Skip to main content

The End Times... don't exist

So as yet another doomsday nutter finds their "predictions" end up just a bit wide of the mark, I wonder if we, the rest of humanity, might just face the fact of an existence that speaks way beyond the nonsense of the self appointed loons in the US who reject evolution, but demand absurd respect for absurd ideas of destruction.

Science can essentially prove evolution, but as we see today, religion makes up ideas of "end times".

In a Universe of essentially infinite extent, where we find an evolution of time and space, the magic that we may choose to escape from our limited lives may well exist- yet we simply do not know how or whereof such magic may proceed. One thing we do know: fools like Harold Camping would not even begin to understand the truth that may, or may not, exist. Religion and stupidity are clearly too close bedfellows.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thinking we live in "a Universe of essentially infinite extent" is as much magical thinking as Harold Camping's prediction. You have no proof for such an idea - the concept of infinity is an unfortunate byproduct of the axiomatic definition we use to explain our number system. It doesn't infer, and there is no proof whatsoever, that it can be used to represent something in the physical domain; for example, the extent of the universe or the density of a black hole.

Numbers were created in order to represent discrete physical entities, if there is no corresponding entity then the number is of dubious use, and we're forced to question the axioms. Infinity is a concept that people use to control the less educated, just like religion, but they're usually aware that there's nothing analogous in the real world.

To conclude, you're clearly wrong - the End Times do exist, either that or you "believe" in infinity. If that's the case you're actually doing something very similar to Camping; buying into something someone wrote in a book that can't be proven and has shown no real merit as a concept, yet you believe regardless.
10:34 am
Cicero said…
the word "essentially" is quite important: form the point of view of Mankind, even our fastest probes have let to travel an appreciable distance to the nearest star. We have no means of getting even 4.5 light years within the span of a single lifetime. In a Galaxy 100,000 light years across and 1,000 light years deep, then even the Galaxy is essentially infinite as far as a single human life is concerned. So your comment while of course strictly true does not bring home precisely just how vast the cosmos is.By the time you get to the scale of the great wall, there is really nothing except Mathematics that can comprehend the size of the distances involved.

"You may its a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts compared to space"
12:42 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more