tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11053470.post114119179133513393..comments2023-05-13T09:06:55.115-05:00Comments on The Complete Idiot's Guide To Brain Surgery (and other bad attempts at humor): Bad Fiction and Good SteakThe Sasquatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356561523262265854noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11053470.post-1141535658415161132006-03-05T00:14:00.000-05:002006-03-05T00:14:00.000-05:00leave it to my roomate to pretend that he knows so...leave it to my roomate to pretend that he knows something! <BR/><BR/>The point of the conversation was not to discuss the possibility of time travel. The point of the conversation was to investigate our true understanding of morality in the face of relativism. If the heisenburg uncertainty principle bothers you, lets say that we have the ability to send information back in time. Information is really just an idea, not a physical encapsulation of mass, so there would be no cataclysmic destruction of the unvierse. Let's say we could inform our forefathers of the impending badness of Hitler. Would it be moral to kill him ahead of time and avoid his evilness or would our forefather's be taking part in evil by condemning a man who, at that point in time, had commited no such thing? I may not have been clear in my post, but my reason for not killing Hitler in teh aforementioned scenario is that it would have been an immoral act. We are incapable of seeing time as God does, from the eternal perspective, and thus we are unjustified in making that kind of decision. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for repeating this sentiment with your statements about giving Hitler an outlet for his artistic "abilities." It shows again that our minds are blinded by the fog of time and history, and that we are incapable of understaning morality from that perspective. <BR/><BR/>Regardless, it was a hypothetical questionThe Sasquatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356561523262265854noreply@blogger.com