Quote
Fate of Universe revealed by galactic lens

A "galactic lens" has revealed that the Universe will probably expand forever.

Astronomers used the way that light from distant stars was distorted by a huge galactic cluster known as Abell 1689 to work out the amount of dark energy in the cosmos.

Dark energy is a mysterious force that speeds up the expansion of the Universe.

Understanding the distribution of this force revealed that the likely fate of the Universe was to keep on expanding.

It will eventually become a cold, dead wasteland, researchers say.

The study, conducted by an international team led by Professor Eric Jullo of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, is published in the journal Science.

Dark energy makes up three-quarters of our Universe but is totally invisible. We only know it exists because of its effect on the expansion of the Universe.


...MORE...

this theory does present an issue because if it never collapses then the universe had to have a beginning.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Excellent point Gravis!

I wonder if our FU Resident Evolutionist -'Numbers', has anything to say about what his scientist buddies are saying now?


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

That gravitational lensing is pretty fascinating. Hopefully one of these days with more powerful telescopes we can see the very edge of the universe.





-
Attachments:

What if the 'edge' is an entire whole other dimension?

If this is the case, we may never actually 'see' that edge of our universe.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

It's gonna bounce, and keep on bouncing until it gets it right, damnit!

Some priest made up this "big bang" shit to try and introduce a creator, when everyone knows the universe has existed for eternity, right?

Cosmological constant, right?

RIGHT??

Are you RETARDED, son?



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

"The cosmological constant was the BEST idea I ever came up with -- period!"
-- Albert Einstein

Nice quote.

Well, word is, Albert is DEAD now.
Soooooo, he can no longer come up with any more 'BEST ideas'.
But science is still coming up with NEW stuff--period.

Plus 'Bounce Theory' is just another name for
the Devilutionists 'BIG BANG' Theory.

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

I find Fairfax Underground to be the best place to discuss the latest developments in cosmology, in between racist rants and advice about court dates.

That's because you're 'A'-sexual and your daddy was a queer !

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

"It will eventually become a cold, dead wasteland, researchers say "


Great. A humongous Detroit.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> this theory does present an issue because if it
> never collapses then the universe had to have a
> beginning.


Not necessarily. It depends on your position on the ontology of time.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent point Gravis!
>
> I wonder if our FU Resident Evolutionist
> -'Numbers', has anything to say about what his
> scientist buddies are saying now?
>
>
> .


Universe Beginning = Big Bang

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

LOL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent point Gravis!
>
> I wonder if our FU Resident Evolutionist
> -'Numbers', has anything to say about what his
> scientist buddies are saying now?


This theory is not new. Scientist have long speculated this this could be the case as opposed to a stretching universe that could possibly retract at some point. There are many theories. Fact is, we've only been studying the universe for a very short time. Right now the microwave curtain is the biggest obstacle in seeing how/when the universe was created. Give it time and we'll figure it out.

BTW Troll, this has NOTHING to do with evolution. It's cosmology and even if this theory is correct, how does this prove that god was somehow involved?
What, because the universe began at some point, that means it had to be god? This is called the Big Bang. What was before the Big Bang is unclear so far, this is why seeing into and beyond the microwave curtain is so interesting.

Troll, you seem to be so sure about god's creation, yet you're so willing to accept scientific findings when you feel they support your stance. When they don't support creationism, you brush them off.
If you really believe the bible, then you must believe the universe is under 10,000 years old, even though we can tell by using light colors that it's almost 14 billion years old.
So, how old is the universe?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2010 11:35AM by Numbers.

You know Numbers, God is capitalized. Even agnostic and atheist literature I have read make sure God starts with a capital G.

I guess it's a cute way of showing you're "above" religion right?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know Numbers, God is capitalized. Even
> agnostic and atheist literature I have read make
> sure God starts with a capital G.
>
> I guess it's a cute way of showing you're "above"
> religion right?


It would depend on what was meant by 'God'. God is typically a *name* in Abrahamic religions. However, if you are speaking about the term in general, say 'the gods of greece', no need to capitalize.

Yes Pangloss, I know the difference between common and proper nouns.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes Pangloss, I know the difference between common
> and proper nouns.

I'm just trying to imply that it's not necessarily an obvious sign of disrespect. I *try* to be respectful (give or take) and I occasionally mess up the whole "God", "god" thing.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know Numbers, God is capitalized. Even
> agnostic and atheist literature I have read make
> sure God starts with a capital G.
>
> I guess it's a cute way of showing you're "above"
> religion right?


I don't feel I'm above, below or next to religion, simply because religion itself doesn't exist to me. Nor do I feel superior to the people that follow religions. We're all in the same boat, but I believe some of us have been duped on this issue.

Ask that same question to christians and muslims about atheists.

Intergalactic Planetary...

I fixed it for you.
Attachments:

let's wait and see what Galactus has to say about all this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize to those I unfairly hurt. To Harry Tuttle in particular.
Attachments:

Warhawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It will eventually become a cold, dead wasteland,
> researchers say "
>
>
> Great. A humongous Detroit.

---

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > this theory does present an issue because if it
> > never collapses then the universe had to have a
> > beginning.
>
>
> Not necessarily. It depends on your position on
> the ontology of time.

please elaborate, i'm quite interested.

---

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This theory is not new. Scientist have long
> speculated this this could be the case as opposed
> to a stretching universe that could possibly
> retract at some point. There are many theories.
> Fact is, we've only been studying the universe for
> a very short time. Right now the microwave curtain
> is the biggest obstacle in seeing how/when the
> universe was created. Give it time and we'll
> figure it out.

you have faith in humanity and science. :P


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > this theory does present an issue because if
> it
> > > never collapses then the universe had to have
> a
> > > beginning.
> >
> >
> > Not necessarily. It depends on your position on
> > the ontology of time.
>
> please elaborate, i'm quite interested.

