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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcky who wrote (125)	2/28/2002 1:51:47 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 21057

Thanks. I see a subtle difference between definitions #1 and #2. The first has to do with the knowability factor (hence the gnosis) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; The second could include people who just don't care to think about it much, or for whatever reason are uncomfortable with saying they're atheists. one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god I really like, and agree with, what you said about faith: "The existence and nature of God is still based on faith".

To: jcky who wrote (125)	2/28/2002 3:04:12 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

the existence and the nature of God is still based upon faith. Has to be. For one thing, Clarke's Law applies: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. which means that even if someone thinks they have seen good, objective evidence for God, that may not be what it was. Also, even if the existence of the universe is accepted as implying the existence of God, it still does not tell you WHICH ONE. Other evidence is needed for that. And, imho, is lacking.