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: epicure who wrote (1853)	10/19/2000 12:56:28 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

To look at a complex thing that exhibits intelligence and design and then say it just popped into existence out of nothing is I'm sorry, neither logical or intelligent. You are letting your emotions get the better of you. Could it be if you allow God, that you might be responsible to Him? Just wondering? Greg

To: epicure who wrote (1853)	10/19/2000 1:59:25 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

I like my example: I have a paper that disappears off my desk. Misapplying Occam's Razor I can say Little Green Men took it. The LGM theory only requires one thing: LGM. Am I to believe that I should replace that with a draft, or janitor taking it. There is no window or source of wind. The janitor doesn't come until Tuesday. Therefore, it must be the LGM. The problem is that you must go for the "atomic" components of the explanation. LGM assumes that a) LGM's exist, b) they have an interest in my paper, c) that despite no one ever saw them, they can manifest themselves here to take my paper. Each of a, b and c each have other hidden assumptions that are all being presumed to be true. That is why Occam's Razor can only be used in analyzing First Principles. Essentially, if you have two competing systems that are both reduced to first principles you choose the system that has the least complicated set of first principles. That's really all it says.