It's very complicated and I don't think I'd do the topic justice, so I'll provide some links in addition to trying to explain it.

Basically there are two general metaphysical theories of *time*. What is known as the "A" theory and the "B" theory. The "A" theory is the most popular, it is roughly this:

The past *was*, the present *is*, and the future *will be*. What this means is that the past and the future do not exist. They've disappeared (or in the case of the future, haven't appeared yet).

There are some interesting implications to this, one being that there must be an absolute *present*. Simultaneous presents do not accord with the A theory. There have been some proposed solutions to this, the name of one slipping my mind (William Lane Craig advocates it, I think it's lorenzo something interpretation of relativity). IIRC, this basically means that when we go at the speed of light, it's not that things are slowing down necessarily, it's that our time measuring instruments are not accurately recording time. This is due to gravity. Again, this is basic and you'd do much better to read the actual material then to listen to me. ;-)

The second theory is known as the B theory, the one put forth by McTaggart in the early 1900's. Simply put, *time* is a fiction basically. What we consider the past, the present, and the future are simply locations (the past and the future being places we do not have access to). On this view, simultaneous presents makes sense, since it's just a location (basically).

If you accept the B theory, then the past, present, and future has always existed, eternally. In the picture attached, that's all there is and ever will be. So to say there was a 'before' the big bang, doesn't make sense (on the b theory). There was no 'before'. The singularity is simple one piece of existence.

Here's a picture that might help and here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._E._McTaggart
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/02/ontology-of-time.html
Attachments:

I will note that when I say the 'a theory' is the most popular, I mean in the public sense. In the philosophical community, it's not very popular.

'Numbers' wrote:
-------------------------------
>"Troll, you seem to be so sure about god's creation, yet you're so willing to accept scientific findings when you feel they support your stance. When they don't support creationism, you brush them off."

I AM BRUSHING NOTHING OFF! You are brushing off your inability as a 'scientist' to explain to me simple things like Magnets and Gravity, when you finally understand the simple TANGIBLE things on this planet, then try understanding the cosmos, fool.

'Numbers' also wrote:
------------------------------
>"If you really believe the bible, then you must believe the universe is under 10,000 years old, even though we can tell by using light colors that it's almost 14 billion years old.
So, how old is the universe?"

The BIBLE was a book FOR IT'S TIME! Basically,
uneducated peasant people 2000 years ago would
relate to 5000 years, more than say; 500,000,000,000,000.
Ever heard of LAYMAN'S terms, MORON?



.


_____________________________________________________

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Professor Pangloss,
I understand the theories presented but one of them is that the the big bang is the focal point of switching directions in time. however, both sides are open ended going out infinitely. another is that all points in time are the same. both very interesting and very convenient in that they dont need to explain the origin of the universe. the expanding and collapsing theory seem more realistic. the idea that the universe is a static object with infinite size that somehow we just happen to experience is... really far fetched.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

imagine a super universe with infinite possibilities and worldlines, then think of a room with mirrors on all the walls. You are aware of your enclosure but as you look in the distance, you see an infinite number of "you" in an infinite number of mirrored rooms.

our future gravity distortion machine allows you to "step" out of your room and into another next to you. The closer you are to your original room, the closer it looks like yours, the farther away, the stranger it looks to you.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The BIBLE was a book FOR IT'S TIME! Basically,
> uneducated peasant people 2000 years ago would
> relate to 5000 years, more than say;
> 500,000,000,000,000.
> Ever heard of LAYMAN'S terms, MORON?
>

And yet, there are religious groups that still believe that non-sense.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss,
> I understand the theories presented but one of
> them is that the the big bang is the focal point
> of switching directions in time.

This is according to the A theory. On the B theory, there is no time to switch directions.

> however, both
> sides are open ended going out infinitely.

I'm not quite sure this is so.

> another is that all points in time are the same.
> both very interesting and very convenient in that
> they dont need to explain the origin of the
> universe. the expanding and collapsing theory
> seem more realistic. the idea that the universe
> is a static object with infinite size that somehow
> we just happen to experience is... really far
> fetched.


It is counter intuitive, but it actually makes the most sense, considering the theory of relativity, and the notion of simultaneous 'presents'. I don't think the A theory does an adequate job of explaining this phenomenon.

I have never seen so much sophistry in one place and one time. Any more and we run the risk of collapsing into a philosophical black hole.

At least someone hasn't brought up how quantum mechanics and entanglement proves that telepathy is a proven fact.

Great quantum point!

That would be theory 'C' -collapsing into an infinitely small philisophical black hole.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > both very interesting and very convenient in that
> > they dont need to explain the origin of the
> > universe.

i was thinking about it and i was wrong in that there does need to be a beginning. if there is no beginning and there is an end then they are just arbitrary points.


> > the expanding and collapsing theory
> > seem more realistic. the idea that the universe
> > is a static object with infinite size that somehow
> > we just happen to experience is... really far
> > fetched.
>
> It is counter intuitive, but it actually makes the
> most sense, considering the theory of relativity,
> and the notion of simultaneous 'presents'. I
> don't think the A theory does an adequate job of
> explaining this phenomenon.

i know you are grasping for a way to explain the universe without God but you are just fooling yourself with interesting ideas that have no scientific basis.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > both very interesting and very convenient in
> that
> > > they dont need to explain the origin of the
> > > universe.
>
> i was thinking about it and i was wrong in that
> there does need to be a beginning. if there is no
> beginning and there is an end then they are just
> arbitrary points.

