 | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | (...) Indeed. (...) You see my problem is that science has yet to answer 'Why' anything happens. There are lots of good theories on how things happen but not one single answer as to why. It is my observation that people believe by analyzing things (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Mike--are looking for a metaphysical, over-arching "reason" behind the universe? What if there simply isn't one? Science isn't in the business of determining "why" things happen in this transcendent sense, nor should science be required to do (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: I would like to offer a formal apology to ot.debate and to Maggie C. in particular for this line: (...) Except! What am I, the product of home-schooling?!? [1] Dave! [1] Actually, home-schooling has (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) Wow, Dave! I was about to pounce, er, post but you did it for me! Must be a Higher Power at work! And I *did* notice an uncharacteristic carelessness in your general construction of that post-- so yep, I would say it's bedtime! Maggie C. (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | (...) answer (...) feeling (...) How do we know there isn't one? (...) But that does not explain 'why' it happens, only how. And know you don't need to explain the details of electron bonds and such, I know the theory and have seen it work (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Terry Prosper
|
| | | | | | | (...) Mike, form my POV, if GOD would have given us free will, he'd be the dumbest creature in the universe... For argument's sake, let's pretend what the Bible says is true. Free will to the ones who killed his son? To the ones who disobeyed to him (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) But the crux of my question: "what if there isn't a reason behind the universe?" I'm not, at this point, saying conclusively whether there is or isn't one; I'm asking what would be the impact to you if there weren't a reason. Here's another (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry to be a buttinski here, but I just thought of something. What about the odds angle? Sometimes coincidences are too great; that is, that the odds of something happening a certain way are way beyond normal expectation. Say, for instance, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Given the right conditions (and we are talking about an incomprehensibly high number of planets with varying conditions), it may well be that the odds against life happening somewhere are the longshots. Atoms and molecules like to form certain (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hey, all are welcome! (...) Bruce addressed this already, but I thought I'd throw in my view as well. The first is the problem of precedent: when you estimate the odds of a bus accident, you can base it on known occurrences under similar (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) I suppose they can suggest it to those predisposed to believing in a Greater Being, yes. But when you consider the # of stars in just our galaxy, and the # of planets that they can have (we find more and more every year, and as our technology (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) That would be analogous to asking "by what chemical (...) If we were to look at it from an opposing angle--how is the assessment that there *is* a God "behind the scenes" inferior to the view that the universe is there all by itself? Science (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
