Saynt, Wrong... Mathematics gave Einstien a way to express his theory and perform countless experiments to support his case, but the only 'science' that can be taken as absolute fact is arrived at through falsification, which general relativity theory was not. It might very well turn out that a 150yrs from now Bilbo Baggins will make a convincing case that the C in E=MCsquared is really 186,001 or when we finaly find one of Hawkings 'black holes' light dosent even travel, who knows ---- won't make Einstein any less 'right', but will just show that his map of the territory was off. Essentialy what we have here are sages such as Budha and LaoTzu stating centuries ago that Time/Space are inseperable and relative / the western world for centuries adopting the greek view of geometry set forth by Euclid and Plato being inherent in nature itself and not imposed upon by the realm of thought / Newton building upon this with his theories / the eastern world calling shit on it and totaly rejecting it to explain eternal truths of the universe (but make no mistake they definately made use of it for their material advances) / Einstein coming through and shattering the theories that the western world accepted as 'absolute' ------> which leads us right back to what these 'crack pots' as you would call them were saying all along... Relativity Theory in simple terms showed that the way we percieve space-time was a matter of consciousness and not neccesarily absolute in the outside objective world -- now I ask you, if these ancient sages devised methods to travel up and down the MANY rungs on the ladder of consciousness, then why is it so hard to accept that they were able to arrive at these truths by other means than 'sceintific method'? Now, I can understand that a dim wit such as yourself cannot accept arriving at a 'truth' by any other means than 'rational thought' 'deductive reasoning' etc etc, its not your fault that this folly has been embeded into your brain cells, not your fault that you are 1/2 asleep in frog pajams, your sleep walking man - but you can always wake up... AND if you insist on trying to insult people on this thread at least read a book or two man and have at least a lil of that 'knowledge' - learning won't breed understanding, but at least you won't sound like a putz anymore... good luck, you have been the first to reach the Ludi Magisters ignore list -- CONGRATS War, Sickness and Piss-poor trading, Commisso
It was said that dead fish do not talk. That link was proof that dead fish do indeed talk. How is this relevant to trading? I suppose that dead traders do not talk. But when I read the writings of Gann or Hurst, these dead traders are indeed talking to me, imparting their knowledge to the next generation of traders who are willing to listen. I suppose the relevancy pertains to the metaphysical in this case. PTR
>>first of all, it is likely there is no God. (absence of proof)<< Absence of proof isn't proof that God doesn't exist. A simple argument that a Creator exists could run as follows : If you were to find a watch lying on the street would you say that it has just happened to be created by accident, by circumstances or that someone made it ? If your reply is that 'it just happened', then there is of course nowhere for us to go. If however your reply is affirmative then the next thing to do is to have a look at the world around us and ask yourself 'has all this just happed to fall together or was there some intelligence responsible for the design ?'. >>two, if there is a God why would he need or want to talk thru a fish, dead or alive?<< Saynt, the issue isn't whether God would want to talk or want to talk through a dead fish but whether it is possible (if not likely). freealways
Budha and LaoTzu didn't have a clue as to what the hell they were talking about. They spout tons of crap and some of it sticks..big deal. Funny how you remember just their bs that you can twist and distort enough to find modern truths. lol their "rungs of consciousness" as you so ineptly put it are total BS until the proofs arrive. a figment of their over active and simple minded imaginations. the mere thought or idea doesn't make it true or valid or real. totally unreliable "knowledge" awaiting verification through modern methods of inquiry. don't make their incoherent ramblings out to be more than it is --dreams, wishes, and hopes. those methods are a helluva lot more reliable and efficacious than you and your old-age gurus just dreaming something up while stoned one night. where do your "truths" come from --the John?? or maybe the end of a BONG. HA! "learning won't breed understanding" -bwhaha what good is learning when you're born with The Wisdom like you ..right? bwhahaha!!
Carl Sagan once said -"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In the case of God (an extra-extraordinary claim) LACK of evidence IS proof of his non-existence. Such a being would leave more tell-tale signs of His existence. But the lack of the same strongly suggests He is anther figment of man's over active imagination (and under active critical thinking skills.) Your "simple argument" from design (and i would agree with the word SIMPLE) has been refuted many times over. It doesn't hold water, and it is not compelling. ANYTHING is possible with God, and for that very reason GOD is an IMPOTENT model for explaining and understanding the universe.
daniel_m those quotes from famous people talking about religion are really great. Look what Homer Simpson has to say: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/homer.htm Frank Zappa: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/zappa.htm I disagree with your statement "Budha and LaoTzu didn't have a clue as to what the hell they were talking about"
thanks. that frank zappa site is precious! ps what i meant was that BS more often than not masquerades as "wisdom" and "knowledge". Budha might have thought it but that doesn't make it a "truth" or "right" in and of itself.