On the B Theory, there is no 'end' either. No need for a beginning or end - as both are concepts that are wrapped up in the A Theory.

> > > the expanding and collapsing theory
> > > seem more realistic. the idea that the
> universe
> > > is a static object with infinite size that
> somehow
> > > we just happen to experience is... really far
> > > fetched.
> >
> > It is counter intuitive, but it actually makes
> the
> > most sense, considering the theory of
> relativity,
> > and the notion of simultaneous 'presents'. I
> > don't think the A theory does an adequate job
> of
> > explaining this phenomenon.
>
> i know you are grasping for a way to explain the
> universe without God but you are just fooling
> yourself with interesting ideas that have no
> scientific basis.


I don't actually think this is a very fair comment. I *don't* need to explain the universe at all. I can sit here and say 'I don't know' and still be an atheist for philosophical reasons. The fact is, I *don't* think that the A theory is correct because it doesn't seem to line up with relativity.

Even if the A theory is correct and the universe had a beginning, I still don't see "God" as an option on the table. This is because I don't think that 'God did it' is an explanation.

Let's examine it, what do you mean when you say 'God created the cosmos'?

That there was nothing and God acted upon it?

That doesn't make any sense, since in order to act upon something, there has to be *something*. Further, without time, how did God have time to create time? You have to presuppose an 'ultimate' absolute time, and then, how do you explain that? Why multiply explanatory entities?

No, it seems to me that if something *can* come from nothing, then it only makes sense if it is uncaused. We have nothing in our experience to suggest that nothing can be caused to do anything. It's counter intuitive.

In short, I'm not grasping at anything. Take my explanation off the table and that doesn't make 'God' the default. It just means that something is fishy with relativity and our notions of time. Fine with me.

Gravis,
Don't you WANT to know what really happened or are you content with thinking that everything we don't have an explanation for yet is Gods doing? Go back in history and look at at the things God or the gods were thought to have done and have now been logically explained.

Mankind has only been exploring these cosmological issues for a fraction of a speck in time. It would be arrogant to say we know how and why everything happened, but everything starts with a theory or hypothesis based on what we know at the present time. If we just accepted that God did everything, there wouldn't be much point in knowing anymore about ourselves or the universe and we'd still be a primitive society (see Taliban).

Knowing what "started" the universe is a long way away (if it even had a beginning) and if that is the defining issue for you, than you have to ask who or what created God and why. Accepting the notion that us humans are just to stupid to comprehend God or his reasoning is insulting to me and many others.

I have a pretty vivid imagination and I'm pretty sure you do too. I think we can handle whatever the truth is, whether God is involved or not.

Numbers wrote:
>"Don't you WANT to know what really happened or are you content with thinking that everything we don't have an explanation for yet is Gods doing?"

This is how you decievers attempt to confuse the issue.
We see gravity, and we DON'T say 'it must be God' just because we can't explain it.
Instead we see that gravity abides by LAWS and SOMEONE had to set those laws in place. Just like our government and the laws it upholds, did not wish themselves into existence.

>"Knowing what "started" the universe is a long way away (if it even had a beginning) and if that is the defining issue for you, than you have to ask who or what created God and why"

YOU are assuming God has to conform to the laws of physics. You also are assuming that HE has a begining. Being he has no end, he needs no begining.
Besides God may reside in a reality or dimension that has NO time (see heaven)
'God' or the creator of creation, is the begining of all things GOOD. Well of course if there is good, for us to experience a meaningful reality we are supposed to learn from and be TESTED by, there has to be bad.

Lastly nobody said our stupidity or inability to understand God's reasoning is a reason to think God is responsible for everything. On the contrary, it is amazing that we understand what we do about physics and God, being as stupid as we are, and being that some of us believe we evolved from chimps. If it was chimps we evolved from, then our human comprehension up until this point is nothing short of a natural miracle.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't actually think this is a very fair
> comment. I *don't* need to explain the universe at
> all.

i dont think i said you needed to but i do think you feel compelled on some level.


> That doesn't make any sense, since in order to act
> upon something, there has to be *something*.
> Further, without time, how did God have time to
> create time? You have to presuppose an 'ultimate'
> absolute time, and then, how do you explain that?
> Why multiply explanatory entities?

i understand there is a limitation to my understanding of the universe and certainly of God.


> Take my explanation off the table and that doesn't
> make 'God' the default.

i understand that completely.

---

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis,
> Don't you WANT to know what really happened or are
> you content with thinking that everything we don't
> have an explanation for yet is Gods doing?

i am very much interested in the truth no matter what it is. knowing why is a centric to who i am. i had a boomerang that i took out the first time, threw a few times and the instructions said to "never" throw it at a 45 degree angle. the problem was that it didnt have any explanation as to why so i did it because i really wanted to know. the result was that it went forward, strait up, fell and broke in two. while it sucked that it broke, i was happy to know what happened when you did that.


> Mankind has only been exploring these cosmological
> issues for a fraction of a speck in time. It would
> be arrogant to say we know how and why everything
> happened, but everything starts with a theory or
> hypothesis based on what we know at the present
> time.

i understand that but i just think the presented theories did not make sense.


> Accepting the notion that us humans are just to
> stupid to comprehend God or his reasoning is
> insulting to me and many others.

and it's arrogant to think that you can comprehend every logical idea presented to you. that said, it's possible that evolution will allow us to expand our ability to comprehend though i fear we may wipe ourselves out either by war or an experiment with catastrophic results. if we obtains the ability to move close to the speed of light, i would be interested in "cheating time" and returning to an earth (or maybe other inhabited planet) to see how we have changed.


