🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Feb, 03:56, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 04:40, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The Big Bang started with neutrons. Neutrons decay in free space in 13
> > minutes. The original neutrons decay into electrons protons (and
> > neutrinos) which then make the primordial Hydrogen of the beginning.
> > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
>
> Ho-hum! And then, of course, we got you! Don't be a silly, sloppy
> thinker.
>
> http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html
>
> What preceded it? You were there, of course. What if the cause were
> both in the future and, then, an effect in the past, sort of like
> rotating doors? Think!
>
> Anyway, who or what started it? Where is it going? How did you find
> out? Nietzsche embraced 'eternal recurrence', but, then, he was very
> stupid!
>
> 'In his philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche presents the idea of eternal
> recurrence as an answer to nihilism. Nietzsche addresses the idea of
> eternal recurrence in his work Thus Spake Zarathustra. In this work,
> Zarathustra finds himself on a path up a mountain, a path that ends at
> a gate marked "This Moment." Two paths come together at this gate,
> going opposite directions, and neither having an end. Zarathustra
> ponders this and discusses it with the dwarf who has been riding on
> his shoulders. (I know it sounds strange, but yes, a dwarf on his
> shoulders.) Together, Zarathustra and the dwarf work on this problem
> of the two eternal paths, one of which runs backward, the other
> forward. And Zarathustra asks about the path running backwards, "Must
> not whatever can run its course of all things, have already run along
> that lane? Must not whatever can happen of all things have already
> happened, resulted, and gone by?" Zarathustra thinks that if
> everything has already run along this eternal path, then everything
> has already existed, including the gate at which they stand.' - Philip
> Adams.
>
> We do NOT know! The mythos, be it Darwinian or cosmogenical, may,
> however have [had] a huge impact, and has most likely led to dancing, rather
> than fighting, in the streets, at least on a large part of our planet!
> --
> 'foolsrushin.'

And, of course, it is true that vast carnage has resulted from the
products of science and technology, but it is also true that we are
richer now than at any time in our past, and more of us, however
slender our means, have some sort of a purchase on life and live in
hope rather than in despair. All well and good.

Cosmogenicists, and dare I say it, Darwinians, nevertheless, are in
pretty much the same position as theologians. In a state of
conjecture, rather than knowledge. They do not know!

'Question as to "values" - that is to say, as to what is good or bad
on its own account, independently of its effects - lie outside the
domain of science, as the defenders of religion emphatically assert. I
think that in this they are right, but I draw the further conclusion,
which they do not draw, that questions as to "values" lie wholly
outside the domain of knowledge. That is to say, when we assert that
this or that has "value," we are giving expression to our own
emotions, not to a fact which would still be true if our personal
feelings were different.' - Bertrand Russell.

And add to that the Pill, cheap travel, cell phones, and MP3s have had
a massively convergent effect to date, resulting in a diminution of
the influence of stern bearded figures pontificating on right and
wrong. No wonder they cry out for taxpayers' money these days!

Let us hope that there are no post-Armageddon days, but that i there
are, the sacred text, chanted for years, when deciphered, consists of
a laundry list: shirts, knickers, socks, etc.
--
'foolsrushin.'