SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LLCF who wrote (24401)7/7/2006 4:03:26 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) of 28931
 
"... not just because you like cause and effect... cause and effect should be a byproduct, no?

Cause and effect is a perspective that is the foundation of classical materialism.

There are other perspectives that add value and opportunity for those willing to take a look. A devout materialist is too loyal/insecure for that type of venture.

The challenge I made to TP a couple of weeks ago was to account for cause and effect as the whole show or to open the flood gates and accept a broader perpective of knowledge. It began with TP declaring that there is proof of time's beginning. It has gone something like this:

1)If cause and effect is absolute what is at the beginning or causes the first event.

2)His initial response was something like, 'everybody knows there was a beginning of time, and likely will be a consequential end'. He indicated that it is proven, so I challenged him to produce the proof.

3) He submitted links to the History of Time (science and philosophy).

4) I repeatedly pointed out to him that this treatment offers nothing to support his claims and some of the details were discussed.

5) He provided links and explanations about the big bang theory which were well argued but still did not provide the proof he claims to have. Again lots of discussion as he seems to think he needs to defend the Big Bang theory. I don't know why since no one here argues against it. However, it does not provide proof of time's beginning. He continues to make unsupported statements that the proof is there.

6) We are now off on (or back to) some side discussions. I don't expect him to acknowledge his original mistake (proof of time's beginning). That would be uncharacteristic of him.

Best regards,
Gem
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News