On 5/12/2011 6:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 10:31 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 5/12/2011 12:08 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 3:44 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

...
Since it's all made up, in a sense there is no original -- except
in the
imaginations of the authors.

It's like asking "What did Alice _really_ say to the Red Queen?"


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

I would say you make the exact mistake which the narrow minded make
on any given subject.

You think yourself to know, things which you cannot possibly know,
yet, with the present state of knowledge.

Any race which would visit us and suggest they where "GODS", and
were but a few thousand years ahead of us, 5,000 - 10,000, would be
entirely able to convince us they were "GODS" -- their technology
would simply allow them to do all the things which "GODS" do.

I see the possibility that where it would be possible for a race to
be a billion years ahead of us, give or take.

And, the inception, the creation, the very first living organism,
even if single celled, requires so many factors, and so many
extremely complex design considerations, to have all come together
all within a very time critical period, and in such an exactly
defined technical arrangement and order, as too virtually, at least
in our present state of understanding, be strongly suggestive that
some form of higher intelligence was involved in our design and
creation.

And, if I am correct in my analysis, Einstein was an agnostic -- he
simply knew he didn't know enough, yet ...

Regards,
JS



Well, even if you're right about all that -- and you may be -- that
doesn't change the fact that the small fraction of the thousands of
crazy Middle Eastern miracle books that the dominant sect chose as
"canonical" are about as likely to be uniquely inspired by God as are
the collected works of the Amazing Kreskin.


With my best regards,


Kevin Alfred Strom.

There is no proof that the bible was "divinely inspired", at the
present time, I can't imagine where such proof could be had -- for
that a leap of faith is required ... one I have great difficulty in
making, though I keep an open mind, and looking ...

I am just able to manage, a mind greater than our own is a likely
candidate for our existence.

Regards,
JS




Yes. I don't claim to know, but I think that there is a strong
possibility that that mind may only exist in the part of timespace
that we call the future.

And I also think there is a distinct possibility that events in the
future can determine events in the past -- that timespace folds back
upon itself, like a variation of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, or,
as our ancestors believed, time is cyclical.


With my very best,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

On 5/12/2011 6:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 10:31 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 5/12/2011 12:08 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 3:44 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

...
Since it's all made up, in a sense there is no original -- except
in the
imaginations of the authors.

It's like asking "What did Alice _really_ say to the Red Queen?"


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

I would say you make the exact mistake which the narrow minded make
on any given subject.

You think yourself to know, things which you cannot possibly know,
yet, with the present state of knowledge.

Any race which would visit us and suggest they where "GODS", and
were but a few thousand years ahead of us, 5,000 - 10,000, would be
entirely able to convince us they were "GODS" -- their technology
would simply allow them to do all the things which "GODS" do.

I see the possibility that where it would be possible for a race to
be a billion years ahead of us, give or take.

And, the inception, the creation, the very first living organism,
even if single celled, requires so many factors, and so many
extremely complex design considerations, to have all come together
all within a very time critical period, and in such an exactly
defined technical arrangement and order, as too virtually, at least
in our present state of understanding, be strongly suggestive that
some form of higher intelligence was involved in our design and
creation.

And, if I am correct in my analysis, Einstein was an agnostic -- he
simply knew he didn't know enough, yet ...

Regards,
JS



Well, even if you're right about all that -- and you may be -- that
doesn't change the fact that the small fraction of the thousands of
crazy Middle Eastern miracle books that the dominant sect chose as
"canonical" are about as likely to be uniquely inspired by God as are
the collected works of the Amazing Kreskin.


With my best regards,


Kevin Alfred Strom.

There is no proof that the bible was "divinely inspired", at the
present time, I can't imagine where such proof could be had -- for
that a leap of faith is required ... one I have great difficulty in
making, though I keep an open mind, and looking ...

I am just able to manage, a mind greater than our own is a likely
candidate for our existence.

Regards,
JS


Yes. I don't claim to know, but I think that there is a strong
possibility that that mind may only exist in the part of timespace
that we call the future.

And I also think there is a distinct possibility that events in the
future can determine events in the past -- that timespace folds back
upon itself, like a variation of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, or,
as our ancestors believed, time is cyclical.

What go's around comes around?

On 5/13/2011 8:43 AM, dxAce wrote:


Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

On 5/12/2011 6:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 10:31 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 5/12/2011 12:08 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 3:44 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

...
Since it's all made up, in a sense there is no original -- except
in the
imaginations of the authors.

It's like asking "What did Alice _really_ say to the Red Queen?"


With every good wish,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

I would say you make the exact mistake which the narrow minded make
on any given subject.

You think yourself to know, things which you cannot possibly know,
yet, with the present state of knowledge.

Any race which would visit us and suggest they where "GODS", and
were but a few thousand years ahead of us, 5,000 - 10,000, would be
entirely able to convince us they were "GODS" -- their technology
would simply allow them to do all the things which "GODS" do.

I see the possibility that where it would be possible for a race to
be a billion years ahead of us, give or take.

And, the inception, the creation, the very first living organism,
even if single celled, requires so many factors, and so many
extremely complex design considerations, to have all come together
all within a very time critical period, and in such an exactly
defined technical arrangement and order, as too virtually, at least
in our present state of understanding, be strongly suggestive that
some form of higher intelligence was involved in our design and
creation.

And, if I am correct in my analysis, Einstein was an agnostic -- he
simply knew he didn't know enough, yet ...

Regards,
JS



Well, even if you're right about all that -- and you may be -- that
doesn't change the fact that the small fraction of the thousands of
crazy Middle Eastern miracle books that the dominant sect chose as
"canonical" are about as likely to be uniquely inspired by God as are
the collected works of the Amazing Kreskin.


With my best regards,


Kevin Alfred Strom.

There is no proof that the bible was "divinely inspired", at the
present time, I can't imagine where such proof could be had -- for
that a leap of faith is required ... one I have great difficulty in
making, though I keep an open mind, and looking ...

I am just able to manage, a mind greater than our own is a likely
candidate for our existence.

Regards,
JS


Yes. I don't claim to know, but I think that there is a strong
possibility that that mind may only exist in the part of timespace
that we call the future.

And I also think there is a distinct possibility that events in the
future can determine events in the past -- that timespace folds back
upon itself, like a variation of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, or,
as our ancestors believed, time is cyclical.

What go's around comes around?




That's one way of putting it!

Kevin.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On 05/13/2011 07:38 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
And I also think there is a distinct possibility that events in the
future can determine events in the past -- that timespace folds back
upon itself, like a variation of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, or, as
our ancestors believed, time is cyclical.
If you've had de jevu, you know reality is not all its cracked up to be.