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 (18414)	7/16/2001 10:27:41 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You clipped the rest of the post rather neatly. First, we have rather more reason to assume that the earth and moon exist than we have to assume that God exists. Second, merely assuming that the earth and moon exist does not allow us to reach conclusions regarding their orbits, the effects of their gravitational forces, etc. These conclusions were reached after extensive observation of the behaviour of these bodies. The assumption that the bodies (and, for that matter, that the observers) are "real" underlies these conclisions, but it does not, in itself, enable us to reach the conclusions. If we assumed that these bodies are real, and reached the conclusions without the observations, the conclusions would be utterly meaningless. Assume that God is real, and what have you got, beyond an unverifiable assumption? You can't observe God's behaviour. If you assume that the gravitational force of the moon causes tides, you can test that assumption by observing the tides and the orbits of the moon, and relating the observations. You cannot demonstrate through similar observation the effect of a hypothetical God on human behaviour, simply because one of the elements of your assumption cannot be observed.