Maaarsh and Crawley could be at it for hours here. Not sure if it's two learned theologians or a creationist versus an evolutionist. In the meantime, I prefer to look at:-

 

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by bolty58

Maaarsh and Crawley could be at it for hours here. Not sure if it's two learned theologians or a creationist versus an evolutionist. In the meantime, I prefer to look at:-

 

 

 

Tattooed ladies? You've been hanging round the circus too much.

Tattooed ladies? You've been hanging round the circus too much.

 

 

You are clearly unaware of some of the idiosyncracies of the scootering world.

You are clearly unaware of some of the idiosyncracies of the scootering world.

 

 

Alas, that I am. But that doesn't explain why you've posted Amy Winehouse in her stockings.

 

 

My head hurts......

That's pretty much how I see it. I remember reading Bryson's book "A short History of Nearly Everything" and that tried to debunk some of the theories of the universe - he did mention that it is pretty difficult, if not impossible for the human mind to grasp or understand some things relating to the Universe at large.............in fact, if truth be told, I failed to understand the majority of his book, and that was all put inb laymans terms!

 

That's about the limit of my knowledge on the subject and I suspect most people's.

 

Great book that by the way and yes if that's laymens terms I think it's best if other folk take it further. I don't come on WW to learn things

My web cam got washed in bear nothing to do with the universe

What on Earth are you on?

 

JAL.

I'm not going to go in to a great deal of detail, because I can't see it being worth my time, and I'm fairly happy to have left this behind at University, but a lack of any beginning meets the necessary criteria of an ex nihilo explanation in the same way as a causal one, so your objection doesn't actually object to what I wrote. As for your second pearl of wisdom, I didn't mention God, and the argument I laid out absolutely does not reach a conclusion which provides any comfort for people afraid of death. To go on a cod psychology line however, I do always wonder why religion is accused of a fear of death which it posits the possibility of eternal damnation, versus a quiet and final end, and it is the modern secular world which has developed an absolute obsession with physical health and spends a massive proportion of it's wealth extending life out as much as possible.

 

Oh dear! When was ex nihilo (created from nothing) the same as no beginning. So sir my objection stands

 

Fear of death and the thought of nothing thereafter is why a lot of people are smitten by the religious bug.

 

As for the secular world being healthy and wanting to live longer perhaps as these secular folk think this is the only life they will live (as the is no evidence that would prove otherwise) so they want to feel good in it, enjoy themselves and prolong the time they are in it. A tad obvious I would have thought

Oh dear! When was ex nihilo (created from nothing) the same as no beginning. Look up Aquinas' argument from contingency

 

 

As for the secular world being healthy and wanting to live longer perhaps as these secular folk think this is the only life they will live (as the is no evidence that would prove otherwise) so they want to feel good in it, enjoy themselves and prolong the time they are in it. A tad obvious I would have thought. The point was rather more that we spend a massive proportion of our resources on what might more accurately be called a National Death Service, desperately postponing the inevitable, even when all hope of feeling good and enjoying themselves has long since passed. Even if I take the position you attributed to me in my response, it's been pretty clear for a few thousand years that Epicureanism offers no real justification for short term hedonism before the end of our tale "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

Crawley, you're absolutely right, and I have no justification for passing off rudeness as brevity; I just get a little frustrated because there are perfectly good reasons for people to be atheists, but most people seem to choose positions which are either logically refutable, or based on cod psychology, and I can only conclude that they made a snap decision based on gut feelings or peer pressure at some stage in their life, and never made an attempt to reach reasoned conclusions.

Crawley, you're absolutely right, and I have no justification for passing off rudeness as brevity; I just get a little frustrated because there are perfectly good reasons for people to be atheists, but most people seem to choose positions which are either logically refutable, or based on cod psychology, and I can only conclude that they made a snap decision based on gut feelings or peer pressure at some stage in their life, and never made an attempt to reach reasoned conclusions.

 

 

Or maybe they haven't read any of Aquinas' teachings and therefore are making judgements based on their own reaction to the world around them. Its rather patronising to believe that because you are better educated you have a clearer understand on actual personal belief systems.

 

Also, just because someone disagrees with you on this point doesn't mean they haven't reach a reasoned conclusion through their own way through life,it is, at the end of the day, a personal set of beliefs which in its very essense defies any logic. You don't need a doctorate in theology to choose not to believe in a deity.

Right Maaaaaarsh.

 

Cod psychology - is this the sneaky way they've hidden in deeper waters to make fishermen think their numbers are dwindling, thus leaving the humble (and slightly rubbish tasting) pollock to fill the nets?

 

Or

 

Have you missed the point altogether? Ie. The universe started simply because it could? And it will end thus. In the meantime, only our greatest philosophers have managed to work this out (The Stranglers "Summat outtanowt")

 

Case closed

Hadron Collider is a 3yr old French Chestnut Colt trained by Richard Hannon: it's nowt special though.

I'm sick of all this debate, nothing was ever proved. Just move on. It did Allardyce no good in the long run. The BBC can sod off.

I'm sick of all this debate, nothing was ever proved. Just move on. It did Allardyce no good in the long run. The BBC can sod off.

 

Oh sorry, I read it as "Big Bung Theory"

I've read probably all of Brysons books, what good reads they are too, but 'A Short History' left me more confused than before.

 

Normal male brains are programmed to process only one function at once, so to get your head aorund the basics of quantum physics et al, baffles me.

 

 

Anyway, the advert where the monkey plays the drums on the telly is on now. I like that I do, me.