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

Are they not where they are? Personally I'd like to be returned to the sea, raw. Give the clothes to someone who can use them.

CHorse. I have another favourite epitaph. Over the name of the deceased it simply says: "I *told* them I was ill!".

toxx

Hi Mox,

You asked why time must have a beginning and I believe Toxx already kindly answered that one but I didn't want you to think I'd ignored your question.

The answer, as Toxx explained, is of course that if time had no beginning then in effect it began an infinitely long time ago. That would meant that an infinite amount of time must have passed until now. This is simply not possible. If you are still not sure why let me know and I'll try to give you are more detailed explanation.

F

I like these epitaphs
There's one on the tomb of a doctor (so it is said): 'He survived all his patients'...

Hi Toxx
You're quite right of course, I wouldn't equate human mercy with God's mercy, and I didn't think CH meant to do so either. At the same time Christians believe that God wants us to love him freely, and part of that means acknowledging our faults. This belief is based on Scripture - e.g. the parable of the pharisee and the publican: repentance needs to be genuine.

I doubt this position can be reached from philosophy alone. But it's not *inconsistent* with the basic theist position as reached by the cosmological argument. (Er, at least I don't think so...)

Hi F,
Thats really kind of you. I think I get the picture. I was confused initially because because of the contradiction of infinity having a beginning , how ever , I see the point. Not sure it help in the grand scale of this debate, but its interesting.
Cheers, Mox

Detailed explanation is not an answer. Many come close but there is as of yet no theory of the universe that you can print on a tee-shirt.

Results of science can be misleading. I can prove that 1+1=3. Does this make it true, no. Is it relevant, not really. Does it complicate a simple issue, yes.

(the number 1 should be concidered an approximation of the concept of singleness. In the laws of rounding, anything between 0.5 and 1.49 can be rounded to the number 1. 1.3+1.3=2.6 therefore we may round 2.6 to three thusl yproving that 1+1=3. Yes? No? Maybe? {I bet myself almost three euro that I could prove me wrong.})

There are plenty theories of the universe that can be printed on a tee-shirt. Pretty well all of the religious ones are simple enough to print on a few square centimetres of fabric. That doesn't make them right.

I'm not sure that a tee-shirt slogan is as good a test of validity as, say, Occam's Razor.

And if 1+1=3 then I am the Pope.

F

Hi greytfl3iii,
I think that this is my point generally with regard to this debate. It s focus has an academic base which as far as I can see, has shifted between science , theology , and to some extent psychology. The tendency has been to provoke discussion from an evidence base, even though the evidence to support some of the presented evidence has been dubious at times !
I reckon this thread lacks a spiritual element, which some (Toxx) would call mysticism . Lets face it, all the technical knowledge bases in the world are not going tell us whether God is fact or fiction. If that were the case it would have been done some where else by now and not on this site, although you never know!
This is an observation not a criticism I will continue to observe as the debate rolls on.

<>
Maybe, if you round up a little...

Nice!

I'm not trying to change anyones beliefs, ok that may not be exactly true. I happen to believe nothing completely. Many take this as an insult, to me it just seems truthful. I believe that I am sitting here living a *normal* life, punching little buttons on a machine. *Keanu storms in weilding a large gun and wearing, believe it or not a pink trenchcoat (pink is the new black). Phone rings...

My brother can make 1+1=3. He does it like this: he uses javascript.

If you try hard enough you can do just about anything.

Well, he bases this on the incorrect assumption that computers are never wrong when it comes to math, but they can be if they're fed the wrong data. He knows this, of course, and is just being

Hi Andrew,

1+1=3
1+1-1=3-1
:. 1=2

The Pope and I are two people.
But 2=1 so the Pope and I are also one person.
Therefore I am the Pope.



F (P)

Thanks F!
Actually I think I agree with your earlier posting! But I certainly like this proof.

108 posts in a weekend,

I can't keep up!

No time to post adequately now either!

Just to cheer on Heathen Sceptic, particulary the judeo/christian god's need to create a demigod in the person of Satan

Among the multiple interweaving threads, mysticism caught my eye,

Generally frowned on by Christianity, as mystics tended to ask aquward questions, e.g. the reaction of the church to st Francis.

But links back to the theme of realsing we are not the thinker, and from there to the concept of insight meditation, where from personal experience I know that I have at moments realised I am watching thoughts without thinking them.

Picked up the link on this but cannot at the moment remember what the word someone used was, but within groups there is a distinct tendancy for individuals to speak similar things almost simultaneously. I would argue along with CG Jung that this can be applied to entire populations. He based his argument of what he percieved to be an upsurge in psychosis leading up to the forst world war.

The limits of the possible may be unknowable,
the limits of the probable may be possible,
Imagination may raise the improbable,
but thought can make it knowable.

Mystical it is not, but I rather like it too

Thank you StrontiumDog,
>But links back to the theme of realsing we are not the thinker, and from there to the concept of insight meditation, where from personal experience I know that I have at moments realised I am watching thoughts without thinking them<
I feel sane again