Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1104)	9/27/2000 5:39:13 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

philosophic basis for the existence of logic, morals, and the laws of science IMO, logic exists as a self-consistent system but can't be proven to be correct in any absolute sense. As for morals, well it is clear we can't prove they exist in any absolute sense either (from a priori knowledge), because we don't really know that anyone or anything outside us exists for certain and without other beings, the concept of morality is meaningless. I doubt one can be immoral in a vacuum or in the absence of other beings, though I'd be willing to entertain an example to the contrary. To what or whom is one being immoral if one is in a vacuum? Therefore, since morality is ultimately an internal process, any externally referenced consequence of behavior is really just another internal process as well. Certainly if something as simple, internal and concrete as logic can't be proved, then something as complicated, external and subjective as morals can't. The laws of science, well they are tied to the same basis as logic and since that can't be proved in any absolute sense, neither can science. As for our ontological status, we can't really know where we come from because our dawn of reason apparently starts with the unfinished brain of a child. We evolve into adults and adult thought through evolutionary changes caused by perception and feedback by (apparently) external processes and their effects on internal perceptions. But that development is not static and is self-reinforced and self-referenced, so what we believe and do tends to get reinforced while what we don't believe and don't do tends to get inhibited. In a real way, we shape reality by our expectation and actions. The notion that we know anything in an absolute way is an illusion. I personally had to end up choosing a utilitarian, pragmatic view of our universe for daily living, but still hold a metaphysical, mystical belief due to strange coincidences in my thread of experience. I accept those things that are logical (i.e., can be checked by an internal system), reject those that can't. The "Golden Rule" in one of its myriad forms also is useful because I wish all others to respect my existence and that provides a good place to start. Logic and experience dictates that it is hard to compel others to do what I'm unwilling to do myself. Science seems to work because the accuracy of the predictions it makes, subject to the uncertainty associated with experimental error, appear to be valid. Whew!

To: Greg or e who wrote (1104)	9/30/2000 4:30:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Are you never gonna get it? I show you hundreds of contradictions. You ignore them. I show you the absurdities and the cruelties. You evade. Now you wish to deny that (your) God has a body. You claim that the inerrant word of God is your infallible guide, but you subvert it beneath this Westminster confession, at the hands of men. It is Satan's job to turn the Word of God tupsy turvy. It is not yours. IMAGE Main Entry: 1im·age Pronunciation: 'i-mij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, short for imagene, from Latin imagin-, imago; perhaps akin to Latin imitari to imitate Date: 13th century 1 : a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : STATUE 2 a : the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device b : a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material 3 a : exact likeness : SEMBLANCE <God created man in his own image -- Gen 1:27 (Revised Standard Version)> b : a person strikingly like another person <she is the image of her mother> ..." 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Whose image was man made in? In the image of the Gods. Man does not resemble/look like a cow or a tree. He looks like the Gods look. This could not be any clearer. It is as clear as the mud that the Gods worked with to mould man into a form that looked the way they looked. Eodus33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle Moses saw God FACE TO FACE. WHAT COULD BE CLEARER?? Stephen saw God; Isaiah saw God; Ezekial saw God; John saw God; The words of God, especially in the OT, are not subtle. The writing might be dull and boring. The ideas might be crude, narrow, immoral and disgusting. The atmosphere might be oppressive and brooding. The theme might be fear, powerlessness, subjugation and supplication--but the language is still simple and unalloyed. Why do you attempt to tamper with the word of God? What gives you that right? That is the job of the serpent. It is in his job description next to eating dust. Moses talked to God face to face. God walked in the garden with Adam (when He could find him). God made man in His image; And He showed Himself to men.

To: Greg or e who wrote (1104)	10/1/2000 12:17:04 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

In my earlier post, I'd presented you with my set of philosophical orientations. How does one get from where I am: siliconinvestor.com to where you are through a process that is accessible to me? I don't think it can happen because you have inserted something external (the Bible) between you and the Universe. This seems to have been done without any philosophical justification other that A->A:A or, linguistically "it is true because it is true and therefore, it is true."