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: Dayuhan who wrote (1793)	3/8/2002 10:21:16 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I have no objection to considering alternative explanations. I do not think you make a very strong case for supposing that the explanations are ultimately materialistic, but that cannot be ruled out. I do not find anything remarkable in supposing that God has plans that He we do not completely understand, and therefore that we are not privy to His motives. That would be the nature of the case, if He existed. There is no reason to point out the obvious. We were discussing the satisfactoriness of traditional explanations. Your objection was not strictly logical, but, in part, a matter of sensibility. I merely commented on that.......

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1793)	3/8/2002 11:44:54 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 21057

Superbly phrased, and superbly thought out... precisely. It would seem to me that the assumption of a natural, though as yet understood, process has the virtue of simplicity, is most consistent with observed reality, and requires the smallest amount of intellectual tap-dancing to justify. Occam's razor strikes again. It also has the benefit that we can revisit and rethink earlier conclusions based on new evidence, techniques and knowledge. Religion as an answer rarely seems to offer this, and even more rarely accepts the rethinking process... there is a reason why theocracies stagnate.