I've been pondering the whole question if fate exists for the past oh, 18 hours or so. It started last night when Kaps made a comment about my girlfriend's father killing me when he found out I was boning his daughter. This got me thinking because her father died about 11 years ago when she was still a child. I began pondering the question "What if he had not died?". This would have ment that I would have never met by girlfriend or my best friend because their family would not have a reason to move to my hometown. Perhaps I was destined to meet them and become close to their family. Perhaps it was just a ****ty thing that happened to that family but life goes on and good things came out of it.

I have also always wondered if people are connected mentally on some level because of all the strange coincidences that happen in my life. For instance my girlfriend and I were dicussing what we were going to have for supper that night on MSN. Then at the exact same time we both change the subject to the movie The Ring. This happens alot and not just with her. Happens alot with my best friend too. Yeah, I know, we just know each other so well and it's not that surprising that the odd time we think alike. But like I said this tends to happen alot. Maybe I was ment to have certain friends and being connected on some level drew me to hang out with certain people. Maybe fate dictated that their father would die so that I could meet my best friend and then fall in love with his sister.

I know people don't like the idea that they are not in control of their lives and I'm not saying that we aren't. I have just been thinking about this lately and maybe certain people are ment to be with others and sometimes life tries to make those people come together who share a connection. There is no evidence of fate and there is no evidence against it and there can't be. We don't know what is going to happen in the future so when the future occurs we can't tell if it was our doing or if some outside force had some affect on it. Maybe fate doesn't exist.....but then again maybe it does. Personally I think too much strange things happen in my life to write them off as coincidence. What do you think?

I don't have time to read this so I'm going to guees it's like most of your post and say you are *****whipped.

HOLY ****!!!
OWNED BY JIMMY K!!!

GMAN=A LOT FUNNIER SINCE HE ADMITTED HE'S A JIMMY K LOOK ALIKE

Originally posted by gman
I don't have time to read this so I'm going to guees it's like most of your post and say you are *****whipped. HAHAHAHAHAHA...Gman MADE ME LAUGH...The world is ending

Gman has been quite the funny ****er lately!

Gman didn't read it because he can't read. Just like he can't ****ing spell.

Yes I can't read but somehow can write. That's some mad skills I got going on.

I think Gman's flaming for dummies book came in

Originally posted by Curly Howard
I think Gman's flaming for dummies book came in and I thought it got lost in shipping

Hockey, I actually took the time to read your post. I, myself, believe in fate. Now, I'm not saying that we don't have some control over our lives, because I know we do. I just think that certain things happen for a certain reason. Many things have happened in my life within the past year that have led me to believe this. I'm not going to go into any detail, because if I did, people would be *****ing about a long post. Losers!
Thanks for sharing HF. I really enjoyed reading a post with some insight into your thoughts and a post with some structure, unlike most.

I try to make one serious ****ing post and gman ****s it all up. **** this ****. I am going to copy my first post and make multipy ****ing threads with it until I get some serious ****ing responces. And yes I am pissed off today. No reason, I just ****ing am. So **** you all.

Bella, Fix your av

Thank you Bella.

I'm sorry hockey for ****ing your thread up. Sure it's weird and all that if her father didn't die you wouldn't know her. But If I were you I wouldn't be thing about **** like this and thinking of new ways to tap that ass.

I like thinking about this kind of stuff. Only by exploring the mysteries of life will we one day be able to understand them.

Actually there is no free will. Whether you want to call it Fate, predestination, or whatever, we're exactly the product of our genetics and circumstances. Given enough information, anything that a person chooses to do or happens to them can be predicted. Of course, at this point in our human evolution, there is no way to get all the info that is needed to make an accurate prediction, but someday our knowledge and technology will catch up to this theory, which exists on it's own, and we'll be able to digitally record every faucet of our mind and personality, in a way, achieving immortality. If evolution is true one must ask the question "what are we evolving into?". Of course there can ultimately be only one answer, and it is God.

