For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

A recipe for G:

Pasta Fagioli

1/3 lb. Salt pork finely diced (if the salt pork has a skin attached, cut it off first)
1 Medium Onion, thinly sliced
2 -3 cloves of garlic, finely chopped
Two celery stalks diced (split each stalk in half lengthwise -- and then dice into half inch pieces)
1 16 oz. can white or red kidney beans
1 35 oz. can whole Italian Plum tomatoes -- squashed as you would for a pasta sauce.
3 8oz. cans tomato sauce (not paste)
1/3 pound ground beef
1/3 pound Italian sausage crumbled (casing removed)
(In a frying pan, fry the sausage until almost brown -- add the ground beef and fry until both are browned, reserve)
1/3 stick of pepperoni diced (slice the pepperoni stick in half lengthwise and then cut into 1/2 inch pieces.)
Tbsp of Oregano (actually, to taste)
Dash of red pepper or hot sauce (optional)

1 lb. Medium Shell macaroni.

In a soup pot or Dutch oven (I prefer the Dutch oven), render the diced salt pork over slow heat until its oils are released. (Adding a couple tbsps. of olive oil helps this process) (If the salt pork had skin attached?-put the whole detached skin into the pot - and leave in there until the cooking is over. Remove and eat separately if you like skin. It is delicious!)

Saute the onions in the olive oil/rendered salt pork (do not remove the pieces of fried salt pork.)

You want to saute the onions until they start to brown at the edges. As you see the onions get their first hint of brown -- add the garlic and continue the saute for another two minutes.

Add the diced celery and beans (do not drain) --- continue to cook over medium low heat for three minutes - stirring occasionally.

Add tomatoes, tomato sauce, oregano -- continue to cook for three more minutes - stirring occasionally..

Add ground beef, sausage mixture, diced pepperoni, and hot stuff (if you desire) - bring to a simmer - lower heat 'til just simmering and simmer for 15 minutes -stirring occasionally.

(All cooking to be done without a cover.)

In a separate operation -- best done during that last few minutes of cooking -- cook the shells in slightly salted, boiling water -- leaving them al dente. Do not overcook?-they will continue to cook after integration with the tomato mixture.

When the shells are cooked and drained, put half of them into a large, deep bowl and ladle several scoops of the tomato mixture over them. Put in plenty of sauce -- it should look almost like a thick soup. Let it sit for five minutes to integrate. (You'll do the same for the other half of the shells -- as the first serving gets used up.)

On the table, you should have crusty Italian or French bread. Another bread option is to take some sliced Italian round loaf and toast several pieces. A bowl of grated Romano cheese is a must.

Some people don't like the mixture too thick -- so a bit of water added to thin it down is fine. I prefer to use a bit of the water the shells were cooked in - and always reserve a cup or two of it. (Be sure the water was only slightly salted!) A thinning done with a bit of red wine ain't bad either.

Halved black olives added as you add the tomatoes works fine. Anchovies added as you add the tomatoes are great also. A bit of diced green bell pepper works. Using a can of chick peas (garbanzos) in place of the kidney beans is a nice touch. And some people like pasta other than shells -- give any pasta a try.

0 Replies

Frank

For the recipe thanks - a very good friend of mine is a chef - we'll try that one!

Its nothing personal okay - its not denial nor insecurity, I honestly don't know where you stand in as far as where you draw the line. I can't "deny" when I honestly don't know what you actually do profess to believe in.

As 'generalities' go there is weight to you concerns - but concerns do not carry the weight of proofs and certainly not over broad, undefined tracts of science.

Whem I say "I am sure you don't wish you could be more specific - if you were specific your statements could be judged in some way - keeping them so vague means there is nothing tangible to criticise. It's probably just the rest of us that wish you were more specific (although that is me going out on a limb). " yes I do wish for that - specific can be objectively argued.

How do you respond - with specifics finally or with more evasions and an obstinacy to be vague and cryptic - lets see:

Quote:

If you were as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you would be wishing for something quite different. You would be wishing you could gain the confidence to acknowledge what you do not know -- and to be able to express that acknowledgement without the pretence you bring to so much of what you write.

