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: one_less who wrote (1505)	3/6/2002 2:59:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Let me put it this way: It appears to me that this "triangulation" process you speak of is rather poorly specified and therefore can give widely varying results. And either belief or unbelief can result. Now if the claim is made that belief is a good and respectable result of this, then unbelief must be also- -a claim that is often denied by believers. Rationality and logic are in some ways poor tools. It is well known that good, correct answers can seemingly "come out of the blue." A classic case in the sciences is that of Kekule and the structure of the benzene ring. It supposedly came to him in a dream. I have experienced similar phenomena. When working at a start-up and basically concentrating my life on my job, there were numerous times when I would spend hours beating on some problem with no result- -only to have the solution hit me after I had given up and was pulling out of the parking lot. Nevertheless, with all their failings, they remain the best tools we have. And I fail to see that you or anyone else can make a good logical case for the existence of a god. (And the converse is also true: atheists cannot make the case for non-existence.)