> I have a pretty vivid imagination and I'm pretty
> sure you do too. I think we can handle whatever
> the truth is, whether God is involved or not.

i would love to be able to understand all types of concepts but i already know there is a limitation to that understanding.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't actually think this is a very fair
> > comment. I *don't* need to explain the universe
> at
> > all.
>
> i dont think i said you needed to but i do think
> you feel compelled on some level.

*I* don't, as I said. I find it interesting, but ultimately I can accept not knowing. I think you are hitting on something though - here's an interesting piece of an article related to the mental discomfort you (seem to be) are referring to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html#Heading7

> > That doesn't make any sense, since in order to
> act
> > upon something, there has to be *something*.
> > Further, without time, how did God have time to
> > create time? You have to presuppose an
> 'ultimate'
> > absolute time, and then, how do you explain
> that?
> > Why multiply explanatory entities?
>
> i understand there is a limitation to my
> understanding of the universe and certainly of
> God.

I don't think the issue is with you, but with the subject. I can accept that this could be because it's outside of our sphere of understanding, but I think the truth is that the concepts don't make any sense.

> > Take my explanation off the table and that
> doesn't
> > make 'God' the default.
>
> i understand that completely.

Fair enough.


> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis,
> > Don't you WANT to know what really happened or
> are
> > you content with thinking that everything we
> don't
> > have an explanation for yet is Gods doing?
>
> i am very much interested in the truth no matter
> what it is. knowing why is a centric to who i am.
> i had a boomerang that i took out the first time,
> threw a few times and the instructions said to
> "never" throw it at a 45 degree angle. the
> problem was that it didnt have any explanation as
> to why so i did it because i really wanted to
> know. the result was that it went forward, strait
> up, fell and broke in two. while it sucked that
> it broke, i was happy to know what happened when
> you did that.

You weren't responding to me, but I'm curious about something: What if there is no answer - or rather, the answer is simply unknown and unknowable - say a cosmic crap shoot, no rhyme or reason.

Currently I think that it's fair to say that neither of us accepts this view (meaning we have our theories and I'd suspect we could deal if we were wrong) - but what if this was correct? That somehow it was figured out that there was no 'why'.

How would that effect your outlook? I'm not trying to set you up or anything here, I'm genuinely curious.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You weren't responding to me, but I'm curious
> about something: What if there is no answer - or
> rather, the answer is simply unknown and
> unknowable - say a cosmic crap shoot, no rhyme or
> reason.

umm... then i wouldnt know it? i'm ok with not knowing everything but i do like to know the things that i can know.


> Currently I think that it's fair to say that
> neither of us accepts this view (meaning we have
> our theories and I'd suspect we could deal if we
> were wrong) - but what if this was correct? That
> somehow it was figured out that there was no
> 'why'.
>
> How would that effect your outlook? I'm not trying
> to set you up or anything here, I'm genuinely
> curious.

assuming i found that the universe is without God i could only conclude that there is no point in living. so then why live at all? i find the human desire to live to be... primitive and without contemplation of the "big picture". there is no point in living is there is no point to living. so yeah, suicide, it's just a shortcut to the inevitable. why bother with something that is finite on an infinite timeline? what does it get you? the answer is nothing because if you become nothing then you cannot have anything because you simply are not, so whatever you have done means nothing. it very much makes the idea of all points in time being singular to be applicable. consider it the ultimate evolutionary step, acceptance and embracing mortality to it's fullest extent. living in the "here and now" for one's own enjoyment or to experience it is ignorance and denial of the nature of the universe.

i'm a "big picture" kind of guy. :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> assuming i found that the universe is without God
> i could only conclude that there is no point in
> living. so then why live at all? i find the human
> desire to live to be... primitive and without
> contemplation of the "big picture". there is no
> point in living is there is no point to living.


This is disturbing to me on many levels. To me, if we have a purpose at all, it is to find out as much as we can about ourselves and everything else. It's our instinct to want to know what's around the next corner and beyond. To lose that curiosity is to fail as a species, become stagnant and eventually die off. Maybe our purpose is to find the purpose, but one way or the other, we will never know if we don't search for it. If, in the end we find there was no purpose, well it would have been one hell of a ride, don't you think?

Personally I don't see our species ever getting to that point, but if we do, we can simply devise another purpose. Maybe we could make our own universe and play God. Let the poor saps below go through the same shit while we sit back and play cruel jokes on them.

Until then, what about just trying to have a nice life and enjoying things for what they are? Your already here (you can't change that), so why not try to make the best of it. Do something constructive. Set personal goals. There's a lot of fun stuff to do here if you have the courage and curiosity.



> so yeah, suicide, it's just a shortcut to the
> inevitable. why bother with something that is
> finite on an infinite timeline? what does it get
> you? the answer is nothing because if you become
> nothing then you cannot have anything because you
> simply are not, so whatever you have done means
> nothing.


It's okay to mean nothing. I'd be okay with that and maybe a little relieved. We just do what we do best, make shit up.
Look at most pop songs. Most mean nothing but we (well some of us) still find them enjoyable.


> it very much makes the idea of all
> points in time being singular to be applicable.
> consider it the ultimate evolutionary step,
> acceptance and embracing mortality to it's fullest
> extent. living in the "here and now" for one's
> own enjoyment or to experience it is ignorance and
> denial of the nature of the universe.


