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: Greg or e who wrote (10242)	4/3/2001 1:23:06 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Reason vs belief: Now why do you say that X? I don't see how I have been unreasonable at all. You don't like the obvious conclusions to the reason I have offered here so you just dismiss it. I used to beat my older brother at chess when I was a kid, and he used to just give up, and tip the board over in frustration is that what you are doing? I have first pointed out, that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time How can you know this? How can you prove this? You simply ASSume this. Not very compelling Greg. and that it exhibits an incredible degree of complexity and design. Then I have argued that the most likely Little leap of logic here. Most likely? Because you feel it is? Because you think it is? hmmm, not compelling. Not reasonable. The argument from design has been shot down many many times by many many folks- no need to recap the folly of that one reason for a designed creation is a Creator/Designer. Am I ready for the nuthouse yet? yes Secondly I have said here that this creation contains not just matter, but also persons. And this means...? These persons continue to act in ways that would cause, even a casual observer to think that there was some sort of ultimate moral order,No it doesn't. It makes YOU think that. IT doesn't make ME think that. Many casual and not so casual observers have come to the opposite premise as you have- sort of blows that argument. under which, all people operate accordingly. This is just hogwash. All people do not act "accordingly". That's why we have conflict in the world between cultures and civilizations. I would have thought a causal observer like yourself might have noticed. So then, I have argued that the most likely explanation for a universe that exhibits design, personality and morality is a Personal, Moral, Creator. Can I try on one of those white suits, with the long sleeves? Yes, I really think you need one. Here you are, just your size. And look- it's even monogrammed....Bellevue Finally, I have argued that If such a Personal, Moral, Creator,(let's call Him God) exists, then it is not at all beyond imagination that such a God Might choose to communicate with His creation. Many have claimed such communication, how might we determine which if any might be true. Well I have argued if such a God exists then He would have power to manipulate the physical world in any way that He desired. We would call these events "miracles". He would speak and act in accordance with His (moral) character and would hold us accountable to the same. He might even Show up in person sometime, and offer us a remedy for our obvious failure to meet His moral standards. Something that might Propitiate, or satisfy his Just requirements, and yet, allow Him to display another on of His important attributes, namely mercy. Since there is an if here, and you've in no way proved anything like a personal moral creator might exist, I don't see the point in dealing with the conditional paragraph. If we accept that pink space bunnies exist..... Yeah. I am ready to commit you Greg. You don't seem to like my reasonable arguments, that's fine, but don't just dismiss them. Don't take your ball and go home, at least leave it here for the rest of us. ROFL They aren't reasonable simply because you call them reasonable. You are a faith creature, whether you realize it or not. There's no harm in it- but you look ridiculous not recognizing it in yourself. Know Thyself. It's a good place to start Greg. Then you can go to work on the God thing.

To: Greg or e who wrote (10242)	4/5/2001 12:24:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Now why do you say that X? I don't see how I have been unreasonable at all. Sorry to be so late replying to this message. The board has really been busy. I wanted to try another way of explaining what I think X was trying to say to you. I don't think she meant that you were unreasonable. Nor do I think she meant there was anything wrong with your reasoning. I think what she meant was that you were rationalizing something that isn't inherently rational. When you love a woman, you just do. You may try to rationalize it by saying you love her because she's pretty or kind or because she has this wonderful laugh. But you didn't come to love her because you analyzed her looks or kindness or laugh. Those are explanations you construct after the fact. What X is saying, I think, is that belief in God is similar because you either just believe or you don't. You don't go through some rational exercise and conclude at the end that it must be true so you shift gears into belief mode. Doesn't work that way. If you say you believe because you just do, that makes sense to her and she can respect that. If you then test your beliefs against what your reason tells you and find that you can fit them together without compromising your beliefs, that she gets. But to suggest, as you seem to, that one can come to a belief in God through reason or convince someone else of it through reason just doesn't wash. I think that she was just trying to get you to understand that you just believe and she just doesn't and reason has nothing to do with getting either of you to where you are. And if X takes exception to any of this, I'm sure she'll let me know... Karen P.S. I just noticed that your movie, The Ninth Configuration, is on the USA channel this afternoon. I plan to either watch it or tape it. Thanks.