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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (154045)	2/6/2009 11:38:12 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

It's plausible until you ask him what did it bang from? It's still plausible if you don't dismiss the possibilities. What kind of force would have initiated it? If a force initiated the bang, then the bang wasn't a beginning, the force that banged it came first, and the banged stuff either came from something that existed before it or it came from nothing known to the laws of physics. Is it plausible to consider a force not of the temporal Universe? If not, why not? If its plausible, then such a force is not bound by the laws of the temporal universe, it could have a superior nature, it could be supernatural and creative. If things in the temporal universe are temporary, can we infer permanence from that? If time is limited can we deduce the concept of eternity? If eternity and infinity are thinkable even within our limited capacities to think and know, are they also plausible? Can we imagine both the temporal and the eternal, the partial and the whole? The limited and the infinite? ... all in one context... yes we can imagine it. Can all of this include a consciousness, an awareness, moral law embroidered into physical circumstance, a spirit of human connection each to another and to all of creation, part and parcel? All reasonable and logically believable not as a contradiction to science but in the context of scientific believability. All good questions, all worthy of consideration, all have been under consideration by scholarly believers since the beginning of time, all such consideration is subject to the dismissiveness of these arrogant mockers. tsk, tsk

To: JeffA who wrote (154045)	2/6/2009 1:56:34 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

The "Big Bang" is plausible? LMAO! Your ignorance speaks for itself. I tend to align myself with Einstien on issues like this, i believe he captures the absurd egoism of your feeble soul perfectly: The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear--that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. SD