Originally posted by HockeyFighter
I've been pondering the whole question if fate exists for the past oh, 18 hours or so. It started last night when Kaps made a comment about my girlfriend's father killing me when he found out I was boning his daughter. This got me thinking because her father died about 11 years ago when she was still a child. I began pondering the question "What if he had not died?". This would have ment that I would have never met by girlfriend or my best friend because their family would not have a reason to move to my hometown. Perhaps I was destined to meet them and become close to their family. Perhaps it was just a ****ty thing that happened to that family but life goes on and good things came out of it.

I have also always wondered if people are connected mentally on some level because of all the strange coincidences that happen in my life. For instance my girlfriend and I were dicussing what we were going to have for supper that night on MSN. Then at the exact same time we both change the subject to the movie The Ring. This happens alot and not just with her. Happens alot with my best friend too. Yeah, I know, we just know each other so well and it's not that surprising that the odd time we think alike. But like I said this tends to happen alot. Maybe I was ment to have certain friends and being connected on some level drew me to hang out with certain people. Maybe fate dictated that their father would die so that I could meet my best friend and then fall in love with his sister.

I know people don't like the idea that they are not in control of their lives and I'm not saying that we aren't. I have just been thinking about this lately and maybe certain people are ment to be with others and sometimes life tries to make those people come together who share a connection. There is no evidence of fate and there is no evidence against it and there can't be. We don't know what is going to happen in the future so when the future occurs we can't tell if it was our doing or if some outside force had some affect on it. Maybe fate doesn't exist.....but then again maybe it does. Personally I think too much strange things happen in my life to write them off as coincidence. What do you think?


I meet my wife when she rode along with a friend to my work to pick up her friends husband and I bumped in to her walking out the door and caught her before she fell. We started laughing and talking. I forgot to ask for her phone number before she left.
Later that same night I saw her at a gas station on my way to a friends house.Was it fate that put those events together? I like
to think so.

It was. I told you, there's no such thing as free will or chance.

ch...that is a cool ass story. fate totally exists...

Fate is bull...No wait...Its mean for people to do suicides, become homeless, and kill other. Yeah! it already written down how my life will go.

You make life what it is though choices...**** happens, good or bad, but it was from what you picked to do. Events happen everyday, its not fate, but just normal life doing its thing. I said enough, Im done, where is the fork?

granted...your choices do influence your life...but you have to admit that there are some instances when you have no explanation...like curly's story up there...

Ensanity you never PICKED the things you did. They were simply a result of your biological programming and life experiences. So you see, you never really had a choice at all...

Originally posted by Blue Bulldogge
Ensanity you never PICKED the things you did. They were simply a result of your biological programming and life experiences. So you see, you never really had a choice at all... bull****...if thats the case, life is pointless

Originally posted by Laura
granted...your choices do influence your life...but you have to admit that there are some instances when you have no explanation...like curly's story up there... **** another case of **** happens

Originally posted by The Ensanity
bull****...if thats the case, life is pointless

It's an unpleasant realization, I know, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Originally posted by Blue Bulldogge
It's an unpleasant realization, I know, but it doesn't make it any less true. Nope, I guess we will just bump heads on this. Do you have an advil?

you're sad. :)

Originally posted by Laura
you're sad. :) How?

you have no faith in the "sometimes things just happen"...you have to have a reason for everything...sad.

Originally posted by Laura
you have no faith in the "sometimes things just happen"...you have to have a reason for everything...sad. Things happen all the time, and if its good...you got "LUCKY".

say it with me

LUUUUUUCKY.

Felt good, huh?

lucky/fate are almost synonymous...say it with me "sin - on - eh - mus"...

I read it. You make some good points but I cannot decide how i feel about the whole fate topic.

I dunno either way.

Originally posted by Laura
lucky/fate are almost synonymous...say it with me "sin - on - eh - mus"... I thought fate was like " it was meant to happen"...Thats what I dont beleive at ALL

No such thing as fate.