Well a major look of surprise fails to cross my face (once again) when I see your evasive non response.

Try again - what do you know - what don't you know?

I have described what I believe, what leading minds ponder, and where I think the line is drawn between known, speculative (theory) and the unknown or unknowable.

But I wouldn't say your mind is closed, oh no - far, far from it.

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

Frank

For the recipe thanks - a very good friend of mine is a chef - we'll try that one!

Its nothing personal okay - its not denial nor insecurity, I honestly don't know where you stand in as far as where you draw the line. I can't "deny" when I honestly don't know what you actually do profess to believe in.

I am an agnostic. I do not indulge in this "belief" stuff.

I can tell you about some of the things I suspect, suppose, conjecture, estimate...and the like, but I simply cannot tell you about anything I "believe in" because there ain't any of 'em.

Quote:

As 'generalities' go there is weight to you concerns - but concerns do not carry the weight of proofs and certainly not over broad, undefined tracts of science.

What you may consider to be a "generality" may be a specific to me.

Got a big poker tourney coming up in a few minutes -- but maybe later tonight I can post to that issue.

Quote:

Whem I say "I am sure you don't wish you could be more specific - if you were specific your statements could be judged in some way - keeping them so vague means there is nothing tangible to criticise. It's probably just the rest of us that wish you were more specific (although that is me going out on a limb). " yes I do wish for that - specific can be objectively argued.

How do you respond - with specifics finally or with more evasions and an obstinacy to be vague and cryptic - lets see:

Quote:
If you were as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you would be wishing for something quite different. You would be wishing you could gain the confidence to acknowledge what you do not know -- and to be able to express that acknowledgement without the pretence you bring to so much of what you write.

Well a major look of surprise fails to cross my face (once again) when I see your evasive non response.

Sorry, but I do not buy that this passage you quoted impacts on the issue troubling you.

Quote:

Try again - what do you know - what don't you know?

I know that science has always supposed it has the answers to questions about REALITY -- and I know that science has often found that it is wrong.

I know that we really KNOW very little about this universe, UNIVERSE, megaverse -- or whatever you want to call it -- and the idea that you can make logical conclusions or inferences about REALITY from the science now in fashion strikes me as absurd.

Quote:

I have described what I believe, what leading minds ponder, and where I think the line is drawn between known, speculative (theory) and the unknown or unknowable.

I have learned to tune out when someone talks about what they "believe." Believe whatever you want. It will never trouble me.

Quote:

But I wouldn't say your mind is closed, oh no - far, far from it.

Ahhhh...now that I can agree with.

Peace, G. This is just talk. Absolutely nothing personal with me. Just testing your mettle a bit.

0 Replies

Frank

Wierd - my edits from last night dissappeared! I had asked in that post whether you accepted physicts view from over 75 years ago e.g

1. Newton
2. Einstien
3. Rutherford
4. Planck
5. Bohr
6. Heisenberg

Do you accept their works in general or in part - if not which bit (or all) don't you hold with?

Am I just slow on the pick up of what you mean. I understood Agnostic meant "is unsure if a God exists or not". You use the term Agnostic but your definition and usage seem to imply "is unsure if anything exists and therefore can be believed".

Is that right. Am I closing in understanding you?

/Good luck with Poker!

0 Replies

Before we discuss the word "agnostic" -- perhaps it would be beneficial to discuss the word "believe", and its various forms, first.

I often ask people who talk about "believe" or "belief" or "believing in..." to explain what they mean without using the word "believe" in any of its forms.

The word means different things to different people -- so it becomes difficult to understand for sure what a user of the word means.

The main ingredient in the word "belief" or "believe", nearly as I can tell, is an acknowledgement that the person doing the "believing" does not KNOW the thing he/she is claiming to "believe."

Said again: If a person says -- I "believe...such and such"....the person acknowledges that the "such and such" is an unknown.

