Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (14448)	1/13/2003 6:38:42 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

You said I used it in an absurd way and then provided a futuristic (only) interpretation My point was that "having no meaning" is not essenttial for something being called "eternal" but "having no ending" is. Agreed? I originally said that all things (including the universe)that have a beginning must also have a cause Is there a cause when two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms make one water molecule? Is there a cause when, as Stephen Hawking said in his book "A Brief History of Time", particles appear in a vacuum? Further, I said if something exists but does not have a cause, then that thing must have the power of self-existence. So the proverbial oxygen molecule has "the power of self-existence"? How quaint... I equated self-existence with eternality, and even defined my usage in the context of the first statement as "without beginning". And you are wrong. Things change into other things around us all the time, they come into being, and then change into other things ("entropy") and hence are not "without beginning". I said there were not many alternatives. That was because you are like the cave man wondering about the rain with no knowledge of weather systems. There ARE other alternatives, in physics and in quantum physics, where things come into being without outside interference and with no cause. You said certain "molecules" caused the universe. Huh? I said no such thing. Molecules don't "cause" things. They come into being under the right conditions. (I am sure you are itching to say "God made the right conditions" but there is the element of chance here that you cannot deny) Even if you posit a dimensional jumping of molecules Even if I do WHAT? Do me a favour and learn a bit of quantum physics so we may at least speak the same language... So either put up or shut up Ahha. So you are asking me to forget all I have learned about physics and astronomy, sink to your level, and agree with you, or stay silent forever (eternally?)? Even here, there is another option. "False Dilemma" is a nasty logical fallacy, Greg. You really need to shake it off once and for all... What are the many alternatives to what I have said? Where is the fault in my logic? I have been telling you. Can you not read?