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.