> Ham: > Nothingness does not exist, although it is what separates the > atoms, planets, and galaxies in space.
SA: Does anybody ever get these? Just curious. [Krimel] Sure. It is a good example of the flawed premises upon which Ham bases his "philosophy". The space between things is not "nothing" it "is" the space between things. It is extended and temporal. Ham's equates this with some kind of imaginary metaphysical nothingness. It is a serious flaw that he refuses to address. Here's another: "Only because the subjective mind cannot conceive of an "uncreated" source. And here's where intuitive logic can extend empirical knowledge. My cosmogeny is based on the absolute unity of an uncreated Essence which, on analysis, turns out to be the antithesis of Nothingness." Ham has never shown a serious understanding of the Big Bang. He thinks it is like a big fire cracker or something equally absurd. But in physics it is the moment of the uncreated source. Even moment since it can be accounted for but before it there was Ham's metaphysical nothing. No time, no space, nothing. Ham rejects the physicists account because it does not carry with it any notion of purpose or destiny or theology. This goes against his "intuition". For Ham this "intuition" is supreme. It rests neither on empiricism nor rationalism and requires neither. It is a "warm fuzzy" to which all else is subservient. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
