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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (14361)	1/10/2003 12:05:55 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

First I was talking created vs eternal, uncreated and self existent. With all due respect, what are you talking about? You seem to be under the impression that is something is not eternal, than it must have been created. Any thing that now exists is either one or the other. There's just not that many options. You are jesting. Or employing a logical fallacy called "False Dilemma" - an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. Two options are given when in fact there are more. datanation.com Whatever your explanation is it must account for the universe as we see it now. It does. Scientists don't really argue for something from nothing do they? Yes they do. Read a bit into Quantum Physics.

To: Greg or e who wrote (14361)	1/11/2003 8:49:56 AM
From: Frederick Smart	Respond to of 28931

Greg.... >>"That sort of logic has a major trap - if measly Carbon-based organisms like ourselves cannot possibly have come into being without the intervention of some higher being, then God must have been created as well. And so it goes. That response is as old as it is inaccurate and besides it completely missed the point I was making. Let me try again. First I was talking created vs eternal, uncreated and self existent. I guess that slipped your attention. Any thing that now exists is either one or the other. There's just not that many options. I don't believe an eternal regression of cause and effect is possible or scientific. If something has a beginning then it's created. If something is created then it either spontaneously jumps into existence out of nothing, or it's ultimate origins or cause, must be eternal and self existent. If the universe is the result of some action by an eternal and self existent something, then that something is either impersonal, (Pantheism) or personal, (God). Again there are not that many possibilities Whatever your explanation is it must account for the universe as we see it now. Personality and morality cannot be accounted for by an impersonal beginning, but a personal moral and self existent creator God does. Scientists don't really argue for something from nothing do they? I've observed that they usually find something in their nothing before they get everything. Maybe they should have asked Billy Preston first. In any case, true spontaneous generation is illogical and unscientific whether it's couched in scientific gobblygook or not. Greg>> Well said! You are getting to be more and more "personal!" Thanks for sharing!! Peace and God Bless! 119293!!