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: zonder who wrote (14740)	1/29/2003 8:07:49 AM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Correct. There is just Truth and opinion. And a process between. Namaste! Jim

To: zonder who wrote (14740)	1/29/2003 1:16:20 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

While there is no logic that absolutely proves dogma is true, neither is there absolute proof that dogma is wrong. These exist as relative likelihoods in my mind, but I accept that the world is knowable to a large degree. Belief without data can produce some very odd outcomes, like the Davidians and Heaven's Gate phenomena. This represents the Great Divide between those who exist to understand based upon what they learn and those who understand and populate all they see into their predefined framework. This gets back to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. In our life, we don't get to know. SO, given that reality, does it make more sense to use our minds to try to understand, or try to stuff widgets into cubby-holes? Your answer may be hard coded. There are believers and non-believers, in a ratio of about 4:1. As I walk amongst the hills and discuss this with a good friend, I find that as we explore, nature reveals itself. This is not a cold and clinical process by sterile, soul-less individuals in lab coats, but a dynamic process by those with their eyes wide open. We should always look for a greater pattern, but correlation doesn't always imply causation. If I plot arriving at work against my sitting in my car, I will see a correlation. But sitting in my car doesn't cause me to be at work; that is caused by me, the operative agent and root cause. Driving just happens to be the most convenient way. I could get here by train or bike, but those may involve combinations of sitting and standing. It is a common POV to assume that something that is correlated is also the cause. If you shelter that in a belief system that is internally consistent ("God works in mysterious ways") then there is no logical means to disprove this. You can construct a world where all that is not correlated is caused by God, rather than your lack of knowledge.