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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93897)	1/18/2005 12:51:55 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

”These two propositions both include opinion. One is testable - the other isn't.” Your declaration is not objective as it reveals only your biased presumptions. ”My point was that there is a difference between people sharing objectively testable generally held principles (like "gee, this room is too hot!" and religious ones ("There is a deity and he has the following properties...")” The room people are wrong and in fact have created their own dilemma. I can just as easily and objectively declare that the room is not too hot or even hot enough. My opinion might be based on my need to use the room as a kiln. Where as, your people may have wanted it for watching TV. If it is too hot for TV watching then I am proven correct. They should simply admit they are wrong and leave the room to allow the practical application I have proposed to proceed unfettered by their listless dallying in media. Your argument (or more aptly, mocking) of believers is like wise flawed. The criteria for believing may be objective or without criterion. For example the proposition that God is All Powerful and All knowing without limits presents a testable model. Based on that criterion, you can pose a rational argument that would challenge the idea of such an entity being able to establish and maintain the universe.… No rational argument exists except that you prefer not to believe it. Is it a theory? Well as much as anything theorizes, it does. Is it based on sound rational explanation. Yes. Is it based on evidence that has been replicated over time, circumstances, and locations. Yes. You can’t replicate the evidence? Some people claim there is plenty of evidence available but you personally can’t replicate or choose not to accept that evidence. So what, you can’t replicate evidence for most of the scientific theory you accept. You prefer not to believe it. So what, you have not proven or dis-proven anything about the origin of the universe. The difference is, most rational people can believe a rational explanation of origins and accept rational arguments for scientific theory... you choose to limit your-self unnaturally and mock those who don't. Now present any other model of origins of the universe and it will come with built in rational flaws. Aliens: Where did the aliens come from? Big bang: What was there before? What caused the bang? If it was something, then your bang wasn’t origination. Theory of evolution: From what? Other: I’m all ears.