Originally posted by gman
No such thing as fate. I love you Gdude

I never used to believe in fate at all but I have just experienced too many weird things in my life to rule it out anymore.

to me it's when something, good/bad, happens without any just explanation...same thing as lucky/unlucky...if you're a ****ty worker and get a promotion over someone who isn't, that's not because the poor bastard who's been bustin' his ass made the wrong choices...it's fate/luck...just like ch seein' his future wife at a gas station...did he choose to roam the streets lookin' for her...i don't think so...it was fate/luck...

Originally posted by Blue Bulldogge
Actually there is no free will. Whether you want to call it Fate, predestination, or whatever, we're exactly the product of our genetics and circumstances. Given enough information, anything that a person chooses to do or happens to them can be predicted. Of course, at this point in our human evolution, there is no way to get all the info that is needed to make an accurate prediction, but someday our knowledge and technology will catch up to this theory, which exists on it's own, and we'll be able to digitally record every faucet of our mind and personality, in a way, achieving immortality. If evolution is true one must ask the question "what are we evolving into?". Of course there can ultimately be only one answer, and it is God.

That looks like it was taken straight out of a Church of Scientology brochure.

I always understood "evolution" to be a series of ADAPTATIONS to changing demands from diverse environnments and not one preplanned, linear "march" towards "perfection" or whatever. You can't be 30% evolved or 10% away from being fully evolved towards an already determined potential. Or so I gather.

And if the "God" towards which you say we are evolving is the Biblical one then something's not right because he is supposed to have made us "in His own image". So if He is already perfect then how can we evolve any further?

Fate=luck=**** happens


Ive been saying this then...

I'm a hippie canadian liberal and I don't belive in fate so it must not be.

i give up...i think we're pretty much sayin' the same thing...the part that i don't believe in is that everything has been predetermined for every person...that's a bit too much for me.

You pick what you do. The idea that you can think for yourself. Make's fate impossible. I'm walking down the street. I take a right. But I was going to win the lottery today. Does fate move the store from the left street to the right. No.

do you not see that i'm agreeing with you in most of this aspect? so, why are you beating a dead horse?

Originally posted by gman
You pick what you do. The idea that you can think for yourself. Make's fate impossible. I'm walking down the street. I take a right. But I was going to win the lottery today. Does fate move the store from the left street to the right. No.
Fate determined you would go right. You just had no way of knowing therefore you think you made a choice.

No I picked That I would go right.

No, you didn't

yes I did. Just like I picked to whip my ass when I got off the toliet. Fate didn't do it for me.

"To know oneself, one should assert oneself. Psychology is action, not thinking about oneself. We continue to shape our personality all our life. If we knew ourselves perfectly, we should die. "

I hope this quote from camus is of any use.

Originally posted by gman
yes I did. Just like I picked to whip my ass when I got off the toliet. Fate didn't do it for me.
I'll give you that. Fate did not determine that you would wipe your ass. Fate only works on higher, larger matters.

or a brief excerpt from:

Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus Edited and Excerpted by Andres Duany

Sisyphus ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. There is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

This is the price that must be paid for the passions of this earth.

Sisyphus watches the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again toward the summit. He goes back down to the plain. It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me. I see that man going back down with a heavy yet measured step toward the torment of which he will never know the end. That hour like a breathing-space which returns as surely as his suffering, that is the hour of consciousness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock. If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn. All SisyphusÕ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill the heart. One finds one's burden. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Does Time Really Exist?

What is it that clocks are measuring? They seem to measure some unseen medium that continues on at a constant and unyielding pace. Time is often thought of as a river that flows in one direction and slows for no one, it sweeps us along with it. Is there any evidence that it is really there or is it much like the ether that was once thought to permeate the universe. Certainly we experience time's passing. People are born, live, and die and feel as though they are constantly being pushed or dragged by this unseen phenomenon. Therefore, time must exist, right? Perhaps. But consider that time is something that we perceive through our senses, which are not perfect. Is it possible that how we think about time is related to how our brains processes information?

