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: jlallen who wrote (10383)	4/4/2001 3:00:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, I've never heard of you. Those who follow this thread know I did not insult or approach you... You sought out this discussion. I have never approached you. You seem to be contemptuous--and extremely angry. Do I know you from somewhere? Did I kick your ass in a chess tournament? Maybe, tennis?? I know there is always a reason for everything. Some day you young fellas will smile when you understand how clear and simple life is... Are you in love with Neocon??

To: jlallen who wrote (10383)	4/4/2001 3:03:13 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I finally figured out that the things that annoyed me, in the midst of a very serious discussion, were meant to be playful. That is the only way he can claim I was wrong about his having insulted me. Well, I hope that he enjoys playing noogies with you.......

To: jlallen who wrote (10383)	4/4/2001 3:18:06 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Now, to fill out the substantive argument, just to give me a sense of conclusion: In any other circumstance, finding a mechanism as elaborate and delicately balanced, with such refined calibration as the universe, would lead one to infer that it was the product of a designer. The idea that it came together randomly would seem idiotic, since it is a highly coordinated system, and one thing out of place could screw things up. The objection that it is imperfect, both in design and in relation to our conception of benevolence, presupposes that the universe is nothing but a mechanism, utterly under the control of its author. However, we see ourselves as other players, within the universe, who have free will, and can easily imagine other beings, more powerful than we, who might have behaved in a disruptive manner. Thus, the fact of imperfection does not argue against the author. This is not the only objection, but it is the main one, and it is very weak. The argument from design remains, at a minimum, plausible enough that we are at liberty to hold it as a belief.