Christ Gravis, you think too much. Usually it's people saying that about me, so it's weird I'm saying it to someone else. But in this case I think it's true.
If you choose to kill yourself because you find you have no purpose, that's cool, but then what? No more fun and excitement, that's what!
I have no problem embracing mortality when the time comes, but until then I'll be cruisin around the universe at light speed looking for intergalactic poon and the biggest rollercoaster in the universe.



> i'm a "big picture" kind of guy. :)


Me too. But my big picture of the future is the clone of Scarlett Johanson naked and horned up flopping around my space ship. Yours seems to be more like...
Attachments:

Numbers wrote:
>"Until then, what about just trying to have a nice life and enjoying
things for what they are? Your already here (you can't change that), so
why not try to make the best of it. Do something constructive. Set
personal goals. There's a lot of fun stuff to do here if you have
the courage and curiosity."


K, then you might wanna stop Titling threads with garbage
like; "Still don't believe in evolution?" and showing us
stupid pictures of animals, because it makes you seem like
an unubstantiated condescending prick.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

'Numbers' wrote:
>"Christ Gravis..."

Also you might wanna try NOT to unnecessarily use
Christ's name, 'Numbers'. You have already proven yourself
too biologically inferior to understand the concept of
reality, much less the concept of Christ. When you
do this, all you are doing is serving to leave us
blatant reminders of your ignorance.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You weren't responding to me, but I'm curious
> > about something: What if there is no answer -
> or
> > rather, the answer is simply unknown and
> > unknowable - say a cosmic crap shoot, no rhyme
> or
> > reason.
>
> umm... then i wouldnt know it? i'm ok with not
> knowing everything but i do like to know the
> things that i can know.

Hm...I suppose you would be right, in the sense if something were unknowable, how would you know that it was unknowable? Good point.

If it were random (cosmic crap shoot), you might know that in a similar way to quantum physics.


> > Currently I think that it's fair to say that
> > neither of us accepts this view (meaning we
> have
> > our theories and I'd suspect we could deal if
> we
> > were wrong) - but what if this was correct?
> That
> > somehow it was figured out that there was no
> > 'why'.
> >
> > How would that effect your outlook? I'm not
> trying
> > to set you up or anything here, I'm genuinely
> > curious.
>
> assuming i found that the universe is without God
> i could only conclude that there is no point in
> living. so then why live at all?
> i find the human
> desire to live to be... primitive and without
> contemplation of the "big picture". there is no
> point in living is there is no point to living.
> so yeah, suicide, it's just a shortcut to the
> inevitable.

Camus, an existentialist I respect, said that that the most important question was the question of suicide. That the question we must answer in the face of the absurdity of existence is what reason is there for living. Camus would say that we should rebel against the absurdity.

In any event it always struck me as a very heady question. The immediate answer is because we are genetically programmed to procreate and try to survive. Those of us who weren't, didn't. That doesn't really get to the meat of the question though.

> why bother with something that is
> finite on an infinite timeline? what does it get
> you?

To me, and to turn this around, it seems that the value of something has something to do with it's rarity. If life lasts forever then any individual moment seems to lose it's value.

> the answer is nothing because if you become
> nothing then you cannot have anything because you
> simply are not, so whatever you have done means
> nothing.

But we don't have the choice to be nothing. We already are something. We can put our stamp on this moment (or the next) and it cannot be taken away.

> it very much makes the idea of all
> points in time being singular to be applicable.
> consider it the ultimate evolutionary step,
> acceptance and embracing mortality to it's fullest
> extent. living in the "here and now" for one's
> own enjoyment or to experience it is ignorance and
> denial of the nature of the universe.

I hope you don't misconstrue what I've written, because I am sympathetic to this view - in general. I'm not trying to pretend I have the answers and what is satisfying for *me* probably won't be for you.

I see things slightly differently though. I look at this existence, this finite microscopic existence, as our only chance to do anything and be anything. Whatever we do, will exist for all eternity in that moment. The lives we effect, the people we interact with, the experiences we have in those moments are extremely valuable because we will never have them back. The idea that, for the briefest of periods, I was able to make myself happy or someone else happy, is extremely enriching, considering just how horrible this existence *can be* and often *is* for people.

On the flip side, I don't see what adding a deity really adds. It seems to rob anything I do of my pure motivation to do it. This world was all some 'plan' for an omnimaximally entity who logically could not have really needed it to exist. My life is a reflection of what was planned out and after I'm dead, all this toil on earth will have ultimately meant practically nothing, since I will go on experiencing things for eternity. On top of that, I don't *know* what this plan is and I find it hard to imagine reacting to that.

> i'm a "big picture" kind of guy. :)

I appreciate that - I found your POV interesting, so thank you.

I'm quite glad you didn't say the reason for living was cheetos and porn. ;-)

what if the death of God was the big bang which created the universe? So that Yes God is our creator but its destruction explains a supreme beings absence of response to our prayers?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what if the death of God was the big bang which
> created the universe? So that Yes God is our
> creator but its destruction explains a supreme
> beings absence of response to our prayers?


I'd say that I'd have to start reading a lot more Calvin and Hobbes...(or Isaac Aasimov - sp?)...

'Professor Ass-Gloss wrote:
>"In any event it always struck me as a very heady question.
The immediate answer is because we are genetically programmed
to procreate and try to survive.

Who is PROGRAMER that you state 'programed' us to do all
these wonderful things?


>" I'm not trying to pretend I have the answers."

Yeah right, on the CONTRARY!

>" This world was all some 'plan' for an omnimaximally entity who
logically could not have really needed it to exist."

I am not familair with 'Omnimaximally', is it a synonym for 'Oxy-moron'?

Also it seems you have once again, 'logically' asserted that it is logical
to ASSume that a creator is not necessary for matter to exist.

