DDL on 10/9/2010 at 00:50
I don't think fear or vanity are mutually exclusive, here. We only ever experience the inside of our own heads, so a certain degree of ME AM TEH BEST is essentially inevitable. We all know death exists, we all fear death, we all know people who have died, but "having THAT applied to ME" is still a horrible concept. So it's both fear AND vanity.
I just disagree with the implication that it's a uniquely human viewpoint. We just have a better vocab.
EDIT: CCCToad, a universe where the physics do not allow for the emergence of beings capable of observing the universe...does not get observed. Creatures capable of observing the universe will experience "a universe capable of generating them" with a probability of 1.
Kolya on 10/9/2010 at 01:21
So we're all vain because we all fear death? What sense does a moral standard make that no one to whom it is applied to can reach? Makes me feel just awful.
Phatose on 10/9/2010 at 01:21
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Keeping in mind what everyone's said, there is a definite boundary between the two in some areas. While science might be able to explain WHAT the rules that govern (for example) gravity are, it can never explain WHY the rules of the universe are what they become. Why is it that matter(for the most part) attracts other matter instead of repels it? Why is gravity not a repellant force?
I have yet to encounter a "Why?" that can ever be actually answered, period. No matter what explanation is offered, it can always incite another "Why?". I'm inclined to believe that while science can not offer an explanation to why, that's hardly a boundary unless the other side can actually do so - and that is not the case. Religion and philosophy fall to the chain why trap as easily as science, or anyone unfortunate enough to indulge an inquisitive toddler.
Chade on 10/9/2010 at 01:29
"why" is either "what" in disguise or meaningless
I'm not sure if this is always a practical p.o.v. though.
Pardoner on 10/9/2010 at 01:41
Quote Posted by CCCToad
can never explain
Fragony got banned, dethtoll, so you must have meant CCCToad. Maybe later we can goad him into reciting the Catholic Church's three criteria for demonic possession.
I'm baffled that loaded phrases like "scientific crusade" or "straw-rationalist" are being lobbed at Nicker, while actual strawmen, like Vasquez's "I understand why scientists want to 'prove' god's nonexistence" get free rides. Exactly what laboratory preparations are required to conduct Science's desperate revenge fantasy? What petty peer-reviewed journal are these divine vivisections published in? How easily is God made into detergent?
june gloom on 10/9/2010 at 01:52
Quote Posted by Pardoner
Fragony got banned, dethtoll, so you must have meant CCCToad. Maybe later we can goad him into reciting the Catholic Church's three criteria for demonic possession.
Wait what? When did this happen?
june gloom on 10/9/2010 at 01:58
Yeah, I just found it. No wonder I missed that, that was during my "vacation."
I thought TTLG was just slightly less dumber lately.
Kolya on 10/9/2010 at 01:59
What? I wanted to do that! It was my idea first.
Pardoner on 10/9/2010 at 02:04
I'm afraid to ask.
