THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (1045)	3/4/2002 9:06:08 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) of 21057

As I said, it is not a question of whether the mechanism has been discovered yet, but whether the type of explanation offered, assuming a certain kind of mechanism, is adequate...... As I said, there is no reason to assume that an explanation is inadequate simply because current knowledge doesn't completely explain it. I have no doubt that the ancient Romans would have laughed in the face of anyone who suggested that earthquakes were caused by plates in the earth's crust grinding against one another. That would have been a totally inadequate explanation; the notion of Hephaestus pounding away in his underground forge was far more satisfactory. I note that you don't comment on the observation that throughout human history, inexplicable phenomena that we have attributed to supernatural influence have repeatedly and consistently turned out to have natural causes. Why should we assume that the things we cannot explain today will be any different? Myths fall as knowledge expands. The myth of simultaneous creation fell long ago, beneath empirical evidence demonstrating convincingly that it just didn't happen that way. The explanation that is now developing has a long way to go, but is at least reasonably consistent with observed evidence of progressively greater complexity. Key links are still missing at many points in the chain. Do we assume that there are things we still need to learn about those points, or that each of those points is marked by some sort of supernatural intervention? If there was any evidence to suggest that some supernatural power is actually involved with our planet or our universe, I might be more inclined to credit that power with creation. I have yet to see any evidence. If there is a supernatural power involved, it is evidently a rather disinterested one: the only creation myth that I would consider consistent with observed reality is that of the Gnostics (to the extent to which I remember it; I am hardly a scholar of such arcana). The idea of a God that creates and abandons is less than satisfying, but at least explains why this creating entity is to be found nowhere but in our imaginations.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next