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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (9531)	3/22/2001 9:07:05 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

>So I'll content myself with the good company of Gautama Buddha, Diogenes and Zoroaster.< Mr X and I will join you. Buddha is one of the people I'd really like to meet. Right up there with Jane Austen- any chance that Jane will be in Hell? I know Twain will be, and Russell- there on my "get to know" list. Marcus Aurelius will be there, right? And Eric Hoffer. There was a funny source book for this type of thing- amazon.com Who's Who in Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists, and Non-Theists

To: thames_sider who wrote (9531)	3/23/2001 4:06:09 AM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 82486

My my, aren't we touchy. "there can be no rational argument with you on this matter. You posit a being who conforms to no laws, who is both without the universe which bounds us all and yet can interact/shape/plan it at will as though within." Actually I posit a being who's nature and character are the very source of all laws. Reason and logic being at the forefront of these. How do you account for universal laws of logic, morality and science? "You offer no proof save your belief." That seems a tad disingenuous of you to say that. While I may not be able to "prove" God to you, I do think it can be demonstrated that an infinite, personal, triune, creator, God, best explains the world as we know it to be. The existence of this God would also fully account for the said laws. But then you would have to have an open mind and clearly yours is not. "I tend to limit logic to that which is not ab origine defined as illogical.... If you choose to count as 'reality' that which has no material proof" If there is no "outside" the material universe then how do you account for these universal laws of logic you are so fond of. Can you offer me any "material proof" of their existence? Besides a transcendent and imminent God is not contradictory at all, just because you don't like the idea doesn't make it illogical. Your prejudice lies in your dogmatic assertion that the material universe is all there is, so it is you that is limiting the discussion my friend, not me. As far as condemning you to hell, that is not my place, nor my desire. You are free to make whatever choices you wish to in this life but if there is a God then you are not free to determine the consequences of those choices. I have no wish to ram my beliefs down your throat, but I am willing to discuss them with any body who is interested you shouldn't feel so threatened by that. Good day Sir Greg

To: thames_sider who wrote (9531)	3/23/2001 4:11:19 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You posit a being who conforms to no laws, who is both without the universe which bounds us all and yet can interact/shape/plan it at will as though within. At best, such denies proof. Omnipresent omniscience... uh-huh. [BTW, so why is there evil? HIS choice? or is HE just bored?] You offer no proof save your belief. Actually, that's a bit unfair. I'm not a fundamentalist, but I do believe in being fair to their arguments. Numerous theologians have posited logical proofs for the existence of God. You may not agree with them, but they are not simply saying "I believe" and that's the end of it. They are undertaking proofs in the same manner as Euclid undertook mathematical proofs or Newton undertook physics proofs. Certain people have testified, quite convincingly IMO, to actually experiencng the presence of God. Now, you can believe that or not as you choose.For myself, for example, I don't think Mother Teresa is a sociopath or psychopath, or a raging masochist, one which she pretty much has to be if God doesn't exist. So there is evidence. You may not like it, but it is evidence. Not good evidence you think? Well, what IS good evidence? That rock is hard? You only "know" that because you believe that your fingers have touched it and felt that it is hard. But, of course, you could be totally deluded. All life could be a dream, and nothing real exists here except the mind of one being whose dream we all inhabit. There is nothing you can show me that contradicts that argument. This is, of course, an old argument. There isn't much new under the sun, after all. But I also know that Descartes's arguments, if carefully examined, don't hold water. There is no way to prove our own existence, any more than there are ways to prove ALL we know is based on something we believe. We have no knowledge that is not based on our belief. Usually, I hope, that belief is based on a body of "evidence," but that evidence itself is based on other beliefs, back to the origin, which is the belief that we exist. He believes God exists. You don't. That's fine. But while you will probably never either of you convince the other, and neither one of you can prove your own belief, IMO there is every bit as much, if not more, evidence to support his belief as there is to support yours.