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 Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (6537)	6/22/2003 9:08:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

If you do truly believe that reason leads to infallible certainty as to Ultimate Truths Not at all. My only point has been that people who don't understand the difference between the concepts of certainty and certitude well enough to recognize that God falls in the certitude camp are ignorant and/or stupid.

To: Solon who wrote (6537)	6/23/2003 12:28:49 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

One only needs to respect the fact that there are over 10,000 distinct religions at present with just under 34,000 different denominations of Christianity. They cannot all be right They cannot all be right in all details, of course. But, of course, while the numbers may not be as high, there are also distinct branches of geometry which are inconsistent with each other, of astronomy, physics, sociology, philosopy, and many other branches of knowledge which seek to find what is true. Which doesn't mean that none of them are true. The variety of religions can all be right, however, about the fundamental question posed here: does God exist? All religions answer that question yes, though they answer it in many different forms of yes. But virtually all, if not all, religions accept the existence of intentionality and intelligence outside of mankind which takes an interest in the afffairs of mankind and, particularly, in the manner in which men and woman live their lives. In that core principle, yes, than CAN all be right.

To: Solon who wrote (6537)	6/23/2003 1:25:45 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Karen believes in a consensus of experts, self-appointed or otherwise, with ex being an unknown quantity and spert being a little splash or spurt from said experts. Of course if the sperts have been published in the DC post with appropriate phrases such as paradigm shift, noblesse oblige and consensus it is more palpable. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. (33) The “phenomenal” world, said Kant [this is not a direct quotation from Kant], is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant [this is not a direct quotation], that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant [this, again, is not a direct quotation from Kant]; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion . . . but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world . . . [which] is unknowable; [but] it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means things as they are not perceived by man. (32) enlightenment.supersaturated.com