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 (1367)	10/2/2000 11:08:30 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

Well, if you are serious. SO was I. ;) Before you spend a huge amount of time looking up scripture to prove your position, I should say the concept I have for the Universe and the one you have are mutually exclusive, IMO. You are willing to put in place structures and truths that require no proof. That's okay with me - I'm a relativist. I believe my reality may simply not exist for you. It sounds weird, but I believe it is true. I can demonstrate it with logic, but since I don't believe propositional logic is infallible, I would argue that my logic producing an answer doesn't provide proof. Your system seems to have way too many parts and it is inelegant as far as solutions go. That is not proof, just an observation And, further, none of my data supports it. But again, no proof. When a child THINKS there is a Santa Claus, there is one. It meets all the criteria for equivalence. What does this mean? The child looks at the problem: wants toys. There is a solution: Santa. The child checks its data: toys are delivered as requested. There is no tool the child has at his/her disposal that would allow him/her to distinguish between the relative and absolute existence of Santa. They produce the same effect as far as he/she is concerned. The magic only disappears when the mechanism is revealed. So, I'd have to say, that we each have our own magic. Mine and yours disappear at the same time: when the actual mechanism is revealed. Before you reach for that Bible and say here is the mechanism, that is not the Revelation I'm talking about. That's like your brother Billy telling you there is or isn't a Santa. It is not compelling to you. It certainly wasn't for me when my brother told me. It's only happens when I put all the pieces together myself: a) package uses same paper as Dad's gift, b) label is in Mom's writing c) price tag from local toy store, d) receipt on refrigerator. Brother Billy's sometime accurate testimony is actually only a point of confusion. If he provided a-d above, I'd suspect fraud because Billy is known to be full of inconsistency and trying to trick me. He could be lying; he could be telling the truth. At the point you have the information to find the truth, it will be an internal process and not one coming from brother Billy. Even Mom and Dad may not believed when they tell you there is no Santa. They were wrong that time about the ride at Disneyland: THEY said would not scare you. It did. You don't trust them enough on a matter important to you like Santa. Only you can provide the proof that Santa doesn't exist, but then it is only to YOUR satisfaction. That's the rub: your proof is only valid for yourself. Same with Bibles, God, Buddha, Allah, or the Pink Space Bunny. Good night.