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: James Calladine who wrote (15643)	6/29/2003 10:07:41 AM
From: Bill Fischofer	Respond to of 28931

I am simply trying to understand the point you are making. Water is defined as the chemical formula H2O. If we wish to change the definition of the term that's fine, but then it would be helpful to offer a substitute definition if the dialog is to advance beyond simple rhetoric. Perhaps you've simply chosen a poor example in trying to illustrate a larger point. I don't know what you mean by "Base 0 math" so I'm not sure if that's a more useful point of departure. I can be certain of certain points for the same reason that you can be certain that I cannot be certain. Conversely, if you truly can be certain that I "just don't know" then perhaps you could share the basis of that certainty.

To: James Calladine who wrote (15643)	6/29/2003 11:02:14 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"How can you say that with CERTAINTY? You just don't know" This would also hold for all of your "Urantia" assertions. "Implicit in that "point of view" is that the egoic view is correct." So rather than try to have a conversation about "certainty"...why not adopt the common ground of science and verification--which most of us use to comprehend our life and our world? After all, when one person adopts a contrary mathematical base or an obscure philosophical stance...how are others to participate in such a person's "reality"??