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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (52875)	7/13/2002 7:40:47 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Really? Please cite for me." You might start with Erich Fromm's "ART OF LOVING". I understand it is back in print. Any library would have it, of course. "Since you profess not to believe in God, you are of course free to define the term any way you wan to." Of course, I know no more of God than you do--which is to say--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But the idea of God is still tangible, definable, and communicable. Now you spend a lot of time in this post simply trying (unsucessfully) to evade the thrust of my points. Remember, you had made the flippant and ridiculous statement that "there is far more evidence* of the existence of God than there is of the existence of honor." But you have not shown me ANY evidence for the existence of God other than your hearsay attestations that "some others" have "experienced" Him. And how far would it be from not "any" evidence to far more* evidence?? You attempt to "prove" the existence of God by taking the obvious existence of honor, and saying that God is therefore real too because both are unseeable. That is such specious nonsense! Honor is unseeable because it is not matter. It is this: m-w.com Suggesting that Zeus or Santa or wraiths or unicorns are real because they are unseeable is one of your most foolish moments. Again, you were a big talker about some God you believed in who was subject to natural laws...this "natural" God for which there was "FAR MORE EVIDENCE" than honor. But the only "evidence" you proffer is that he, it, or whatever is "unseeable" and "unmeasureable." I don't believe you have any evidence for a God--natural or supernatural. If it was a natural God, without the classical attributes we have come to associate with God (omnipotence, etc)--then presumably you could have received some evidence from this lesser god--a footprint perhaps, or a voice in your head. But your droning assertions are unconvincing, and your inability to cite anything of the attributes of this natural god beyond an "unseeability", certainly does not speak in favor of your competence to reveal any significant information on these matters. It is a pity, though. When you said there was "FAR MORE EVIDENCE" than there was for honor, I thought you might at least have some evidence. Well, we both agree on something. We both agree that love, honor, and pride, are real. That is a strong point. We disagree, however, that this has anything to do with proving God. Of course, I do not forget that you also claim that some have experienced God, and that this experience proves He is real. However, I don't consider such vague anecdotal hints to be evidentiary, nor do I consider petitio principii to make an argument. Sorry, I believe the case you are presenting is without merit. You have shown no evidence of either the normal definition of an unlimited God, or of your special definition of a God confined and configured by a pre-existing natural law and nature.