When the person using the word is talking about a god (as in "I believe in God") -- it is my contention that the person is trying to disguise the fact that they are talking about an unknown. I think they are making a guess (that a God exists) and trying to disguise the fact that they are making a guess by using that word.

Obviously, most theists do not want to say, "My guess is that there is a God!" So they hide the fact that they actually are saying that by saying, "I believe in God."

If you try to discuss this facet of their wording with them, they tend to get upset.

"You don't understand! I BELIEVE in God! I FIRMLY BELIEVE in God."

And of course, being a nice guy, I agree with them. "Yep, you do guess there is a God. You firmly guess their is a God. I understand."

Jeez! They have almost no sense of humor in those instances.

Atheists sometimes get that way also.

They say, "I believe there are no gods" -- or "I disbelieve (!) in God."

And the nice guy in me agrees with them. "Yep, your guess is that there are no gods."

"Oh, but I FIRMLY BELIEVE there are no gods."

"Yep, you FIRMLY guess there are no gods."

You asked me earlier what I beleive.

As I told you, I don't do that "believing" stuff.

I do not attempt to disguise the fact that occasionally I make guesses.

On those occasions where I consider it appropriate to make a guess (or estimate) about an unknown -- I clearly label it a guess or estimate.

I do not go about "believing" things -- because I consider use of that word to be a cop-out.

And now you are asking:

Quote:

Am I just slow on the pick up of what you mean. I understood Agnostic meant "is unsure if a God exists or not". You use the term Agnostic but your definition and usage seem to imply "is unsure if anything exists and therefore can be believed".

Well...essentially, you are asking me: Can you guess about anything?

And my answer would be: Yes, I can. I can guess if the guy who just raised me 800 chips is bluffing or not (I guessed he was, but he wasn't, which is the reason I am back here so soon) -- and I can guess about who will win the next presidential election (I was wrong last time I guessed about that, or at least, our Supreme Court says I was wrong)...

...and I can guess about whether or not there is a God. (Lemme digress for a second and do that: Let's see...heads there is a God; tails there are no gods. HEADS! I guess there is a God!)

I guess(!) I can also guess if the scientists are correct that EVERYTHING came into existence when NOTHING (with a propensity to become something) Big Banged and "this" was formed. (Lemme digress again and do that: Heads EVERYTHING began with the Big Bang; tails, the scientists are way, way off base. HEADS AGAIN! I guess the scientists are right.)

So...for the moment, we are in complete agreement, G.

I hope this little exercise put you into better touch with where I am -- and where I'm coming from.

0 Replies

Oh, by the way, G, you also asked:

Quote:

Wierd - my edits from last night dissappeared! I had asked in that post whether you accepted physicts view from over 75 years ago e.g

1. Newton
2. Einstien
3. Rutherford
4. Planck
5. Bohr
6. Heisenberg

Do you accept their works in general or in part - if not which bit (or all) don't you hold with?

Yeah, even without flipping my special coin again -- I can make a guess about that.

MY GUESS is that these guys have had some really decent insights into how this thing we call the universe operates -- or at least, how it operates on the levels we know about at present.

Sure. I am willing to make that guess.

Actually, I am a VERY BIG fan of Einstein. I spend lots of time over in Princeton walking the streets where he walked -- and I suspect my wife gets tired of me so often mentioning the fact that we are treading an area where he walked and worked.

MY GUESS: Einstein made some VERY, VERY significant observations about this thing.

0 Replies

Frank

There is scientific comprehension and then there is metaphysics.

I have an important question about your definitions. You said when a " person doing the "believing" does not KNOW the thing he/she is claiming to "believe." " ...otherwise they are making a guess. What are you accepting is a reasonable level of proof required by you for their view to shift from a "guess" into a valid "belief"?

For instance I know from the nature of the definition that odd numbers can't be even - do you classify me thinking that is a valid belief or is it really a guess?

What's your classification for an absolute truth - say you actually exist and have conciousness in you own mind's perception - regardless of what your true form is - your mind can percieve itself to some degree - what do you call that? If you utter "I am Frank" - is that a belief, an estimation or a guess? Do you have any beliefs or views that you hold to be totally true?

