Sharks in the Septic Tank 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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (82232)	1/20/2010 8:15:55 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 82486

All anyone has to do is click back a couple of posts in the same conversational stream and there's the quote, in context. There was no "intent to mislead and misrepresent". I inserted the brackets for context and I stand by the accuracy of that however you are right, I should have noted (brackets mine) and provided a link. Here's what you said: "we have constructed a scientific world view that complements our particular ideas of reason. Intelligent people do not pretend that this world view is "Truth"--or even that "Truth" is ultimately a valid concept." And My quote with brackets mine: Intelligent people do not pretend that this (rational scientific) world view is "Truth"--or even that "Truth" is ultimately a valid concept." Thank you for the clarification but I fail to see how a worldview constructed from science and reason is any different from a "(rational scientific) worldview" In fact the two are synonymous. As to your clarification. The laws of logic are not conventions and are not subject to change. Are are confusing the fixed Laws of logic with the tentative conclusions of the Scientific method? At any rate, any system that is built on shifting sand is destined to fall and any observations made using that system are tentative at best. This leaves you zero basis to make absolute and certain statements such as: "there is not one iota of evidence" for any god. That was my point and it stands .............................................. <<<"The reason that police work is possible is the same reason that it is possible to logically deduce the existence of a god">>> "It is possible to logically deduce the existence of a god, THEREFORE police work is possible." <<<I didn't say that>>> "that is the EXACT rendering of your statement into logic." Not even close! If it were you would have supplied the quote instead of just trying to slide it by. All I said was that the same method of logical reasoning applies equally in both instances. >>>That's a lot more than an iota of evidence but it's all I need to show that your claim fails and fails miserably">>> "It wasn't one iota of evidence. It did not even pass as intelligent speculation!" You are twisting the context by insinuating that I claimed a method to be evidence when I clearly pointed to the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning and by logical inference, a cause that is outside of space and time. "You still can't stay with the posts, eh?!" I commented on your quoted statements. You are the one who continually brings up the notion that you have a superior intelligence and uses that as a bully tactic. If you want to stop claiming that you are a genius you may do so at any time. That shouldn't be toooo hard for a super duper genius to follow.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next