In Book XI of Confessions of St. Augustine the illustrious St. Augustine discusses the nature of time and how God and free will fit in. I do not want to discuss theological implications of time here, though there is much that could be said on the matter. However, some of his thoughts on time are very insightful and I will attempt to explain them. First, let us consider how people often speak of time periods as having duration. For instance I might say I believed a road trip to take a very long time. But how is it that I can justify saying that a past or future time is long. I might say that a past time was long or a future time will be long. However, if the past is no more and the future is yet to occur then how could its duration be measured? Indeed, if the past no longer exists and the future is yet to exist then all that remains is the present. But the present has no duration. One can divide any period of time into a past and future, from millenia to picoseconds. The present is nothing more than a fleeting moment through which the future passes to become the past. So we are left with quite a conundrum, the past and future do not exist and the present has no duration, how can time be measured.

St. Augustine proposed that time is measured in the mind. It is not an event itself that is measured but the impression that it leaves on the mind. The mind expects the future, which becomes the present, which the mind attends, and then becomes the past, which the mind remembers. The future and past do not exist, but in the mind there is expectation of the future and remembrance of the past. The present has no duration and still the mind's attention persists. So it is not the future which is long but a long expectation of the future. Likewise, it is not the past that was long but a long remembrance of the past. St. Augustine ended his discussion of time with the conclusion that it is something measured in the mind, a human conception. This is all the further one can go based on logic alone. So let us now turn to the realm of physics and discover what might be learned about the nature of time there.

Also for more info check this site.

http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=6881402&m=0&p=0

Originally posted by JasonLeonardOBE
That looks like it was taken straight out of a Church of Scientology brochure.

I always understood "evolution" to be a series of ADAPTATIONS to changing demands from diverse environnments and not one preplanned, linear "march" towards "perfection" or whatever. You can't be 30% evolved or 10% away from being fully evolved towards an already determined potential. Or so I gather.

And if the "God" towards which you say we are evolving is the Biblical one then something's not right because he is supposed to have made us "in His own image". So if He is already perfect then how can we evolve any further?

I wasn't talking about the biblical god. According to the german philospher Georg Wilhelm Hegel the dialectic is conveniently summed up in 3 words thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Every established concept or state of affairs(thesis) eventually gives rise to a conflicting concept or force(antithesis), and when the dust settles something new and better than either will arise. Thus human progress stays in a state of continuity, for thesis and antithesis do not annihilate each other; rather the best of each is preserved in the new synthesis. But this synthesis will have it's own gaps and flaws, provoking a new antithesis, and so on and so forth. Take the example of master/slave relationship. Imagine a master and slave, or lord and servant example, as our thesis and antithesis respectively. The master is master, or the lord a lord, precisely because he keeps servants: He is defined in this sense, by what he is not(a slave or servant). It might seem that the master is superior in every way to the slave, and that the slave owes his identity and well being to the master. But all is not as it seems. For in fact the master depends on the slave-not only for the services the slave provides, but even for his own identity("I am a master because my slave REGARDS me as his master"). So the "thesis" master depends on the "antithesis" slave as much as the slave depends on his master-in a sense, the master is a slave to the slave, and the slave the masters's master. If the master reflects on this situation he must come to realize the arbitrariness and injustice of subjecting the slave on whom he depends. And out of this realization will come a more just synthesis- a more rational and humane social arrangement. History, philosophy, science, religion, and just about everything works like this, getting better and better all the time. But where did it all begin, you ask? With a great immutable force( let's call it God/reason) This force which is ever pressing toward perfection.God=reason=mind is all encompassing and ever striving toward total self awareness, which is mankinds perfect fulfillment. And the medium through which God strives is the dialectic, which is the unfolding of "transcendal Idea", which will achieve its perfection at the end of history. The world wasn't created by "GOD" it is simply an extension of him. What happened in the beginning is that GOD-who is absolute mind-eventually turned his thoughts on himself . But you have to set yourself apart from something to think about it-even when the object of thought is oneself, one must still be an "object" of ones own "subjectivity." Yet since GOD is ALL, there is nothing apart from GOD. So what he thought was Nothingness. Nothingness is of course the antithesis of Being. But rather than cancelling himself our, GOD set in motion the synthesis of being and nothingness, which is Becoming-the origin and central mechanism of history. And the aim of history is to lead back to absolute mind, in other words, GOD, to being without nothingness. Get it?