YOU 'Professor Pangloss', are a MASTER of Circular Thinking and Ominous Deciet.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Professor Ass-Gloss wrote:
> >"In any event it always struck me as a very heady
> question. The immediate answer is because we are
> genetically programmed to procreate
> and try to survive.
>
> Who is PROGRAMER that you state 'programed' us to
> do all these wonderful things?

Do you have to shit all over this thread too?

The programmer is an anthropomorphizing of nature. If you or Gravis don't accept that, it's fine, I wasn't making an argument, I was stating my position.

>
>
> >" I'm not trying to pretend I have the answers."
>
> Yeah right, on the CONTRARY!
>
> This world was all some 'plan' for an
> omnimaximally entity who logically could not have
> really needed it to exist.
>
> I am not familair with 'Omnimaximally', is it A
> synonym 'Oxy-moron'?

No, it's a term used in discussions on God. Usually the ontological argument. It basically means 'omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent'.

>
> Also it seems you have once again, 'logically'
> asserted that is is logical to ASSume that a
> creator is not necessary for matter to exist.
>
>
> YOU 'Professor Pangloss' are a MASTER of Circular
> Thinking and Ominous DECIET.

I was not making an argument in that post - which why I didn't include any premises to support my position. I have, in this thread, given the reason why I don't think a creator is necessary to explain existence.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > umm... then i wouldnt know it? i'm ok with not
> > knowing everything but i do like to know the
> > things that i can know.
>
> Hm...I suppose you would be right, in the sense if
> something were unknowable, how would you know that
> it was unknowable? Good point.

*sigh* the end is nigh!





> If it were random (cosmic crap shoot), you might
> know that in a similar way to quantum physics.

umm... yeah... just like quantum physics. <_<


> Camus, an existentialist I respect, said that that
> the most important question was the question of
> suicide. That the question we must answer in the
> face of the absurdity of existence is what reason
> is there for living. Camus would say that we
> should rebel against the absurdity.

assuming that death is the end of existence, he got it right. however, rebelling or not does not matter.


> In any event it always struck me as a very heady
> question. The immediate answer is because we are
> genetically programmed to procreate and try to
> survive. Those of us who weren't, didn't. That
> doesn't really get to the meat of the question
> though.

sure it does, if there is no value in existence than there is no point in existing nor value in not existing.


> > why bother with something that is
> > finite on an infinite timeline? what does it get
> > you?
>
> To me, and to turn this around, it seems that the
> value of something has something to do with it's
> rarity. If life lasts forever then any individual
> moment seems to lose it's value.

that's a question i look forward to finding out.


> > the answer is nothing because if you become
> > nothing then you cannot have anything because you
> > simply are not, so whatever you have done means
> > nothing.
>
> But we don't have the choice to be nothing. We
> already are something. We can put our stamp on
> this moment (or the next) and it cannot be taken
> away.

ha! for what? for people in the future? they will all die as well. their stamp erased as well as everything else living in the universe.


> I see things slightly differently though. I look
> at this existence, this finite microscopic
> existence, as our only chance to do anything and
> be anything. Whatever we do, will exist for all
> eternity in that moment.

to what end? do you think what you do is any more important than a rock out in the distant part of the galaxy? even if you managed to have something exist into infinity (which you cant due to gravity. see implosion), what does that mean for you? it means nothing if you are nothing because nothing cannot have something because it's nothing.


> The lives we effect, the
> people we interact with, the experiences we have
> in those moments are extremely valuable because we
> will never have them back. The idea that, for the
> briefest of periods, I was able to make myself
> happy or someone else happy, is extremely
> enriching, considering just how horrible this
> existence *can be* and often *is* for people.

you fail to realize that everything dies. what you feel is moot if ultimately you become nothing because you are not enriched, it's a momentary feeling that completely lacks value on a universal scale.


> On the flip side, I don't see what adding a deity
> really adds. It seems to rob anything I do of my
> pure motivation to do it.

deity in itself adds nothing. having eternal life does.



> This world was all some
> 'plan' for an omnimaximally entity who logically
> could not have really needed it to exist.

yep.


> My life is a reflection of what was planned out
> and after I'm dead,

you have the choice but your choices are known, so sure.


> all this toil on earth will have
> ultimately meant practically nothing, since I will
> go on experiencing things for eternity.

exactly.


> On top of
> that, I don't *know* what this plan is and I find
> it hard to imagine reacting to that.

now you know how i feel. :)


> > i'm a "big picture" kind of guy. :)
>
> I appreciate that - I found your POV interesting,
> so thank you.

the bill is in the mail. :P


> I'm quite glad you didn't say the reason for
> living was cheetos and porn. ;-)

well... that was my second reason... but only if you combine them! ;D


you got most of it. you get a C+. (fairfax county standards are high!)

---

everything below is written under the premise that in death you cease to exist.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > assuming i found that the universe is without God
> > i could only conclude that there is no point in
> > living. so then why live at all? i find the human
> > desire to live to be... primitive and without
> > contemplation of the "big picture". there is no
> > point in living is there is no point to living.
>
>
> This is disturbing to me on many levels.

it should.


> To me, if
> we have a purpose at all, it is to find out as
> much as we can about ourselves and everything
> else. It's our instinct to want to know what's
> around the next corner and beyond. To lose that
> curiosity is to fail as a species, become stagnant
> and eventually die off. Maybe our purpose is to
> find the purpose, but one way or the other, we
> will never know if we don't search for it. If, in
> the end we find there was no purpose, well it
> would have been one hell of a ride, don't you
> think?

and that would be an illusion based on a genetic disposition, nothing more. if no matter how much you know there is nothing, your efforts are moot and without meaning. nothing will live forever, there will just be radiation and rocks.



