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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (4667)	3/25/2002 12:44:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Given that we cannot comprehend the nature of existence, we cannot reject hypothesis (B). I agree with that. Completely. It's the dogged belief in specific manifestations of (B) that are at issue.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (4667)	3/25/2002 1:05:24 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 21057

In the case of religion, we might start with the competing, and mutually exclusive, hypotheses that (A) existence is a random event, or (B) existence is intelligently designed and purposeful. To be scientific, you should start with a hypothesis which can be either proven or disproven - one which can be investigated - one which we can at least test. Nor should we beg the question - your cases are NOT necessarily, or demonstrably, exclusive. So, hypothesize "Existence is a random event." Prove true or false. Or "There is an intelligent design and a purpose behind existence". Prove or disprove. Leaving these minor <g> foibles aside, let's see. What is meant by existence? Existence of what? Purposeful in what way? Towards what purpose? Intelligent in what way? or Random in what sense (given we can only experience one existence, in hindsight)? And then, we test or experiment how...? We investigate how...? Face it, they both read more like (and probably are) post-graduate discussion topics on a philosophy degree... I'd really question the scientific usefulness and validity of either side. I've maintained constantly that you cannot 'prove' the non-existence of something ineffable, by definition... we can show it to be unnecessary and maybe unlikely, but -- how can you prove that something of undefined detectability, ability, means and motive can or cannot do something unspecified?! Believe as you wish. But try enforcing what you believe are the wishes of your god, and I'll raise you a Pixie, or maybe an imaginary friend. The Pixie has as much influence over you as your god does over me, you know.