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: Solon who wrote (12879)	5/13/2002 1:42:54 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"You cannot attach a quality to nullity." If someone is cruel we can describe their actions as unkind. If I am dying of thirst and you take my last $100.00, in exchange for a glass of water, we can describe the action as uncharitable. If I go to a movie instead of immediately responding to your post we might argue about whether that was charitable or not and decide that it was nuetral. In this way we have applied the attribution and we have been able to place a judgement on the action accordingly. ++++++++++++++ Most of your treatment on nature, infinity etc seems sensible albeit with a sarcastic tone that I don't understand. I do understand that you don't like "I don't know" answers but I am not all knowing and I am as honest as I can be about things that I cannot know. I believe God is purposeful but I don't believe God is needy. For a human being this would be a contradiction but for the Omnipotent it is not. God is perfect so the Universe is working out perfectly. God is Beneficent and there is evidence of that in scripture and historical accounts. I don't believe absolute proofs in any sense are available to us but there are ways of knowing beyond scientific observation (such as self evidence of our nature). I don't think for a second that anyone is swayed to a belief system by this type of debate. The challenge here was to define a being that "could be" responsible for the universe. Given the definition we started with the Universe can be explained. That doesn't mean you have to believe in my explanation "black hole" over some other plausible explanation. Most of our efforts have been spent on challenging the integrity of the definition, not in exploring whether or not such a definition could be used to adequately explain the existence of the Universe.