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 (1126)	3/4/2002 4:06:22 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It comes down to which leap you want to make. Leap to a universe that "just is." Leap to a universe that "has purpose." If things just are then there is no point in concerning oneself with consideration for the well being of other creatures and beings, except where they have some utilitarian benefit. If there is purpose then you have purpose which extends beyond utilitarianism. I pick door number two.

To: jcky who wrote (1126)	3/4/2002 4:25:52 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Actually, I have laid bare my reasoning, whether you find it adequate or not. So far, this is the first actual argument you have offered to contradict me. There is some amount of randomness on both levels. To argue design is not to argue that everything is predetermined. In fact, if there is such a thing as free- will, it is necessary that there be "rips" in the causal fabric, to permit spontaneous actions to have an effect in the world. But the sub- atomic level is not chaotic. In fact, the periodic table of elements is a marvel of order. It has random aspects.