> Personally I don't see our species ever getting to
> that point, but if we do, we can simply devise
> another purpose. Maybe we could make our own
> universe and play God. Let the poor saps below go
> through the same shit while we sit back and play
> cruel jokes on them.
[...]
> Until then, what about just trying to have a nice
> life and enjoying things for what they are? Your
> already here (you can't change that), so why not
> try to make the best of it. Do something
> constructive. Set personal goals. There's a lot of
> fun stuff to do here if you have the courage and
> curiosity.

umm... i'm not suicidal, dont act like i am. i would also like to point out that you are acting on emotion, a genetic predisposition, nothing more. even if i were to kill myself, everything dies, so what does it matter? life and death have equal value, nothing.


> It's okay to mean nothing. I'd be okay with that
> and maybe a little relieved. We just do what we do
> best, make shit up.
> Look at most pop songs. Most mean nothing but we
> (well some of us) still find them enjoyable.

it's neither good nor bad to have no meaning because everything will become nothing.


> Christ Gravis

please, i'm just a man. xD


> If you choose to kill yourself because you find
> you have no purpose, that's cool, but then what?
> No more fun and excitement, that's what!

you are completely missing the point because you are not seeing the big picture at all. everyone's fate is the same, nothingness. you can have all the sex you want but it's meaningless if you just become nothing. you think you will be having a great time but when everything dies, there is no record nor anyone to see any record to begin with.


Numbers,
  it seems to me that you are concerned for my wellbeing but you should not be. anyway, it's clear that you are either not understanding my point or you are in denial about the [in]consequence of that point. ultimately, we are nothing so trying to be or do something is just futility in motion. much like the song says, we are just dust in the wind. you claim you can understand all concepts but this is a very basic truth that you do not fully comprehend.


sorry, but you get an F.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis wrote:

> you are completely missing the point because you are not seeing the big picture > at all. everyone's fate is the same, nothingness. you can have all the sex you > want but it's meaningless if you just become nothing. you think you will be
> having a great time but when everything dies, there is no record nor anyone to
> see any record to begin with.


Actually I got your point on the big picture being all for nothing. Also, when using the term "you", I didn't mean to imply Gravis. I was using it as a supplement/metaphor for mankind and wasn't referring to the here and now.
I'm assuming you're referring to a lack of afterlife here that would offer some new prospect of meaning, but what would that be? What if it's worse, or that the purpose was one we didn't like?


> Numbers,
> it seems to me that you are concerned for my wellbeing but you should not be.
> anyway, it's clear that you are either not understanding my point or you are in
> denial about the [in]consequence of that point. ultimately, we are nothing so
> trying to be or do something is just futility in motion. much like the song
> says, we are just dust in the wind. you claim you can understand all concepts
> but this is a very basic truth that you do not fully comprehend.


Yes, I get it! You perceive that I don't get it, but some of us just have no problem with the "no big picture" scenario. Alternatives can sometimes be much worse.


> sorry, but you get an F.

;( Don't tell my parents.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I got your point on the big picture being
> all for nothing.

excellent.


> I'm assuming you're referring to a lack of
> afterlife here that would offer some new prospect
> of meaning

the lack of afterlife offers no valid prospect on meaning. having an afterlife gives actions meaning.


> what would that be? What if it's
> worse, or that the purpose was one we didn't
> like?

if you are referring to the meaning/purpose of the afterlife, i dont know. whether you like it or not is something you will have to deal with when it's time.


> some of us just have no problem with the "no
> big picture" scenario.

that's fine, i just wanted to make sure you understood how absurd it is to go on if you understand that. if you do, you simply submit to a genetic predisposition to live. it's kind of sad.


> Alternatives can sometimes be much worse.

for some it will be worse.


> > sorry, but you get an F.
>
> ;( Don't tell my parents.

too late. they want to have a "chat" with you.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Numbers,
  i had some other thoughts on your response. i've reviewed it and it seems a bit insulting but perhaps i'm trying to shake loose the rigidity of your point of view.


Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I get it! [...] some of us just have no
> problem with the "no big picture" scenario.

so you realize you are just executing genetic directives then, right? that means you are like a robot or amoeba that's going on because it's what you are internally instructed to despite the ability to face non-existence. you are in denial of the truth if you choose to follow such ridiculous directives but hey, i guess you really never had the choice. you are close to understanding but you have failed to fully comprehend it. you may be insulted by thinking you can understand all concepts but this is one that you simply cannot grasp despite knowing what it is. as i'm sure you understand that there is a large difference between knowing and understanding something.

you have a lot in common with a lego brick.


> Alternatives can sometimes be much worse.

if you are referring to how you deal with there being "no big picture" then there is no worse or better because it's all the same. your view of the universe and your relevance is "voluntarily" myopic as a form of denial. it's all so illusionary. that may be why few people understand it but that too is just an illusion.

as one illusionary lego brick to another, "HOLY CRAP, WE'RE LEGO BRICKS!"


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I think what you guys are mixing up is the relevance of existence as opposed to how life ends. The end of life shouldnt bear any weight on the relevance on how a life is spent. It Doesnt matter if your actions are irrelevant because someday they wont have meaning because it all ceases to exist. It has relevance the same way life does. The ephemeral nature of life is the same for the relevance of that life. The fact that I have a migraine and I KNOW that it will be gone after a day doesnt make the pain any less excruciating NOW. On the other hand KNOWING that the pain wont last is a great comfort.


