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: The Philosopher who wrote (9630)	3/26/2001 8:38:54 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Chris, OK, maybe I expressed myself overly strongly. But the problem with scientific proof is that it demands replicability regardless of the observer - ideally in some purely objective form. If you put a prism in a ray of sunlight, the light splits - according to theory, and regardless of whoever tries it and whether they believe its going to happen. There aren't any testable theories I know of which can be used to 'prove' existence of any deity. Nor does belief make something so, however many believe it... until ~1500 nearly everyone believed the Earth was flat (some still do). Yet if I cannot replicably 'experience the presence of God', I doubt such would be taken of proof of a God's non-existence. Likewise, the 'logic' used by theologians that I have seen at best ignores scientific understanding - especially as this advances; at worse, it actively contradicts it. And such 'logic' is predicated ultimately on belief, or derivation of motive, or assignment of feeling - not prediction, observation and testing of results. Your conclusion is the same, though... while you will probably never either of you convince the other Which is why I decided it wasn't worth the debate... and neither one of you can prove your own belief Becaus I'm called upon to disprove something which is inherently outside proof (so not only proving a negative, but one which can ignore science and any/all limitations by its own definition) - and I obviously won't accept any proof based on belief alone... I'll try and be nicer in responding, I suppose. Sometimes, anyway :)