Printable View
Could someone elucidate this quote for me? I'm having difficulty understanding his explanation on why the universe must have meaning.
I'm also interested to hear your thoughts about this quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis
Thank you for your time.
In order to disprove something's existence, you must first recognize its existence. Sort of a Kantian paradox, existence is the mind's capability, and yet it is the mind that tries to question this very existence. Lewis here equates universe with its spiritual meaning more than just physical
Sorry, I still do not understand. Could you expand on that a little more?
According to this theory, if something exists in the mind, if you can conceive it mentally, it exists and therefore has meaning.
Take an apple - when I say apple, even if you are not looking at/holding an apple - you can picture it in your mind. you can wrap your head around the idea of an apple - it exists.
Now let's say you want to prove to someone that an apple does not exist. In order to even approach the argument "an apple does not exist" you must first conjure up the image of an apple. Since you have conjured up that image you have just proved its existence and therefore cannot prove its non-existence - does this make sense?
This argument is used a lot to approach the less tangible subjects of the universe and, in particular, God.
It is argued (and I don't want to turn this into a religious thing, even though that is where C.S Lewis goes with his thinking), but it is argued that those who try to disprove God (atheists) cannot do so, because in order to disprove God, they must have an idea of God, and by that very idea,
Try it out for yourself - try to prove that an apple doesn't exist without bringing up the idea of an apple. You can't do it. It's like trying to describe what "green" is without using "green."
Wait. What theory are we talking about here - the Kantian paradox?
Also is something missing from the end of your second to last paragraph? "and by that very idea,"
And let's see if I'm understanding this correctly. Since I can conjure up a universe without meaning, therefore it must exist, right?
Since I can conceive mentally a beluga being in my room right next to me at this exact moment, it exists and has meaning? I'm not talking about just conjuring up a beluga, but a beluga in my room right next to me.
I cannot grasp this logic.
If I wanted to show that apples do not exist, couldn't I just envision a universe where apples do not exist and never have and never will exist? These two ideas would contradict each other though. Is this the paradoxical part?
Sorry, typo on my part. By that very idea, he must exist.
We are talking both about the Lewis quote and Kantian paradox, because they are the same thing.
As for your beluga in the room - I am afraid I overstepped the boundaries of the mind according to Kant, and left out an important part.
There is a philosophy known as "idealism" that would support your beluga in the room, because according to idealism, reality exists in the mind, and so if your mind creates it, it is real. So if you can see in your mind, a beluga in the room, he is there....enjoy.
Now, Kant did away with this logic by claiming that (and I'm paraphrasing)
"The mind is constrained by the physical world of math and science." So existence is based on our mind, yes, but under the constrains of what is physically natural. So, no, your beluga would be classified here as supernatural.
Now what about this Lewis quote? Kant put forward the argument that we cannot conceive of "God" or the "universe" because they exist outside of the scope of the physical world. But the paradox that Lewis draws attention to is, by realizing that we cannot conceive of something, we have given it meaning.
So your beluga may not exist, but it has meaning because we heave entered into this discussion. We have spiritually created a beluga in your room.
I know this seems a bit chopped up, and perhaps I was wrong to bring Kant into the mess - because he is a problem unto himself.
One way to look at it, taking all of this, might be to separate existence from meaning, wherein "existence" means physically present (you can see, hear, feel, taste, smell, or sense it), and meaning means "spiritual existence" (in which you can conceive of it).
It has meaning. But none in occurrence. It's the VERSE of the UNI in existence. But he's mixing indirect thinking in the statement to attemp a proof of the hocus-pocus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Try
Now, mine should be a lot more difficult to grasp. Lots of grandeur and finnality to be abandoned before that.
Basically, the fact that we think of meaning is already evidence that there must be meaning. Lewis says we have a sense for meaning, a sense that couldn't exist if there was no meaning. But we also have free will. That means, we can make an error if we misunderstand our free will to mean we are free when it comes to meaning, that we can simply pick and choose. That betrays a deeper sense in us, that we suffer or get corrupt if we go for picking and choosing instead of believing the truth. A kind of built-in judgment. Jesus said the truth will set us free and His word is the only judge.
I'm afraid comrade Darnays argument is a little flawed. By using the example of the apple he has nullified the point he he is trying to make. Apples patently do exist although someone who has never seen one may not believe in them. However, it is possible to present this individual with concrete evidence, ie an apple, and thus prove that they exisit.