To me belief means something I use as an axiom meaning a perception is consistently true in my own mind (possibly in all but the most bizarre, extraordinary circumstances). A belief then to me means you have a handle on a logic structure to deal with your concious perception of reality. Your belief can be factual (e.g I am tall) or intuitive (e.g. my kids love me). Your belief can be right (e.g. I am male), wrong (e.g. I am smarter than I think I am) or ambiguous (e.g. I should think more). Determination of whether your belief is correct may be either possible or impossible. The outcome of an validation may absolute or indeterminate.

So we use different meanings for the word belief. I think mine is closer than yours to the Oxford dictionary's acceptance of the word:

belief "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed; specif : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or reality of a fact esp. when well grounded to the truth of something offered for acceptance"...

Your definition seems to me to say 'they must have exacting knowledge - possible expert knowledge or better - before it is permisible to use the word belief'.

So by your definition a meteorologist and I standing next to each other could both look at the sky and make some quick observations and both of us say at the same moment "I believe its going to rain soon". It might rain or it might not. Both the weatherman and myself might totally believe it will rain. But I think you would say the professional / expert is allowed to use the word belief and I am not because I don't have his formal training in all the sciences related to water, weather, observations etc...

To me that is hi-jacking and re-defining the intended meaning of the English language. Both the weatherman and myself have the stated belief as a valid internal perception. Neither of us is lying - that meets all the necessary and sufficient conditions for both of us to utter "I believe it will rain soon". The accuracy and precision of our prediction will be idential - but his views may be an expert's views - based on his sciences and expertise - and mine is the lay person's views based on a life's experiences including 20 years of sailing.

I think you are hi-jacking the word "believe" rather than ask the person uttering beliefs - 'is your belief rational, accurate, complete and does it represent the view of an expert'?

I hope this doesn't devolve into metaphysics - what is truth, perception, reality, conciousness etc... do we really know absolutely what we are etc. Those are fine topics for another debate - lets put aside we may all just be programs in an gigantic computer and not know this.

For me - if you want to say we can't really believe things - using your definitions - I would appreciate knowing what is an acceptable level of proof or is there none? Numbers are abstract thought - can I know and believe 1 = 1 or must I only guess it? Must 10 experts agree with me before I can use the term a 'reasonable belief'? Can a well framed thought experiment - life Einstein's person on a rocket travelling near the speed of light and a stationary observer to deduce the speed of light is a constant or e = mc^2 - be a valid belief?

Remember this topic touches right on the cutting edge of theoretical physics - there are contending models - there is little or no data to offer as a validation or rejection of a model. You can dis-believe a model for any reasons and we may not know who is right or wrong for many, many years to come.

I would prefer rather than say it is illogical to hold strong beliefs - say more precisely either:

1. your model is untested or insufficently tested
2. your model is disputed by other competing models
3. no model can be tested yet so this is purely spectulative
4. all overlapping models and direct data versus predictions confirm the validity of your model

Any of which if supported appropriately are valid scientific rebuttals to any claim or model.

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

Frank

There is scientific comprehension and then there is metaphysics.

Indeed!

Quote:

I have an important question about your definitions. You said when a " person doing the "believing" does not KNOW the thing he/she is claiming to "believe." " ...otherwise they are making a guess. What are you accepting is a reasonable level of proof required by you for their view to shift from a "guess" into a valid "belief"?

For instance I know from the nature of the definition that odd numbers can't be even - do you classify me thinking that is a valid belief or is it really a guess?

What the hell is a "valid belief?" If you do not KNOW that odd numbers cannot be even -- then you really ought to stay away from threads dealing with science. You should easily be able to KNOW that odd numbers cannot be even -- and no "belief" is required!

Quote:

What's your classification for an absolute truth - say you actually exist and have conciousness in you own mind's perception - regardless of what your true form is - your mind can percieve itself to some degree - what do you call that? If you utter "I am Frank" - is that a belief, an estimation or a guess? Do you have any beliefs or views that you hold to be totally true?

