If you think about it, attempts to solve these kinds of problems can actually be quite devisive. When people feel as though they know the solutions, and they come to opposing solutions as they often do, and both insist, and neither holds an account of the solution that is void of fallacy, then reasoning stops and something else, like conflict begins. If everyone just recognized that knowledge and belief are distinct, and admitted that they merely believe rather than insist they know, then we can do philosophy. When they can’t do these things, you get conflict and inevitably a battle over who’s fallacious conclusion is correct, and this has historically been fundamentally at the base of a great deal of fighting in the world. This about the atheist/theist debate. Its a certainty that neither, by virtue of the problem itself, can possibly construct a proper proof of thier propositions that god either does or doesn’t exist. When they fail to acknowledge that these propositions are articles of faith and instead insist that they’re true…well…you know what happens. Both of them make fools of themselves and make a mockery of philosophy as they pimp it to sells views that simply can’t be substantiated.
Have you ever tried to make the average person meditate? …not easy one bit… most get fearful even after only a few seconds of being in their own minds and listening to their own thoughts. A true fact. The Buddhist methodology helps with the meditation process in relieving that fear… fear of what though? that is a question I have yet to get an answer to from the fearful, as they do not know what of.
I see Buddhism as the philosophy (rather than the religion) it was supposed to be, so is it an easy path compared to other philosophical ideals? which aren’t always used for good… as history has taught us.
Are you trolling me again? shall I take your current crap… as opposed to any other man’s? how about women’s crap? or kid’s crap? or society’s…?
Either your view of women is very narrow, or your joking/testing?
Themselves.
There is no absolute truth that isn’t couched in personal truth. We all have our own “truths” which we can project as absolute truth. ← And even that is my own personal truth.
Gib, I hate to do this, but I have to disagree. It’s true that whether the universe is finite or infinite is a question that can only be answered with a guess. Its true that the problem of first cause if a problem that can only be “solved” with a guess. It’s true that some problems can only be resolved down to sets of possible solutions. Those things are absolutely true for everyone.
No logic also helps.
Guessing is never good with science or philosophy.
A first cause is simply the fact that there is nothing preventing existence. Thats a solid first cause and its perfectly logical to use it.
And because of this the universe must be infinite potentially because the lack of potential to prevent existence is infinite. Infinite lack of potential to stop existence. So potentially existence is infinite.
I dont mean to sound educative.
Absolutely! But you’ll notice you had to qualify that statement with “for everyone”. This is what I mean, there’s always a “for someone” or “according to…” or “in relation to…” Often, we can keep that implicit, as in “Those things are absolutely true, period.” ← But that’s still “Those things are absolutely true, according to me”.
The point is that we can’t distinguish between what’s absolutely true and what’s absolutely true according to me. This is not to say there are no absolutes, just that any absolute is always couched within a relative point of view, and I think the relative point of view is primary.
(I’m an idealist)
Barbarian…lack of potential to prevent existence? How does this address the problem of infinite reduction? Here, I think is an example of your guess as to the solution to the problem of first cause, but it just doesn’t solve it.
Gib, we’re making the same argument apparently. Subjective points of view and the “truths” that they furnish the subject won’t solve the problem of first cause, and they won’t solve the dilemma that accompanies speculation about whether the universe has a physical end.
Can you verify that with either yourself, or those you have gleaned this from? I cannot… as I’ve been meditating since I started school/since 5, so I get off on looking within, and get miserable when it’s all spent. 
The thing is… if people allowed themselves to get past that point of fear/the point of no return, they would see that there is nothing to fear, but most cannot get past that point. I don’t understand what they think is going to happen?
magz do you take st johns wort, if so, how do you find it?
I used to take St Johns Wort about 15 years ago, for grieving/a loss… this is the best brand to take:
It works within days, and works very very well. 
or… you could buy a hypericum Hidcote and drink daily teas made from the infused petals of its bright yellow flowers, which are produced in profusion from April to December.
Yeah i have like a tincture one, i take a table spoon a day, it’s been three days so far… not sure if i feel a relief, kind of. i use to have a tension in my head, but it seems to have gone.
St. John’s wort works best for mild to moderate depression brought on by grief and life’s circumstances, but not so great for long term or manic-type depression.
I guess you could call it a mood lifter.
Sending MP a big bear hug! Love what art?
Pig hug *
Are you trying to provoke Pandbear’s jealousy? Cad!
I agree. But then I come to think: is there a difference between knowledge and comprehension? Sure, there are things in this world we cannot know, but out of these things we cannot know, can some of them be addressed with theories that “work”–systems of thought or ideas that, if they can’t be verified, at least make sense, and provide us with the feeling of “Ah-ha! That makes sense.”
We comprehend that solving the problem of first cause is technically impossible, then we know that spending time trying to do so isn’t the best way to spend time.