It would have made more sense to have posed the question: "If a unicorn is a magical, mythical beast, and consequently does not exisit in fact, is a thought of a unicorn a real thought?" Now you can show someone a picture of a unicorn and providing they are aware of the concept, they will immediately recognise the picture of being of a unicorn. It doesn't make the unicorn real, only that someone has imagined one, and drawn a picture of it. It doesn't mean the unicorn exisits, only that the picture of the unicorn does.
The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it. It is impossible to disprove the existance of a thing as the only evidence one can provide is it's absence. All this proves is that it is not physically present or that no one has found one yet. Meaning is, in and of itself, an abstract concept and entirely relative. Belief in a concept is essentially a matter of faith, which is where Lewis is coming from.
I think that Lewis's analogy with darkness is flawed, because he's citing it as a standalone concept, whereas in the case of 'meaning' he's citing it as applied to a known existent thing - 'the universe'.
'Meaning' exists as a concept whether or not it applies to the universe. Words have meaning. Football matches have meaning. See Spot Run has meaning. That doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the universe must have meaning because we can imagine it might have.
If that were the case then we'd have to say that wardrobes must contain magical worlds because we can imagine they might do.
What does it mean to you that if we have no meaning in our life, it is empty and futile? I am speaking of a sense of fulfillment in life, something we all strive for. The noble thought, the sense of truth and beauty where you can breathe and say yes, this makes sense, this is how it should be. I suppose it must be about the narrow gate and the wide gate ... it's something you need to experience for yourself if you have to give doubt such a value..
Flawed? I think not! Oversimplified maybe, but not flawed. I was trying to argue that even with a tangible object (apple) you need to recognize its existence before being able to disprove it, as you yourself state: "The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it." And so it is with the universe, which, for the purpose of the OP, is as tangible as an apple, but a bit more difficult to grasp. By trying to disprove the universe, like an apple or unicorn, you must recognize its tangibility, and thus its meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
There occurs no universe, except in the pseudo-imaginary two-dimensions of existence; purely pseudo-imaginary and intangible in physics; a mere leap of useless finality. Men are incapable of measuring such a whole. And if there occurs no whole, there occurs but a meaningless UNI, what I call The Verse of the UNI. It only exists by insane postulation. It's in a museum of unnatural history in occurrence. It's meaningless to the senses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
The indirect thinking of C. S. Lewis cannot apply to the subject in question. While light or darkness is a matter of intensity measurement, the so-called universe can't be measured, not even imagined. Even the apple can't be declared a universe, since in that case we would have to be able to measure experimentally its minutest detail of infinitesimals and even smaller. Such postulations are a vestige of philosophy, or what I call obsolete systems of confusion and leaping insanities.
But believing in something because it makes you feel good doesn't make it true, it stands in the way of arriving at the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by expressionism
what are traditions?
web design new york:lurk5:
Believing or disbelieving anything whatsoever doesnt necessarily make it true. Correct. And the passion of convictions does not necessarily make them true. As Nietzsche would say, "a note for asses."Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
People try to redeem belief or disbelief coupons to feel good, even when aware that they are in the way of knowledge. Con artists of belief and disbelief profit from that hipocresy.
This situation is unsolved by any method whatsoever, except letting it be and providing room for evolution, because there are those who are unaware of their own confusion. And those who become aware can't go anywhere but to evolve and become more knowledgeable. Thus comfortable museums of history must be provided for nuts of all kinds. :banana:
Disbelieving something because it makes you feel uneasy doesn't make it false either, it stands in the way of understanding the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
A few years ago, I would have thought that also, but then I read Raymond Moody's Life After Life about "near-death experiences". He's the one who coined the term. More recently, he also described "shared-death experiences".Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Now I know from previous posts that you don't recognize these things as evidence, but from my perspective there is no need to "believe in" this evidence anymore than there is need to believe in the evidence for the big bang. So from my perspective, the most likely scenario is that you can't die no matter what transformation occurs to the matter-energy stuff of your body. If you think about it, that is "terrifying" as well.
Regarding the original post, there are two ideas which are joined together:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning:
just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
The second idea makes sense to me, but I don't understand the first one. What is Lewis referring to when he says the "whole universe"? Is it the matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study or is it something more? If he is referring to the stuff from the big bang, I don't know whether it has any "meaning" unless one can somehow take a stand outside of it.
