100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 341:
Line 341: + + + +
→The Imaginary Catalyst
The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree with you over all your points there except your final one. As you say, the catalyst can be called ''g'' as i feel that leaves out any unnecessary baggage that comes with the terms god or luck. My point is not that ''g'' does not exist, of course it does. There must have been a catalyst. My view is that ''g'' is not some sentient thing, rather it is some process that is automatic and with no thought, such as a boulder rolling down a hill. The boulder has no choice in the matter of rolling, nor does it have any way of experiencing its rolling, as it has no nerves or centre of intelligence with which to experience outside influences such as gravity. This is how i see ''g''. It is (was) a process that happened with no alternative or even any way of knowing there could be an alternative.
::Apologies for not using colons, I did not realise this was common courtesy on this site. Thankyou for pointing that out to me. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:03, 29 April 2007