Obviously you are unable to comprehend what I have to say -- and you use words in the loose fashion you accused me of doing.

Like anyone of reasonable intellect, I can make a decent case that it is almost impossible to KNOW ANYTHING WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. But I think we can agree on items that we can KNOW (odd numbers cannot be even) from things that must be guessed or estimated.

Quote:

To me belief means something I use as an axiom meaning a perception is consistently true in my own mind (possibly in all but the most bizarre, extraordinary circumstances). A belief then to me means you have a handle on a logic structure to deal with your concious perception of reality. Your belief can be factual (e.g I am tall) or intuitive (e.g. my kids love me). Your belief can be right (e.g. I am male), wrong (e.g. I am smarter than I think I am) or ambiguous (e.g. I should think more). Determination of whether your belief is correct may be either possible or impossible. The outcome of an validation may absolute or indeterminate.

So we use different meanings for the word belief. I think mine is closer than yours to the Oxford...

No it isn't

Quote:

...dictionary's acceptance of the word:

belief "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed; specif : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or reality of a fact esp. when well grounded to the truth of something offered for acceptance"...

See what I mean. The first dictionary definition you cited indicates that "trust or confidence" is place in something -- which indicates that it is unknown. That is what I said.

The second definition talks about a "body of tenets" which obviously are not KNOWNS, but are suppositions.

The third talks about "conviction -- and acceptance -- which once again eliminates knowing.

One does not have to believe odd numbers cannot be even -- one can KNOW that.

Quote:

Your definition seems to me to say 'they must have exacting knowledge - possible expert knowledge or better - before it is permisible to use the word belief'.

Belief is bullshit -- but it looks as though you will have to do more work on your logic to finally be able to appreciate that.

You use the word about as carelessly as anyone I've ever heard.

Quote:

So by your definition a meteorologist and I standing next to each other could both look at the sky and make some quick observations and both of us say at the same moment "I believe its going to rain soon". It might rain or it might not. Both the weatherman and myself might totally believe it will rain. But I think you would say the professional / expert is allowed to use the word belief and I am not because I don't have his formal training in all the sciences related to water, weather, observations etc...

Who cares what you "believe?" If you want to believe you can train an elephant to walk a tight rope stretched across the Grand Canyon -- go ahead and "believe" it.

If you are estimating the chances it will rain -- say you are estimating it.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with saying you "believe" it is going to rain -- or that the guy across from you is bluffing -- or that the Tories will whip the Liberals butts.

But when you start talking about "I believe there is a God" or "I believe there are no gods" -- every inication is that you are guessing -- and trying to disguise the fact that you are guessing.

Quote:

To me that is hi-jacking and re-defining the intended meaning of the English language. Both the weatherman and myself have the stated belief as a valid internal perception. Neither of us is lying - that meets all the necessary and sufficient conditions for both of us to utter "I believe it will rain soon". The accuracy and precision of our prediction will be idential - but his views may be an expert's views - based on his sciences and expertise - and mine is the lay person's views based on a life's experiences including 20 years of sailing.
I think you are hi-jacking the word "believe" rather than ask the person uttering beliefs - 'is your belief rational, accurate, complete and does it represent the view of an expert'?

Gimme a goddam break, will ya. I am not hijacking anything.

Quote:

I hope this doesn't devolve into metaphysics - what is truth, perception, reality, conciousness etc... do we really know absolutely what we are etc. Those are fine topics for another debate - lets put aside we may all just be programs in an gigantic computer and not know this.

For me - if you want to say we can't really believe things - using your definitions -

Do you actually read what I write or do you just look and see if I make a posting and then make up stuff so that you can argue against yourself.

Where did I ever say you cannot "believe" things? Where did I ever even intimate or suggest such a thing?

YOU CAN BELIEVE ANY THING YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

It is a guess about the unknown. Who cares what you believe -- and why are you suggesting that I have indicated you cannot "believe" things?

