >> Materialist nature has no independent free will, and therefore, > > >> neither do its creatures, because everything has to proceed according > > >> to the dictates of natural law, not the dictates of sovereign > > >> individuals. > > > >> Which of course means that if you disagree with me, it is because you > > >> MUST do so, because you do not choose to disagree, you are compelled. > > > >> Indeed, in the materialist view, there is no real science, because > > >> there is no truly independent inquiry. The scientist believes not > > >> what the evidence states, but rather, what the laws of physics dictate > > >> what he must believe. > > > >> If we must scoff at an idea that seems ridiculous, why don't we scoff > > >> at that, instead of intelligent design? > > > >> Why Is Intelligent Design such a bad idea? > > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >> Groups "Epistemology" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> [email protected]. > > >> For more options, visit this group > > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- > > Never Look to a motionless face for memories, > > Life is found in the pace, not the chemistry > > Robert Lewis Henry > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