I really wish I could read all that, but it's kind of late, and the white font is starting to blend with the black background.
I will come back and read it when my eyes are not so tired.

It is hard to read

Originally posted by HockeyFighter
It is hard to read

What is?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blue Bulldogge
[B]I wasn't talking about the biblical god. According to the german philospher Georg Wilhelm Hegel the dialectic is conveniently summed up in 3 words thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Every established concept or state of affairs(thesis) eventually gives rise to a conflicting concept or force(antithesis), and when the dust settles something new and better than either will arise.

Hegel used the aristotelic system to arrive to such conclusion so nothing new came from it, so lets see a retrospective from ancient and modern thinking with this excerpt I pasted.

Just take a look at the opinion of one of your greatest philosophers concerning thruth wich could derive into interpretation of fate not in a solution or an answer given:

Even more troublesome is the pragmatic theory of truth (as defined by Rorty), according to which no interesting theories of truth can be had. It is obvious that if this theory includes itself, then the pragmatist theory of truth is itself not philosophically interesting. This is the same kind of problem the positivists had with the verification principle; the principle itself is neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. Rorty is aware that he cannot offer noncircular arguments and that pragmatists face a dilemma:

[I]f their language is too philosophical, too "literary," they will be accused of changing the subject; if it is too philosophical it will embody Platonic assumptions which will make it impossible for the pragmatist to state the conclusion he wants to reach. (xiv)
If Rorty solves the problem, he does so with another key concept--philosophy as a literary genre founded by Plato: "Philosophy is best seen as a kind of writing" (92). By making this move, Rorty can argue that if the pragmatist theory of truth cannot support itself with a correspondence argument, then neither can the Platonist or positivist theory of truth, as he does above in saying that Nagel's "dogmatism of intuitions" is no better than the circularity of pragmatism. Each theory of truth is a literary genre, a vocabulary, a perspective; what makes one "better" than another is the use to which it is put.
Philosophy as a literary genre leads to another Rortian concept that tries to cope with the dilemma, namely, his view of a post-philosophical culture as a diverse conversation, in which the philosopher does not have a privileged status:

The question of whether the pragmatist view of truth--that it is not a profitable topic--is itself true is thus a question about whether a post-Philosophical culture is a good thing to try for. (xliii, emphasis Rorty's)
Rorty knows that this question will not be resolved dialectically, through argumentation and theorizing, but through putting "everything up for grabs at once." This, if anything, is the rock-bottom claim of Rortian pragmatism. The Platonic and pragmatist views of truth will not struggle dialectically for victory; there will be no glorious victor, no vanquished loser, only the passing of one era into another.

That doesn't dispute what I posted Piedra it supports it. Piedra, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can't compare those greek philosophers with Hegel because Hegel built on what they created thousands of years before so he was far more advanced than either plato or socrates. That's like comparing the Ford model T to a Ferrari Testarosa. Yes the model T was there first, but the Ferrari is simply superior.

From my point of view theres no such thing as evolution or predetermination, The difference between those philosophical systems, I would state its an involution because with no method and specially an old one like Hegels you could arrive to a conclusive certainty or a pragmatic conclusion, what I was trying to prove with the posts I pasted is the banality of qualifying any kind of event in this case fate wich is beyond our capabilities first because our method to prove anything is language wich is useless with any methaphysical question. And also Im sure you know its impossible to arrive anywhere with a dialectic model its a non-ending and vicious game so is it fate or fake?