So really We are gathered here today to get through this thing called life. Electric word life, It means for awhile and that's a mighty long time But I'm here to tell you There's something else The afterworld. world of never ending happiness. You can always see the sun, day or night.
So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills,you know the one - Dr Everything'll Be Alright. Instead of asking him how much of your time is left; Ask him how much of your mind, baby. 'Cuz in this life Things are much harder than in the afterworld. In this life, You're on your own! And if de-elevator tries 2 bring u down
Go crazy - punch a higher floor



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2010 04:33PM by ferfux.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> so you realize you are just executing genetic
> directives then, right? that means you are like a
> robot or amoeba that's going on because it's what
> you are internally instructed to despite the
> ability to face non-existence. you are in denial
> of the truth if you choose to follow such
> ridiculous directives but hey, i guess you really
> never had the choice. you are close to
> understanding but you have failed to fully
> comprehend it. you may be insulted by thinking
> you can understand all concepts but this is one
> that you simply cannot grasp despite knowing what
> it is. as i'm sure you understand that there is a
> large difference between knowing and understanding
> something.
>
> you have a lot in common with a lego brick.

You might be correct. At this point I have no idea wtf you're talking about...and I'm okay with that. Whatever it is you're referring to doesn't sound appealing in any case. I'll just leave it at this. I would rather there be no heaven or hell, no gods or goddesses, no worshipping anything and no lifelong guilt trips when I haven't done anyone much harm. That's been my approach for the last 30 years and I feel fine.



> > Alternatives can sometimes be much worse.
>
> if you are referring to how you deal with there
> being "no big picture" then there is no worse or
> better because it's all the same. your view of
> the universe and your relevance is "voluntarily"
> myopic as a form of denial. it's all so
> illusionary. that may be why few people
> understand it but that too is just an illusion.
>
> as one illusionary lego brick to another, "HOLY
> CRAP, WE'RE LEGO BRICKS!"


That's okay, as long as we make some kid happy somewhere. : )

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> assuming that death is the end of existence, he got it right. however, rebelling > or not does not matter.

I'm not entirely sure, I think Camus would say that it is in our nature to rebel and through that we get our values.

I think though that the issue of 'what matters' is wrapped up in value. To value something is ultimately, very subjective. I do not think that God saves the theist from this subjectivity. I think, ultimately, that theistic value is just as subjective as atheistic value, since in order to deem God's values important, you have to first value those values.

It seems to me to be a catch 22. It's related to the Hume "Is-Ought" dilemma. Why ought man be moral? Why ought we care what God thinks? That sort of thing.

> sure it does, if there is no value in existence than there is no point in
> existing nor value in not existing.

You seem to be referring to objective value, which I do not think exists even with God in the picture. If it does, then you are correct and there is a significant difference between God and No God. Well, that's not necessarily true, I will say that there is a significant difference between the God I believe you are espousing and no God (a pantheist's God wouldn't make a difference, I don't think, hence my distinction).

I suppose I was taking self-reflection out of it. The reason for humans/organisms/etc to exist is because those entities that strive to exist are more likely to survive then those that don't.

>ha! for what? for people in the future? they will all die as well. their stamp
> erased as well as everything else living in the universe.

Nothing gets erased and it's not for people in the future, it is for the here and now.

> to what end? do you think what you do is any more important than a rock out in > the distant part of the galaxy? even if you managed to have something exist
> into infinity (which you cant due to gravity. see implosion), what does that
> mean for you? it means nothing if you are nothing because nothing cannot have
> something because it's nothing.

Important is tied up in value. To me, whatever I do is more important to that rock. It's hard to envision what would increase the value of one thing over another *without* the subjectivity of the valuer.

As to what it means to me, it would means something to me in that moment and that moment is eternal in my view (on the B theory). Why does it need to transcend that moment?

> you fail to realize that everything dies. what you feel is moot if ultimately
> you become nothing because you are not enriched, it's a momentary feeling that > completely lacks value on a universal scale.

No, I realize that. What I feel is the only thing that matters to me. Look at it this way, why should I care what Troll cares about what I feel? I could care if I was seeking to impress him or if I wanted him to do something (say, leave the thread or contribute to is or whatever) but both of these things ultimately revolve around *me* and things I value. My values cannot transcend me and neither can anyone else's (including God's). At best, other entities can value what I value (or what someone else values).

> deity in itself adds nothing. having eternal life does.

It might, it's true, but I can't actually see how it does. It seems to me that eternal life would make any particular moment pretty meaningless.

> well... that was my second reason... but only if you combine them! ;D
> you got most of it. you get a C+. (fairfax county standards are high!)

Hm... A C+, is that before or after the curve.... :-)

Fun talk, BTW Gravis, Again, I appreciate it. It's quite different then the usual 'OMG, your wrong, idiot', 'no, u r wrong'.

>Pangloss wrote:
"It might, it's true, but I can't actually see how it does. It seems to me that eternal life would make any particular moment pretty meaningless."


OMG, your so wrong idiot!




.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Pangloss wrote:
> "It might, it's true, but I can't actually see how
> it does. It seems to me that eternal life would
> make any particular moment pretty meaningless."
>
>
> OMG, your so wrong idiot!


Go on...

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fun talk, BTW Gravis, Again, I appreciate it. It's
> quite different then the usual 'OMG, your wrong,
> idiot', 'no, u r wrong'.

pff... as if it mattered, Lego brick. ;)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fun talk, BTW Gravis, Again, I appreciate it.
> It's
> > quite different then the usual 'OMG, your
> wrong,
> > idiot', 'no, u r wrong'.
>
> pff... as if it mattered, Lego brick. ;)


They will be shat.