h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wavicles, that's the term, I believe.. (I'm watching, with half my brain, Star Trek the Original Series, love that Spock!)

Della
\\//
(__)
::::

Alji

Della, have you seen http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/original/

Try again
\\//
(_)
::::

Alji

I think gravity still operates at zero temparatures Toxx, and electromagnetic radiation keeps on going. Nice try

"Wavicles" are only particles or waves when they interact with something in a way that can be measured. The rest of the time they're just... you guessed it - whatever they are.

Noggin

Nogg. I need gravity for the example to work. OK, we enclose in a Faraday cage etc.

It was only a jest, of course. We just have to understand that the particular cause I had in mind was an example, nicked from Kant, where (gravity/weight) causes stasis rather than motion. In the real world there will be other effects; but no philosopher would have a problem with that. As specified by me it's a counterexample to Moth's assertion.

"... the perfectly conducting enclosure is a perfect electromagnetic shield. "

http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/Elemental_Faraday_Cage.htm

Hi Rev. Alji

>So for the Hindus of 1,500 BC... and they didn't have any clocks!!!!<

Yeah, but that's where the wheels come off, dunnit?
Even in the explaination you state they recognize day and night...

They must make THEIR measurement based on mankinds observation of Earths travel through space...

or TIME as you earthlings insist upon calling it.

diversity

please read two of my entries i have asked before.

liberation theology
A1104139

justice peace/liberation theology A1107640

kat

the real religion of the west is captailism - putting profit before people.

kat

A1101862 celtic spirituality

A1101538 the iona community

kat

Post 9808:
<-Insight
Where is outside the universe?>
Since space only exists as feature of our universe (as far as we know), it's true that the term 'outside' doesn't really apply - but it's the simplest term to use. But for clarity, we could say 'independent of', or something like that. The point is that Jehovah, being eternal, isn't really in any particular point in time, and being omniscient, he isn't really in any particular place. Indeed, he couldn't really need a particular place in these things, seeing as he created them.

Post 9809:

Certainly measurements of time, such as hours, minutes and seconds, have only been around since man invented them, but how can you say the same about time itself?
If time wasn't around before man, then what does 'before man' mean? And how did man come into existence, if there was no time for him to come into existence in? Without time, nothing can happen, whether man is around or not.

Post 9812:

I didn't say that. I just said that if God had chosen to 'arbitrarily dictate what is right and wrong', who are we to say he can't?
It's more likely that what is right and wrong is constant, just like the fact that 2+2=4 is constant. Nobody decided that is you have 2 apples and you get 2 more, you should have 4 - that's just the way it is, and even God, as far as I can see, could not change that. There may likewise be some fundamental definition of good and bad that even God cannot change (the Bible does say, after all, not that God 'will not lie', but that he 'cannot lie'.), and all his other laws may be based on that. God may, in himself, be the definition of what is good, whether he likes it or not. Or it may be that God simply decided for himself based on his own infinite wisdom what is good.
The thing is, how good was originally defined doesn't make any difference to the end result - we are Gods creation, and if he has told us what is good, we do not have the right to go against him. And since a collective following of his laws results in happiness for everyone, we have no reason to go against him either.

Post 9816:

It doesn't really explain a lot though, since life had to exist before it could evolve. And even the simplest life form is incredibly complex.


Why shouldn't he? Just because you exist, you're not forced to do everything you possibly can do all at once. Besides, is there really any such thing as 'waiting' for a timeless being?


That's like saying you don't believe in organised maths. We have to be taught things, because hardly anyone on earth can figure out a whole subject for themselves. If mathematical or scientific communities were not organised, then they would accomplish nothing, as anything a person learned would be limited to him and maybe a few of his friends, and would probably not pass to the people who put such things to use. If religion becomes unorganised, then it too is soon forgotten.
But what does a human opinion matter anyway? The number of people I speak to on the ministry who will turn me away saying, 'My religion is good enough for me'. If only they would think for a moment, and realize that it's irrelevant whether their religion is good enough for THEM - what matters is whether their religion is good enough for God. It is God who determines what true religion whould be, and he had a temple built, an organised priesthood, a whole law code, and when Jesus came along, he was declared to be the 'head of the congregation'. God has always had things organised, as long as there been enough faithful people to form an organisation.
And there would be no (or at least, very few - I can't think of any religions that truly promote violence) religious wars if people actually followed their religions. Take fighting between Catholics and Protestants, for example. Both their Bibles certainly prohibit taking a part in human wars, the problem is just that they pay no attention to their Bibles when they don't want to.

Post 9819:
If Adam and Eve were mythical, why does the gospel of Luke give Jesus lineage all the way back to Adam? Why are we told in Genesis 5:3 that "Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth."? Does this mean that Seth was also mythical? And since he also went on to have a son, and so on, how far do we take the mythical interpretation? Why does Jude 14 speak of “The seventh one in line from Adam, Enoch"? Matt. 19:4, 5 reads, “[Jesus] said: ‘Did you not read [at Genesis 1:27; 2:24] that he who created them [Adam and Eve] from the beginning made them male and female and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh”?’” Since Jesus believed the Genesis account to be factual, should we not believe it too? Paul also showed belief in it when he said, “Through one man sin entered into the world . . . thus death spread to all men.”

Post 9826:

I find the words in my Bible, in Matthew 24, 'this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur', but Jesus had been speaking about the temple being destroyed. What he said has it's major fulfillment, the destruction of this system of things, in the future, but it had it's minor fulfillment, the literal destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, in 70 C.E. I think the minor fulfillment was what would take place within his generation. I don't see snything significant about heaven or any mention of hell in the chapter though.

there are alot of reconcillation groups/interfaith groups in northern eire and in the midddle east but sadly the media do not report it as much as the conflict. good news does not sell.

kat

Morning, Moth

>no, change is real, and time the invented measurement of it<

Well done, Moth! And congrats on an open minded explaination we can all agree with!

Insight.

<
I didn't say that. I just said that if God had chosen to 'arbitrarily dictate what is right and wrong', who are we to say he can't?>

I say he can't and my post is my argument. Argue against it if you will but don't just assert that I'm wrong or that 'we can't know'.

i find this conversation has very little female input.

has anyone read the entries that i put down in two threads ago.

kat

Just read them, Kat.

Don't think you'll find much disagreement here.

Noggin

thanks noggin

kat

Jedi, they need filling out a bit. Here's a link for Pelagius (Morgan in Welsh (the Greek 'pelagios' means "of the sea")) http://www.brojed.org/pelagius.html



Alji

Insight, I must agree with you as to time i.e. "If time wasn't around before man, then what does 'before man' mean? And how did man come into existence, if there was no time for him to come into existence in? Without time, nothing can happen, whether man is around or not."

Planck Time is the time taken for a photon travelling at the speed of light to move a distance of the Planck length (About 10^-33 centimeters). Matter can't exist outside of time.


Alji