Yeah, but if your gonna bring up the language thing, which of course is how we give everything meaning, we'll never get anywhere because of the obvious limitation that everything we see is skewed through the prism of self and language. We might as well say that we know nothing and never will.

that is called in german Dasein or the self in its self hard to explain.

Finally talking about "god" take a look at this:

The personal aspect of the Ultimate Reality is known as Saguna Brahman, that is Brahman with attributes. Saguna Brahman is the creator, sustainer and controller of the universe. Saguna Brahman cannot be limited by one form and is therefore worshipped by Hindus in both male and female forms. As the male aspect, Saguna Brahman is called by various Sanskrit names, such as Ishvara, Parameshvara, Paramãtma, Maheshvara, and Purusha. These Sanskrit names represent more or less the same concept as the word God in other religions.

Nirguna Brahman, in Hinduism, designates the Brahman, the Supreme Realty, One and undifferentiated, dynamic and static together and yet both, with form, as Pure Unqualified Being.
Brahman, in Hinduism, means the Supreme Realty conceived of one and undifferentiated, static and dynamic, yet above all definitions; the ultimate principle which underlies the world, the ultimate realty. The concept of Brahman almost defies definition, and continually changes throughout the eons. Brahman is now more philosophical, reverting from an active principle as it was in past ages to a passive one, to be meditated upon but not adored and worshiped.

The philological aspects of Brahman are important. The root of the word is brh (to make, to form, to grow). The term brahman meant at first prayer, hymn, magical formula, sacred knowledge (and still means sacred word in some contexts), then the power in them, and finally the Supreme Power. The pronunciation of brahman changes its meaning from sacred utterance to one imbued with the power of sacred speech, or of the sacred word. Brahman came to denote both the creator or Absolute, divine substance and a man, the latter being a brahman (commonly spelled brahmin in English to lessen confusion), who is of the priestly caste. The term creates confusion if the stress and shifts in pronunciation are not noticed and observed; however the meanings meld into each other, for each is intimately part of the other, and yet separate.

The central, or full, concept of Brahman is indescribable; all words used in connection with Brahman are neuter, which means Brahman is pure concept. IT, not He, is neither a god, nor pure spirit, nor a thing or object. Brahman is an inexhaustible plentitude, a measureless reservoir, both fullness and emptiness. Although Brahman can be inadequately described as primeval Matter and Spirit alike, both external principles, there is no absolute separation. To designate Brahman as "the Ground of All Being," as Western vedantists do, is to belittle the immensity of Brahman. The term Nirguna Brahman is sometimes used. In summary, Western terms used to describe Brahman fail because there is no tangible description or definition. Brahman is silence, according to Samkara (c. 788-820 AD), Nada Brahman. "'Sir,' said a student to his master, 'teach me the nature of Brahman.' The master did not reply. When he was asked a second and a third time, he replied: "I teach you, but you do not listen. His name is silence.'"

The mythical image of Brahman, in the Vedas, as sound or word is the skambha, the cosmic pillar that supports the world; skambha is also the cosmic axis and ontological foundation. Also, Brahman is expressed by the monosyllable OM, pregnant with the meaning of eternal words, within which all other sounds are contained. Visually Brahman is signified by yantra, the graphic equivalent of the symbols of creation. In the overlapping triangles that form the center of a yantra, symbolizing the union of male and female, the central point (or bindu) signifies the undifferentiated Brahman. In certain aspects of Tantra, the coupling (or samhita) of man and woman expresses the union with the gods and with Brahman.

Your a smart man Piedra and I have enjoyed our discussion, but all the muscle relaxers I just took are making it hard for me to keep my train of thought. You have my earned my respect though and I hope to continue our talk another time. Hasta luego cunado.:)