0 Replies

Yo Frank - Let's talk about Sturgate and East Kirkby and leave philosophy and debate to others.

0 Replies

Quote:

For Christians - why is the Universe so big

Hard to answer without quantifying 'big'

Actually it is relatively small in comparison to the encompassing universes.

0 Replies

Can't get over you being here, Ray.

Folks, Ray is a guy I was stationed with over in England back in the mid-1950's.

We haven't seen or communicated in over 45 years.

And...in an unusual twist of fate, I was discussing him less than a month ago with a guy we both knew in the UK.

I just wrote a personal to Ray -- so we won't live out our reunion here, but I just wanted to let ya all know that these things happen.

Ain't it a great world!

0 Replies

Guess the universe aint so big after all.

0 Replies

Frank

I think you evaded my question of how much do you need to understand before you accept a view is a KNOWN and when is it a GUESS in your eyes.

From my simple numbers question it shows you accept some views are beliefs and they are valid because we knowtheir true, either from definitions or logical reasoning. I see you choose to call them facts or KNOWNS - not beliefs. So 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 are facts in you eyes. But what about the proof of Fermot's last theorum solved only 2 years ago. Do you hold that is a valid belief - even thought you can't understand the proof unless you have a couple of maths PhDs under your belt?

Your definition of belief is strange. Facts can be known and held true - hence you accept there are beliefs that are valid. But you skirted accepting this by then re-defining the word belief! You jumped from guess to KNOWN by by-passing beliefs. Perhaps because beliefs hold a dangerous territory for you if you can't decide what is knowable enough to be classed as a factual belief or what is merely a guess.

Do you agree we accept different meanings for the word belief?

Your logic is bad when you say

Quote:

The first dictionary definition you cited indicates that "trust or confidence" is place in something -- which indicates that it is unknown

. You are making an inference that is not required by the definition. The rule the dictionary gave was trust is given - no more or less. It very clearly didn't say you can't believe in facts or strong logic because they are knows. You added the extra bit because it suits your unusual definition, not because it is part of the English language. Too your understanding of the word tenet should be checked (dictionary) "Any opinion, principle, dogma, belief, or doctrine that a person holds or maintains as true" is simply a grouped belief - knowns and unknowns aren't qualifiers - you alone are ASSUMING they are. Same goes with your criticism of the third clause - you added to it something that it didn't require as a Frank's qualifier.

You say "belief is bullshit" - but I wonder if you should actually say with more accuracy and honesty 'certainity is bullshit or certainity of belief' is bullshit? You say you admire Einstein - but his beliefs weren't even testable until 20 years after they were published. But I sense you would say Einstein wasn't allowed to hold those views as beliefs - becuase belief infers factual, verifable proof?

I have two degrees where logic is a prime requisite (Maths/ Computing honours and Masters in Business). I have designed computer chips and large, very complex systems - I think I know more about logic than you might every dream.

Take the rain forecasting thought experiement I cited. You say its okay for me to estimate it, and even okay for me to believe in my estimate and act on it or vocalise it. So it seems you bless or accept my use of the word belief in that context where I am making a semi-informed observation with incomplete data or training.

But in the next sentence you swing the topic to God and say beliefs aren't on in this domain for two reasons:

1) There is no absolute data or reasoning system we know of to prove God does or doesn't exist - on this we both agree

2) People who use the word belief and God in the same sentence are trying to trick you and/or others - because of reason 1) above and your curious definition of the word belief that implies factual / absolute certainity. Well here I disagree, I don't think people are trying to trick you by using the word believe to mean they are making statements of absolutle truth unless they explicitly say so (i.e. I know absolutely there is a God because I dreamed about him last night or whatever).

I read every word you write carefully - to try and better understand what you curious definitions, assumptions and your cryptically unexplained forward references mean.

Ray

- Hi and welcome to a2k!

Gelisgesti

Another believer in the multiverse conjecture. Time will tell!

Hawking's had this to say a while back about the strong Anthropic principle that supports the multiverse "The strong form of the Anthropic Principle is not very satisfactory" from a very interesting lecture on the chances of life vs intelligent life.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

0 Replies

G.

