767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 346:
Line 346: + + + + + + +
→The Imaginary Catalyst
::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
::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
And this is why I say it's ridiculous to say that you're an atheist. You might be arreligious, but it's ridiculous to be atheistic.
This is because you and I can have a reasonable arguement about the nature of ''g'' or we can argue about the properties of ''g'', but it's silly to say that ''g'' doesn't exist. Now that we finally agre on terminology, it might make sense to argue the properties of ''g''.
I understand why you might think ''g'' is not sentient. Afterall, like a boulder rolling down a hill, ''g'' would appear to have no nervous system, nueral net or anything else which might sustain thought as we detect it in most brains. Please respect the conclusion that I have draw that is: if ''g'' is sentient then the level of intelligence is so far superior to our own that it would be almost incomprehensible. All of the things you see as normal, I see as miraculous. But there is no sense wasting time arguing about it.
I also tend to think that there is Unified Theory which still eludes us. The Unified Theory ties together light, energy, mass, time and ''g''. I think that if we had a greater understanding of ''g'' we could easily manipulate the other elements described above. I have limited and anecdotal evidence that this is possible, but I might just be superstitious. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
==Let Me Paint a Picture==
==Let Me Paint a Picture==