I think what Lewis is saying is far less esoteric than many here seem to think. He is proposing that the statement "the universe has no meaning" is an irrational statement, since when one uses the word "universe," one does so presuming one will be understood. Of course, the half-clever second-rater will reply with something like the following: "asdfkjh has no meaning;" but this is an entirely different variety of statement, which demonstrates that no one understands what "asdfkjh" refers to (moreover, "asdfkjh" probably even qualifies as a nonce word and, thus, has some meaning), whereas "universe" is understood to refer to an object or collection of objects/things. You can of course try to refine what precisely Lewis is referring to when he uses the word "universe," but this itself implies that you have understood, in part, what he meant. Consider YesNo's response in which he/she wonders whether Lewis means "matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study"--which immediately demonstrates that we are all in the same ballpark of meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Try
Imagine that someone said "words don't have meaning." Is the receiver of the statement supposed to understand it? After all, the obvious intention of the speaker is to impeach the very vehicle he uses. So the the recipient is justified in responding "that is nonsense" or "no thanks, I just ate" or "strawberry."
The usage of the word "universe" implies some meaning; otherwise one would not use it. When one speaks or writes one does so with the assumption that one will be understood.
Lewis's example of darkness tries to elaborate by showing how in a world where no eyes existed there wouldn't be a debate about whether or not "darkness" had meaning, simply because no one would be able to formulate the question. The very fact that there IS a debate about whether the universe has meaning settles the argument.
This is a standard argument dating back to St Anselm, at least. It's also, a very bad argument!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Imagine that apple, imagine biting into it *but* imagine it tastes of chicken. Got it! OK. By Lewis' argument the chicken-apple now exists! God has as much existence as the chicken-apple.
Why does Lewis require the Universe to have some meaning that we tap into? Man is a meaning creating creature he doesn't need God to ladle it out. You could make the meaning of your life anything that gives you joy - from engaging in arguments on Lit. forum, to trying to create the chicken apple...
Why? Are you terrified of sleep? How can you be terrified of anything that places you in a state where you cannot feel pain, or be terrified, ever again. The ancients are very good on this - Plato, Seneca especially - and also Schopenhauer. Read these masters and you may not feel so uneasy - I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Mal,Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
You just have no clue what you're talking about. Sorry.
First, despite what some other posters have said, Lewis is not explicitly discussing the existence of anything in this passage. He is simply pointing out a contradiction in the statement "the universe has no meaning."
Second, you wonderfully demonstrate not only that you misunderstand the ontological argument for God, but that you don't even know what it says. The argument does not say "I can imagine God; therefore, he exists." There's a major logical detour through "possible worlds" and "maximally great beings." I find it a little funny that you seem to suggest that an argument by Anselm is somehow antique and beneath discussing, when your "refutation" comes from a fairly bad argument made in the 11th Century. Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation. Even now serious studies are being made of the argument, which leads me to...
Third, you have no clue how philosophy works. The major disagreements in modern philosophy are largely the same as the disagreements of antique philosophy. Refutations of arguments rarely consign the argument to philosophy's dust bin. Instead, the arguments are generally refined and restated. Moreover, refutations are seldom of the "this is stupid" variety; they are mostly particular complaints about very specific flaws. An entire worldview being exploded as spectacularly as logical positivism is a rare occurrence, and STILL logical positivism could make a come back, but it won't be because of Dawkins and Harris because, first, they'd have to know what logical positivism is.
If your interest in the ontological argument extends beyond popular atheistic rhetoric, you might want to check out the modal argument made by Plantinga (who, by the way, was awarded a Guggenheim) or the various attempts to use computational analyses to refine the argument. I will, however, warn you that the aforementioned work is likely to be over your head--not because you're stupid, but because it's fairly advanced stuff. Whatever you decide, you should probably stop scoffing at well regarded philosophical arguments simply because you don't agree with them. I mean, come on, even Bertrand Russel thought the ontological argument was sound.
I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Other than that, I agree with your post.
Charles,Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I am, in no way, hostile to idealistic philosophies, and it is perhaps true that Lewis is, in the broader context, suggesting that meaning and existence coincide, but no such claim can be divined from the quoted passage alone. When someone asks about a particular passage, I find it problematic to refer outside that passage and, in your case, to entirely different works by different authors. Thus, my use of the word "explicitly" when I said Lewis was not discussing the existence of anything.
