Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 27, 2011 at 6:18pm

Beautiful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Akshay Bist on April 27, 2011 at 6:23pm

[like]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on April 28, 2011 at 1:41am

As I understand in real proposed and developing quantum gravity theories like loop quantum gravity and causal dynamical triangulation with quantized spacetime following from the theories, allow for the singularity (zero volume) to be a transitory phase in the history of the Universe and therefore allow for time before the singularity. String theory as a theory for quantum gravity might be pliable enough (absent quantized spacetime) to be made to yield to Hawking-Hartle no boundary condition (which says something about the entire Universe, not only about the past, but about the present and future also, that doesn't necessarily match the observations - accelerating expansion breaks symmetry - very well.)

Anyway even if there really would be no boundary to space time, a theist might just demonstratively take a piece of paper, draw a circle on paper and dryly remark "see, no boundary, I made that."

If anything came from natural philosophy before the advance of science it is the insight that logic can be a guiding principle, never a basis for conclusions about nature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John on April 27, 2011 at 7:13pm

The situation Bugliosi presents describes a theist and a gnostic atheist. I suspect both will have trouble proving their point with empirical, reproducible evidence. While it's fairly easy to bring the idea of any given god to its knees by pointing out all the contradictions, logical inconsistencies, etc it's quite difficult to prove that a god does not exist, period.

 

As things stand I personally think both positions are somewhat misguided. An agnostic atheist should be willing to admit that we don't yet have the answers (theory only gets us so far) and that we're still searching. That is currently a far more powerful position because it will spur us to seek new evidence rather than relying on some arbitrary explanation of god/anti-god.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Austin Rozzell on April 27, 2011 at 7:59pm

Our knowing of ANYTHING, is so very limited, like an ant speaking about the history of the whale. I love it when any one says, " I know that....", makes me giggle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 27, 2011 at 8:14pm

I know that it is safer to use the stairs than to jump over the railing.  Feel free to try it your way though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Austin Rozzell on April 28, 2011 at 12:01am

That is not true if your stairs lead to danger, and the railing to safety. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 28, 2011 at 12:13am

But how can you make a claim of such profound knowledge?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Austin Rozzell on April 28, 2011 at 12:23am

I did not state, a knowing of the thing hence the "if" but all and nothing thing is possible. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 28, 2011 at 12:44am

Well without knowledge of the statistically improbable being the case then the knowledge of what is statistically most certain remains the best bet.  Therefore, as a default choice, I do in fact know it is safer to choose the stairs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Austin Rozzell on April 28, 2011 at 12:51am

With out all the facts, "I" would concider what you know as a possibility, and what you don't know just as possible. But as you don't know for a fact, there is the chance you are right and wrong.
Chance will decide, but that is what I don't know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 28, 2011 at 1:01am

When a gas leak develops you can stand at the top of the stairs debating this, Ima gonna run down the stairs and get the fuck outta there.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page