[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Pete...God...and who cut the cheese.



Now think of this: "Nothing excisted before it, not even time." Now what is
nothing? How can you define it... even approximately?
Oh I guess the world we live in, our limitless universe (oh and where are
the limits of the limitless? we with our limited nature can`t perceive the
limitless, can we?) has a foundation. And it`s also a consequence of
something. Our world came to be because it was a natural consequence of
something we will most likely never know. And the problem with science is
that it studies only the concequences ignoring the fact that the reason, the
cause goes
first. Yes science does well. But it rejects the foundations, and though
it`s already gone far only a very little part of all there is to know is
already known. And if we study the laws (like gravity) this doesn`t mean we
are the ones who invented them. And everything in the world is well
balanced - this can`t be a coinsidence. Things go so well together. You
never expect summer to start in the midst of winter, for a very simple
example. Our world (I don`t mean the one we people are destroying with our
brutal attitudes, I mean the way it was time ago) is a marvellous place.
Only a mind greater than any human one could invent a thing a human mind
would never invent. And what about us? Yes you can say monkeys worked hard
to become people, (but why would they) and science may have proved a lot of
things.
Yet it`s absurd about monkeys. No matter how many good old skeletons have
been found. Booooo. I read National Geographic evolution-articles and it
looks like a supposition. Only this. Wonder why they think they managed to
prove it?
And another thought. The world since the very beginning had patterns for
man, the world had everything we needed. And whatever man has invented
throughout the history, he never
invented anything that has no resemblance of something that always excisted:
an airplane has wings and obeys the same laws in flying as a bird... the
world gives us patterns and materials to invent, to create. And everything
here has a reason. Like when we do something because we have a reason why we
do it, so was there a reason for our world to appear. And it doesn`t
contradict science. It`s only that science isn`t everything. It studies just
one side of the Moon. (At least I kinda used a "Who"-word. It`s the who
mailing list after all, is it not?)
Peace!
(I`m not Andy ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>
To: <TheWho@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: Pete...God...and who cut the cheese.


> >From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@ascpl.lib.oh.us>
> >Subject: Re: A question (or two) for Scott (Mr. Darwinism)
> >
> >> But Science does not have an explanation for what the very
> >> first spark was that created the big bang,
> >
> >You're right.  And science doesn't profess to know what caused
> >the Big Bang, either.  Or if in fact it even needed a cause.
>
> Ahh, so you're still open to all possibilities?
>
> >Quantum physics has proven that elementary particles of matter
> >pop in & out of existence all the time.  Sounds weird, I know,
> >but it's been proven in experiment after experiment.  Quantum
> >fuzziness, it's referred as.
>
> I thought one of the main principles in science is that matter can not be
> created or destroyed?
> Is this concept now outdated?
> It's been a while since my Chemistry and Bio days.
> This is interesting...and fuzzy...stuff.
>
> >> or created the gases that caused the big bang.
> >
> >This is a common misconception.  The Big Bang didn't happen
> >*within* a pre-existing space.  The Big Band *created* all space
> >& time (space-time).
>
> Isn't this still just theory?
>
> >Asking what was there before the Big Bang
> >is like asking where *you* were before your parents conceived
> >you.  It's a nonsensical question.
>
> Yes, but I had parents!
>
> > (Don't take this analogy too
> >far - I'm not saying the Big Bang had parents!)
>
> Never mind.
>
> >All the gases created in the Big Bang (roughly 75% of which was
> >hydrogen, 25% helium, & minute traces of lithium) went on to form
> >the first generation of stars.
>
> Who cut the big cheese to create the gases?
>
> >We *are* literally
> >star dust.
>
> You're not going to break into song, are you?
>
> >Again, there was no "first thing."  The Big Bang created everything.
> >Nothing existed before that moment.  Not even time.
>
> Again, theory, right?
>
> >The Big Bang occurred & space-time expanded to where it is now.
>
> The theory of something from nothing seems to fly against the principle of
> matter not being able to just be created.
>
> >That would explain the smell of my socks.
>
> So God was in my Jeep this summer on our Who Tour???
> Holly smelly socks Bat Man!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> Seriously, what/who came first...the ______ or the ________.
> >I don't know what you're asking here.  You would have to fill in
> >the above blanks.
>
> I guess it would be God or the gas?
>
> >The only time Pete's writing makes me cringe a bit
> >is when he gets *very* literal about Meher Baba (mainly in some of
> >his more obscure solo material).
>
> Yeah, I've never been all too into his prayers and such.
>
> >Pete's not dumb.  He says, "I have to be careful not to preach."
> >And he generally sticks to that.  His writing is vague enough (in
> >a good way) to offer different interpretations.   Pete's smart enough
> >not to pigeon-hole his concepts & ideas.
>
> Yes, but Pete makes it *very* clear that he himself believes in a higher
> power.  A God.
> (hoping others better versed in Baba-dome speak up here with insight.)
>
> >No, he's impressed me & touched me with his writing so far.... It
> >ain't broke, so why fix it?  I don't expect everyone to think like I
> >do.
>
> That's cool.  So it's like "I hear ya Pete, works for you, but not
> necessarily for me.  Keep pounding on that SG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ?
>
> >Seriously, I just don't
> >hear Pete's spiritual songs as commands for me to accept his beliefs.
>
> Oh, I don't either!  He lays it out for people to take or to leave.  I
> respect that approach.
>
> >Like I said, his writing is beautifully vague; I stretch my own life
> >experiences comfortably over his lyrics & everything fits just fine.
>
> How does your "Science is the answer" fit into his stated (not forced)
> beliefs though?
>
> >However, there is a line in "Baba O'Riley" that I sometimes sing out
> >with a bit more gusto:  "I don't need to be forgiven!!"  ;-)
>
> Funny!  I tend to belt that one out to.
> That, and "It's all here in my head.  Nothing more needs to be said!"
>
> Digging this thread BTW.
>
> Kevin in VT