REASON42

Religion takes a back seat to rights in court, says theologian – Telegraph http://t.co/lK3GW3aH

Struggling with the question of belief? Homer Simpson’s got the answer | Julian Baggini
http://t.co/BlPHYSs8

Jeb Corliss ” Grinding The Crack”: http://t.co/sETWzvZy via @youtube

“..lives his entire life attached to the female, and his body is little more than a backbone and a pair of testicles..” http://t.co/bDvET3Nu

Radiohead: ‘A sort of skiffle-Pink Floyd who sound like Queen. Yeah, that’s us’ – classic intervie…
http://t.co/oDm1ywaa

Stephen Hawking admits he finds women ‘a complete mystery’
http://t.co/eeRicVGj
via @guardian

A Chinese proverb says this: to wish someone luck is to wish your own luck away. Those of a superstitious mind should take that seriously! Happy New Year!

Ich hoffe Sie haben ein gutes neues Jahr!

In a time not so long ago I created a post called ‘What Created The Big Bang?’. This post discussed what logically could be the cause of the Big Bang. My answer basically suggested that there is a problem with the question. The problem centres around the problem of temporal (within the concept of time) perspective. The problem is “can there be a ‘before’ before the beginning?”. Conceptually this is very confusing. If there is a ‘before’ that occurs ahead of what we describe as the beginning, then the ‘before’ becomes the new beginning. This then leaves us with the problem of ‘what caused this new before’, or ‘what was the cause that created that event?’. In philosophy this is discussed within the problem known as ‘The First Cause Argument’.

The First Cause Argument highlights the problem whereby we enter an infinite regress and/or a vicious circle. To avoid this the First Cause Argument must have an event that has no cause to be a useful argument. This then naturally leads to the question: ‘Can Something come from Nothing?’ This question is one of the most fundamental questions within philosophy and any deep reflection we take when we ponder why we are here at all.

Well, the video below takes a totally different perspective on this matter. Check it out.

For apparent legal reasons, the article:  ’How to spot a hidden religious agenda’ I linked to in this post has been pulled by New Scientist.  This is very odd. 

They wrote this on the link to the article:

New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.

So, who has complained and why? I shall try to find out….

(It was also published in the magazine, where I first spotted it).

The article is down-loadable at Wiki-leaks, here.