: I appreciate your input in this area. I admit my understanding of physics is rudimentary at best, but I was simply trying to illustrate an example. So yes, I do accept your definition of time. So by the definition you've described, I agree that time is objective. I also acknowledge the existence of many objective facts, for instance the acceleration of gravity on earth being 9.81m/s^2, is also objective. So I'm conceding that humans can know some objective truths. However, does your argument follow, that just because some objective truths can be known, that it's possible to know all objective things? That is, our perception of reality (which is purely subjective), can coincide with objective reality. It's presumptious to say that all mysteries are solvable by humans. You also insist that our senses are not flawed, but are merely inaccurate (which are synonymous in my lexicon), because we can create instruments to measure O-R (objective reality). However, we still have only 5 senses, and the tools we've been able to create are merely extensions of these senses. Brad also agrees that the hypothetical 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. senses could be what we need to better understand the universe. My argument remains; being humans is a bias in its self, and our humans senses are a smokescreen. Your assumption that all things can be known is unsustained.

On to my second point. You also said this: "Now, allow me to suggest to you that the Universe is the way it is because God made it that way. Also, that He made it so that the Life Created in that Universe would perceive it, even as it was made. This being the case, it is available for us to perceive reality even as, in fact, it IS. God does not mean to deceive us, but He has given us Free-Will, and thus we are prone to error."

I must point out that you would be hard pressed to prove either God or free-will, and to use these premises in your argument, you will succeed only in convincing people that believe both. Unfortunately, I believe in neither. From what I can gather of your statement, you seem to be SUGGESTING that God created a universe that's well ordered; each component interacting harmoniously like the inner workings of a clock. You also assert that God made the universe in a way that's perfectly comprehensible to humans because he does not mean to deceive us. You've also cited free will as a source of our error. But alas, the universe is not so well ordered as we once believed. For example, many once cited the examples of "how a giraffe had a long neck" and "how the turtle got its shell" as examples of how every living creature was seemingly perfectly suited to its task. With the development of evolutionary theory, it was determined that animals were in fact not perfectly suited to their environments. They were mere "sufficiently" suited, until some sort of random process selected the best suited individuals to survive. Hence, animals do not have "perfect" structural adaptations endowed by a "perfect" God. There are products of random processes. You see humans as incredibly significant creatures; God created the entire universe in a way that man could benifit by learning all things about his environment. Theists see humans as these remarkable things, somehow elevated from other animals because we were fashioned in the image of God. Perhaps it's the exact opposite. As I've said many times, God is a projection of human perfection, God is merely a magnified version of man. I don't believe we are so significant. We're merely magnificent accidents with a higher evolved tool; our minds. Beyond that, we're nothing more than insignificant specks, obliviously hurdling through space on a rotating gas ball.

"Many believe that we are fallen angels. I prefer to think that we're risen apes." -Desmond Morris.

Look what you've done... gone and made me cry.......

• Re: RE: "Greg"arious one - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - October 2, 1999 - 03:49 UTC
  • WOW! - Phil.o.sofir - October 2, 1999 - 05:25 UTC
    • Re: WOW! - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - October 2, 1999 - 10:36 UTC
  • Supposed to go with (hindu truth post below) No text this one - Phil.osofir - October 2, 1999 - 06:05 UTC
    • Yup. I guess i have an insatiable curiosity. no text - tenacious - October 2, 1999 - 20:28 UTC
    • ALL RIGHTY THEN, GREGO!!!! - tenacious - October 2, 1999 - 20:41 UTC
      • Re: My tenacious Friend - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - October 3, 1999 - 00:28 UTC
        • Greg - tenacious - October 3, 1999 - 20:46 UTC
        • Why appealing to free will isn't a good argument - tenacious - October 3, 1999 - 21:16 UTC