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: Solon who wrote (18860)	12/6/2004 4:24:45 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

It depends on where you start. The causation may very well be ill-logical, as Godel saw somethings are true, but not logical, i.e. provable. There are limitations to the logical system. It may very well be that the universe's start, ex-nihilo, is not provable, except with some assumption. The nature of the assumption as ontology showed, is the key. The subsequent difficulties with post tempore role of the prime mover are not part of the issue. Neither is the problem of multiple gods. The initial proofs or questions did not deal with it. (Except the proof shown where trying to deal with a lesser god admitted there must be a greater one) But you have to agree, that being here, it had to come from somewhere. It is very hard to argue that it did not start. That there should be an unthinkable super natural, or a thinkable super natural is not in the argument a priori. Indeed if one is looking for possible causation, the nature of it is not an issue. God may very well be eating water cress sandwiches in the interim. Or he may be experimenting wilfully. Other questions to explore after the "proof" of God, would be his nature. Tricky. All good, interfering, etc.. hmmmmmmm EC<:-}