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: Dayuhan who wrote (18420)	7/16/2001 10:44:04 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

First, we have rather more reason to assume that the earth and moon exist than we have to assume that God exists. Not true. Both "exist" only because we make certain assumptions about existence which cannot be proved or verified. 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. Most of which are, in fact, wrong. The earth does not rotate around the sun in any "true" way, but only because we choose to look at it that way. Ptolemy's astronomy based on the sun rotating around the earth was mathematically equivalent to Copernicus's astronomy of the earth rotating around the sun. (I've done the mathematical proof. Have you?) We prefer the latter basically because of the application (or, more technically, misapplication) of Occam's Razor. But Occam's Razor we just take on faith. Like God. Can't be proved. Can be discussed, but of course so can God. But science assumes its validity without proof. Like some people assume the existence of God without proof. (Others insist on proof, of course.) Assume that God is real, and what have you got, beyond an unverifiable assumption? You can't observe God's behaviour Nonsense. If you assume God is real, then everything that exists and happens is God's behavior.