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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (235074)	6/1/2005 5:28:26 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573908

even if it was a time traveling descendant, would that not be considered supernatural by our understanding of science? No. It would just be the use of a scientific method that we have not yet mastered. Anyway, that is not the point. The point is that great coincidences that keep happening whenever you are in distress is no proof of the existence of God. First of all, they weren't coincidences. They weren't random events that happened to occur just as I was feeling distress. Please give me more credit than that. Secondly, what about the one incident where I was not under duress or in danger? I do know that there is a certain pain denying the existence of God. I have never felt this pain you are talking about. It is just that (1) there is no proof, and (2) I have trouble fooling myself into believing a deity called 'God' exists when there is no proof. No one is asking you to fool yourself but rather to simply keep an open mind to the possibility. After all, if one can accept that our solar system is one of billions in our galaxy and the galaxy is one of billions in the universe.......a concept nearly impossible to grasp, why can't we accept there may be a power much greater than us with whom we have a special connection? We can accept that there are loads of galaxies, because their presence is observed with powerful telescopes (= proof). It is not a concept "nearly impossible to grasp", it is just that our daily life provides reference for the gigantic scales necessary to picture a galaxy, let alone thousands or millions of them. Nonetheless, conceptualizing the number of galaxies in the universe is a concept that is difficult to entertain. And I think a deity may be a concept several levels above that one; invisible to us not because he/she does not exist but because our science is so primitive it can not identify or explain the concept adequately just as an American 200 years ago would have been unable to explain or comprehend the nature of a time traveler. On the other hand, "God" is an abstract theory, put together in ancient times when people didn't understand most of what was going on around them and had to put a human motive and a conscious will behind rain, snow, earthquakes, solar eclipses, and yes, their short and apparently rather meaningless lives. The difference between saying "there are galaxies" and "there is a God" is that you can actually see and otherwise verify the existence of the galaxies in space, whereas you can do no such thing with the concept of "God". Can you 'see' Einstein's theory on the speed of light? If your answer is no which it has to be, do you believe the theory is correct or incorrect? You have to "believe" for no apparent reason than the assurance that pretty much everyone else "believes" as well. No one is telling you that you have to believe anything. In fact, you don't believe in God unlike a number of people. However, what I am saying is that some people including me have had experiences which suggests there is something beyond this plane.......that is on the level of the supernatural. If at least some of those people are creditable, and I am, then don't you have to open up your mind to the possibility/ The last book of the famous & late Cornell University astronomist Carl Sagan is called "A Demon-Haunted World". There, he tells the hypothetical tale of the fire-breathing dragon in his garage. It goes something like this: You would of course like to check it out, see it for yourself. So you go down to the garage with him, look around, see no dragon. "So, where's the dragon?" you ask. He says "Oh, he's here. I forgot to mention that it's an invisible dragon". You suggest spreading flour on the floor to catch the dragon's footprints. He says "Good idea, but the dragon floats in the air". Then you'll use infrared detector to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless". You'll spray-paint the dragon and make it visible. "Good idea, but it's an incorporeal dragon so the paint won't stick". And so on. To every test you propose, he has a special explanation of why it won't work. Wonder if Carl Sagan and a thousand unrelated, creditable others told you they saw the dragon? Would you believe in the dragon then? There are rare species in the world where only a few have seen them. Do you believe those species really exist.....esp. if there is no visual evidence of their existence? So the conclusion is: What exactly is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there is no way to disprove his contention that there is a dragon in his garage, what does it mean to say that his dragon "exists"? The only thing his insistence has convinced you so far is that there is something funny going on in his head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced him at all. Now suppose it's not just him. A majority of your neighbours and even people living in other cities you get to meet are claiming they have similar dragons in their garages who cannot be seen or otherwise verified. You would love to see what makes them think so, in fact you realize it is a lonely position to say "It is entirely possible that all of you are kidding yourselves, there are no dragons in your garages". But you can't bring yourself to believe they really have dragons in their garages, not until you see at least one little proof. That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the "existence of God" issue. You said "You would love to see what makes them think so" but up above you said: "I have never felt this pain you are talking about". If you would love to see something and are unable to for whatever reason isn't there some pain associated with this unrequited longing?