Literate, somewhat. Omniscient, no.
In digging around, I discovered that the Wallis/Hobbes debate was
an Algebra v. Classical Geometry debate (For a good synopis, see:
But, I guess I am dense; I don't see the connection to the current
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Or perhaps they are not even pertinent questions. When
someone asks why are we here, my thought is that due to a
miraculous combination of cosmic, planetary, evolutionary and
physical occurences, we are here at this point in time and
space. That is amazing and wondrous to me. How did it
happen? I leave science to answer that.
Being a Bhuddist, science meshes perfectly with my world view.
After all, it is based on observation, as is my philosophy.
Others have said (and I agree) that the Bhuddist god is so
powerful that he does not even have to exist. If he is there,
he is there, if he is not, he is not.
And does it help us to predict results. I love the
philosophical arguments, but they are outside the realm of
science and I look on them as amusements rather than serious
search for knowledge.
After all, one cannot know the unknowable. What would be the
purpose of trying? Aggravation?
It cannot - not now, not in principle, not ever. Science examines
the mechanical minutae of the *observable* universe. But if the root
cause of it all isn't "observable" then science will never see it.
Moreover, whether or not there is a root cause - observable or not -
isn't likely to be answered by the methods of science as we currently
Here's a thought experiment for you: Try to understand deep passion
(love, hate, aesthetics sense, the joy of a great pet) in solely
scientific terms. I don't mean measure whether that passion exists
or not - you can do that empirically. I mean *understand* it so
well you can convey it objectively to others.
You can't know by science what is unknowable by science. You can
"know" things in other ways though. Every time you are deeply moved
by beauty/sadness/a great movie/a rare wine ... you have an
experience which cannot be objectively conveyed to others, at least
not completely. Yet what you "knew" in that existential moment
was very real - it just isn't open to pure empiricist deconstruction.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
I understand that the paragraph I quoted, came from a much larger
context, but at what point do deduction and observable science
connect? When, as humans, we stumbled upon the scene of our existence,
we picked up a rock and concluded that 'somebody' put it there. We
still don't know who, or if it was 5 billion years ago...or was it
6000 years ago that somebody created a 4.999994e+9 year-old rock and
put it there. Surely if we can attribute the entire universe to a
Creator, what's the big deal of that Creator making a few 5 billion-
year-old rocks? Hell, even stick a few fossils in there to throw the
unbelievers off for a bit.
How often do we see the phrase: "Scientists believe that it was a
meteor...blah, blah." How can that be?
But that brings us around to what my physics teacher in Holland used
to quote: "one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men
PS, I'm enjoying the back-n-forth going on in here.
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:43:47 -0800, Robatoy wrote:
I do hope you're being sarcastic.
Of course, there are those who sincerely believe that fossils and rocks
are just the creators practical joke - it's the only refutation of the
science they can think of.
There's where we part company (again). It's certainly no there yet, but
the objective is a "theory of everything". Intimations of what this
might look like are beginning to appear and one of these is that there
may well be a self-generating beginning out of what looks like nothing.
If this proves out to be so, then we will, in essence, be able to
observe that beginning and find out the constraints that are in place.
Again, read more modern expositions than those with which you apparently
Who knows where our understanding of physiology and biology will lead in
another century or millenia? To say it is impossible only leaves it as
"impossible now", not that it is inherently unknowable.
If it's not observable either directely or by inference, then anything
we say about it is just someone's opinion.
This business of aesthetics, which Tim seems to think is beyond the
domain of science, is likely to surprise him one day. What value do
these "moving experiences" have when they can be generated to order in
Tim might cause he reminds me of those guys arguing about the angels dancing
on the head of a needle but Buddhism isn't a religion, never has been, never
Please don't lump a simple way of looking at the way life works into that
group of beliefs that call for supernatural events and beings to be true.
Buddha was a man, not a god. The Dalai Lama is a man, not a god.
It seems that you are in disagreement with the majority if you
consider Buddhism to be other than a religion. If some person
associated with it not being a deity makes something not a religion
then neither Islam nor Roman Catholicism is a religion--Mohammed
wasn't a god and neither is the Pope.
To the contrary, many who call themselves Buddhists don't consider it a
religion at all. As for the association with a deity, there has been an
attempt over time to deify that which we call the Buddha. He himself
resisted those efforts as he knew he wasn't a deity. Buddhism suffers from
it's own name. That and the unfortunate usage of terms like monks and nuns
to describe some of it's practioners. Anyone who reads the Dhammapada
should be able to figure out that there are no religious beliefs in
Buddhism, not then, not now.
As for the Pope, he is considered God's man on earth by catholic's is he
not? His word is taken as infallible to the true believers is it not? Islam
has it's Allah and his prophet as well. All efforts to try and keep people
in fear of self awareness in my opinion.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.