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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (9404)	1/15/2002 5:38:06 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

>>I don't see how having an ideal football team, is a logical necessity<< Good... me neither. :) Sorry if I misconstrued your analogy. >>It is enough to have a rule book and a score board.< So in your analogy, is God the rulebook? Or (assuming the XFL) is God analogous to Vince McMahon? >>If you remove all rules, standards and scoring from football then to say one team or the other is "better" is rendered completely and totally meaningless.<< Agreed. A ruleset would be implicit in any judgement of "football goodness". The XFL would have slightly different rules than the NFL. If I talked to a European friend about the "best football team", he might be imagining shinguards and hitting a round ball with your head. >>You seem to recognize this, but then ignore the ramifications. Ramifications? Our moral "rulesets" would be based on common values and our ideas about what kinds of actions lead towards or away from these values. This would analogous to axioms and rules of inference in a logical system. There are differences in peoples' ideas about morality. This is explained by the differences in their values (uncommon values). If morality was derived solely from a unique God, then we would expect all peoples' morality to be the same. Yet there is much overlap in peoples' morality. This would be explained by their common ancestry and common culture. If this explanation is true, we would expect larger differences in morality for people in different cultures rather than people in the same cultures. This is, in fact, true... which supports the explanation. >>On the other hand I do see how an ultimate being is logically necessary, both in the area of existence and morality.<< I'd rather not go into the "existence" arguments. But would not mind you expanding on the "morality" ones. Your case does not seem to be made yet.