I guess I'm saying that from the Lewis passage an argument such as the following could be constructed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
1. To evoke an object or objects with language implies meaning.
2. The statement "the universe has no meaning" evokes "the universe"
3. Therefore, "the universe" has meaning.
4. Therefore, the statement "the universe has no meaning" is self-refuting.
My point about Lewis not discussing the existence of anything, when clearly he is discussing the existence of darkness is that I don't think his intention with the passage was to formulate an argument that ends with the conclusion "Therefore the universe exists"--even though the existence of the universe is assumed.
The passage does not lead irrevocably to the existence of the universe, or at least in a way that can be demonstrated logically.
Of course, I might be wrong.
P.S. Wittgenstein would never accept #1.
"Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation."
Yeah, do you remember Hume? How about Kant? Both offered pretty solid objections, if not legitimate refutations, of said argument.
How totally surprising that a New Atheist has completely missed the point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Some guy mistakes a vague idealism for the ontological argument for God, completely misrepresents said argument and then ridicules it for being old while citing a thousand-year old "refutation." I correct said guy, and shortly thereafter another guy shows up to remind me that Hume and Kant objected to the argument. This sort of thing happens, I guess, because the adolescents constituting the New Atheist movement all vow to misinterpret any mention of God, the Bible or the work of C.S. Lewis as a challenge to debate the proposition "God exists" on the spot.
I guess now I'm supposed to remind you that Hume's variety of philosophical empiricism was exploded in the first half of the 20th Century or that the vast majority of philosophers think there are major contradictions in Kant's work. BUT ALL THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT! One reads neither Hume nor Descartes for the purpose of divining this or that ultimate argument; instead, one reads the work of the aforementioned philosophers in the hopes that one will learn how to think and, consequently, will avoid showing up on some internet forum and completely misinterpreting all that has been said.
Actually, I suspect you haven't even read Hume or Descartes and, instead, spend your time scouring wikipedia, youtube and infidels.org looking for "slam dunk" refutations of the cosmological arguments for God. If you had actually read Hume or Descartes, you probably wouldn't have confused my correction of some guy's wild misinterpretations as a literal advancement of the ontological argument. I mean, seriously, no one was even talking about the ontological argument for God until some guy started rambling incoherently about "chicken-apples."
OK, I'll bite. Why would Wittgenstein never accept #1?Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I've read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, but I made as much sense out of it as I did the current issue of Poetry--which was not a lot.
Both were either over my head or below my feet.
Here is the original quote from Lewis:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
The word "universe" has various meanings. I don't think that is the issue here, but if that is what Lewis is arguing, then what Lewis said was trivial. The second idea in the quote makes me think that you may be right. Lewis is just arguing that the word itself has meaning. Is that all there is to it?
My admittedly limited understanding of Wittgenstein is that later in his career he considered language merely a sort of linguistic game rather than the true currency of meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You say that Lewis's discussion of meaningful language is a trivial point; I would, however, disagree. I would, in fact, suggest that it is THE major point of modern philosophy--or at least related to it. The relationship between language and consciousness is one of the primary foci of modern philosophy. Some would say that language is, in fact, the primary fabric of consciousness, that consciousness is, itself, constituted in language, that language forms a "matrix," if you will, through which we all experience a muddled actuality. Is our notion of a universe entirely distinct from the word "universe?" Is our notion entirely distinct from an external actuality? Does an external actuality exist? Does Descartes's thinking "I" exist outside an elaborate system of language? Is the appropriate philosophical starting place the interior of the human mind or an external system of physiological structures? Does answering the aforementioned questions in a particular way completely invalidate the questions, themselves? Does this--the universe and all the things it contains--mean something? Are we the arbiters of this meaning or merely the receivers of it? Is there even a "we?"
Personally, I'm with Descartes. I have no doubts about my existence, and the interior of the self seems the obvious place to start since it is the lens through which all other things are known. Of course, the materialists and the naturalists are determined to prove otherwise--even if it means pretending that consciousness naturally emerges as an effect of physical complexity, that the soul is constituted in the brain, that consciousness can, itself, be constructed out of Lincoln Logs.
The New Atheists are just an unimportant side show.
