Not at all.  Just that even the laymans knowledge of the events just
after the big bang that I own tell me that these universal constants
were not as they presently are, so these constants have changed
therefore they have not always been constant.

On 24 Aug, 15:05, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Aug, 14:43, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Well Pat the scientist in me is screaming that even those universal
> > constants did not start out that way, umm constant I mean!
>
>      So, you think there was a time when True meant something other
> than "not(False)"?
>
>
>
> > On 24 Aug, 13:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > So, let me get this straight.  You have a philosophy that, in
> > > > > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible.  How do you get past the
> > > > > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute truth in your
> > > > > philosophy?  Alternatively, if you back off from the statement and say
> > > > > that your statement above is only a relative truth, it, then,
> > > > > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and {that they could} be
> > > > > duly ignored by you.  Tricky stuff, Ian.  Personally, I don't think
> > > > > you've stated your whole case, here.
>
> > > > Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator God then Ian's
> > > > strance is going to be the best you will get.
>
> > > > Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I believe) accuse
> > > > people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that we practice a
> > > > kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to work out the
> > > > hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and have done with
> > > > it.  I don't think it is an acusation that we can easily defend
> > > > against, do you?
>
> > >    I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to discover the
> > > truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!).  In order to
> > > defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no comprehensive
> > > alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology.  Once we've
> > > determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at what it can do
> > > and how it does it.  The answer to all the 'why' questions to which
> > > atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable answers,
> > > leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from which to choose
> > > and futher blocks progress.
> > >    One of the main arguments against God is that atheists see no
> > > evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it is heading
> > > in a particular direction with goals at the end.  They overlook the
> > > FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum.  The continuum contains
> > > ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are already
> > > defined (as is all the middle).  If the ends are already defined, then
> > > the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the stumbling block
> > > (of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of one stone
> > > (Einstein).
> > >    My main point was that it should be obvious that some absolute
> > > truths exist.  Some of these may not be particularly useful until one
> > > extends them.  Einstein looked for truth and found special (and
> > > general) relativity.  Absolute truths are, usually, things like
> > > physical constants.  But it is how those truths work together and
> > > allow for the relativity in between that muddies the water and makes
> > > the absolutes seem less important or obscure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to