I want to say this as respectfully as I can, but it ain't gonna be easy.

I'm tired of discussing this topic with you.

I think you are way out of your depth in this kind of discussion -- and you really should stick to trying to impress people with your considerable knowledge of what scientists say about the nature of reality and existence.

If I note a specific comment you make that requires a response, I'll make it -- and perhaps even discuss it with you for a while. But for now, you are merely playing games -- and it is boring.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Can't get over you being here, Ray.

Folks, Ray is a guy I was stationed with over in England back in the mid-1950's.

We haven't seen or communicated in over 45 years.

And...in an unusual twist of fate, I was discussing him less than a month ago with a guy we both knew in the UK.

I just wrote a personal to Ray -- so we won't live out our reunion here, but I just wanted to let ya all know that these things happen.

Ain't it a great world!

A world that seems to get smaller everyday!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Who cares what you "believe?" If you want to believe you can train an elephant to walk a tight rope stretched across the Grand Canyon -- go ahead and "believe" it.

If you are estimating the chances it will rain -- say you are estimating it.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with saying you "believe" it is going to rain -- or that the guy across from you is bluffing -- or that the Tories will whip the Liberals butts.

But when you start talking about "I believe there is a God" or "I believe there are no gods" -- every inication is that you are guessing -- and trying to disguise the fact that you are guessing.

Beliefs are funny things. Most beliefs are taught to us by others. There is a huge difference between a belief and a knowing.

For example, I can give you all the scientific facts and techniques about swimming. I can give you enough information that you can believe you CAN swim. But until you get in the water and do it, you don't KNOW you can swim.

Knowing comes from connecting with whatever your belief is.

0 Replies

Timothy Leary's dead . . .

No, no, he's outside
Looking in . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Timothy Leary's dead . . .

No, no, he's outside
Looking in . . .

:wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

G.

I want to say this as respectfully as I can, but it ain't gonna be easy.

I'm tired of discussing this topic with you.

I think you are way out of your depth in this kind of discussion -- and you really should stick to trying to impress people with your considerable knowledge of what scientists say about the nature of reality and existence.

If I note a specific comment you make that requires a response, I'll make it -- and perhaps even discuss it with you for a while. But for now, you are merely playing games -- and it is boring.

Hmmmm ..... to engage or not to engage ..... that is the question?
Whatsa matter Frank, prickly heat? All out of baby powder?

Are you still mad because I ate your lunch in our last encounter ..... I see you are still setting yourself up as the 'ultimate' authority on all things various and sundry ... tsk tsk
I'm out of my depth! You seem to be the one getting smoked!
If I get time later I'll come back and play ..... ciao baby

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
G.

I want to say this as respectfully as I can, but it ain't gonna be easy.

I'm tired of discussing this topic with you.

I think you are way out of your depth in this kind of discussion -- and you really should stick to trying to impress people with your considerable knowledge of what scientists say about the nature of reality and existence.

If I note a specific comment you make that requires a response, I'll make it -- and perhaps even discuss it with you for a while. But for now, you are merely playing games -- and it is boring.

Hmmmm ..... to engage or not to engage ..... that is the question?
Whatsa matter Frank, prickly heat? All out of baby powder?

Are you still mad because I ate your lunch in our last encounter ..... I see you are still setting yourself up as the 'ultimate' authority on all things various and sundry ... tsk tsk
I'm out of my depth! You seem to be the one getting smoked!
If I get time later I'll come back and play ..... ciao baby

Ge, get your head out of your ass. All the way out.

My remarks were directed to G-day, not you -- and have been all along.

There is no way I would end a debate with you on that note -- but we have a history of 3 years of intense debating that shows neither of us is likely to abandon any discussion that has any chance of being resolved.

G_day, in my opinion, is simply out of his element when discussing the stuff currently being handled.

As an aside, G_day can hold his own with almost anyone I've encountered in these fora when regurgitating what the scientists say about reality.

0 Replies

For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know