I suspect language is one of the ways that the human species expresses consciousness which permeates but is also beyond the stuff that popped out of the big bang. Another way to describe "God", I guess.
I agree that atheism, new or old, is a side show when it comes to understanding what is going on.
But so is theism and the most insane stooge of history is the agnostic peacemaker, because he makes a deal out of a stupid and futil dispute.:leaving:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.
Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.
And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.
That point I always miss. You are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
For every intolerant atheist there is a fundamentalist believer who would contend that the Bible is true literally, word for word. And I, as an atheist, do not think the Bible is at all ridiculous. It might just be my favourite book. I'm right now in the middle of a cover-to-cover reading of it and am greatly enjoying it. Also I find this distinction between new and old atheism somewhat pointless. Nietzsche's atheism was as virulent as any you might witness today. I think the term "new atheist" is intended to refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, ect, and not to all present-day atheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
You should check out Chris Hedges' book I don't Believe in Atheists , or perhaps one of Karen Armstrong's many titles, if you want to get a look at a softer, more respectful variety of atheism, the kind I myself ascribe to.
And what do I consider the greatest teaching of the Bible?
"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth."
That.
"New Atheism" refers to the very modern phenomenon of proselytizing atheism, ridiculing atheism, incompetent atheism. Nietzsche never stood up and started shouting fallacies and nonsequiturs so ridiculous that everyone wondered whether he had even read the Bible. You know who doesn't share your love of the Bible? Sam Harris. He called it the "least useful book possible." Of course, he's also the dullard who wrote a book about how science could determine morality that was so chock-full of naturalistic fallacies and elementary blunders that everyone just sort of stood around shrugging their shoulders. The difference between New Atheism and old atheism is that, now, no one can discuss religion or religious texts (even in the appropriate fora) without some adolescent atheist poking his head in, misconstruing the entire conversation, misstating some irrelevant argument, flipping everyone the bird and departing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
This newest iteration of atheism is unique.
Your attempt at a moral equivalence claim by mentioning the beliefs of fundamentalists is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. Fundamentalist Christians are only bothersome insofar as they use religion as a political platform; or said another way: they're simply not religious enough. Their own Holy Book prescribes withdrawing from the material world and the institutions of man. I can't imagine Jesus supporting the Iraq war. Etc.
There's very little difference between the religious fundamentalists and most New Atheists. You see, originally the early Christian church considered the Old Testament to be largely allegorical. It was not until the advent of science that protestants started to propose this strictly literal reworking in which scripture was describing a material world and natural processes. At the same time extreme naturalists started trying to replace metaphysics with some ghastly scientism. What we really have now are two similar groups trying to meet each other half way. Of course, they don't look similar now, but they will in the future looking back, as is always the case. They're both doing the same thing: trying to interpret everything through one narrow lens. They're both really just political movements, neither of which care all that much about God.
Thanks for all of your insightful replies. I finally understand the quote, which is much appreciated. Although the quote doesn't seem too stupefying as I was expecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
You've also changed my perspective on religion. I've been somewhat of an atheist most of my life, but I want to start believing. I'm just struggling to have faith right now. I'm on a religious journey right now, I guess you could say.
Thank you so much. I need to stop being so ignorant towards religion.
I don't believe in the evidence for the big bang. The math is way beyond my comprehension, so I can't tell if it's valid, and since I can't take anyone's word on it I've got to either get better at math and physics or continue to be curious about it. The thought of humans at out current stage of development figuring out how the universe originated seems pretty unlikely though. We haven't even found a self-sustaining energy resource yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
If something is unexplained, than I think that it's better for us to recognize it as unexplaned. Fooling ourselves into believing an explination, or choosing to say "well, it's just unexplainable" strikes me as counter-productive. You might as well just say "not knowing makes me feel uncomfortable, so let's just stop looking."
It's not sleep. That's a comparison that's used to assuage fear, in reality sleep = life, and death = death.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I've read them. But anyway, wouldn't you rather feel pain than nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I was an atheist until age 30. The only prayer I can recall having ever made is to better understand. Good luck on your journey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Try
I don't follow what you said about the "unexplained", but thanks for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I wish I could directly verify the evidence for the big bang, but I can't, so I have to take someone's word for it. They may be wrong, but I suspect the errors are more in the details than the general idea which is all I'm really interested in.