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 Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: software salesperson who wrote (126)	8/1/2005 9:17:10 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26251

< i'm never sure what the proposed argument for creationism > I think the creationist argument ones runs into in the media is what people define as the 'creationist argument'... as if refuting it had anything to do with refuting the belief of 'god as creator of the universe'. Much of the current creationist argument simply doesn't make sense as it tries to refute things that can be shown to exist {evolutionary tendancies, whether exactly spelled out by current science is absolutely correct or not, for example}. To assume that the easy dismissal of much of the creationist babble equates to dismissal of "god as creator" also contains little truth however, especially since one would expect science and intellect to know better than to draw such a conclusion. Personally I love Dr. David Hawkins quote on the matter: "This whole argument about creationism vs evolution is SO DUMB... evolution IS creationism unfolding. How could it be any different?" He then goes on to point of that if God is omnipresent [all major religions] then how can anything {including evolution, OR a person} be separate from god? All mystics also report time and distance to be an illusion which would further call into question how god could possibly have shown up, disappeared and is going to come back to judge "someday". FWIW, science long ago showed how everything anyone does and all that happens is recorded with the simple observation that looking at a star is looking back in time. In other words, simply altering point of view shows time to be an illusion and the ability to indeed see that the universe records everyting that ever happened. Not that all this hasnt' been misrepresented and misunderstood. Anyway, I'd go so far as to say that in reality it is todays intellectual paradigm of religion {the belief that god is defined by the very religion they believe {know?} to be fallacious} that causes them to dismiss any possibility of god or looking at mystical experience and teaching for clues to questions they have. Many are starting to check things out however... lot's of meditating PHD's these days :)) DAK

To: software salesperson who wrote (126)	8/2/2005 10:37:25 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 26251

Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding was required reading. I was very disappointed that Hume wanted to throw all of Metaphysics into the "flames". I think aprior knowledge is possible and Kant proved it in the forms of Space and Time. Ultimately, the cosmological argument is rooted in the Ontological argument. The Ontological argument, as I understand it, is rooted in the idea of Perfection. I have this idea of Perfection. But I'm not perfect and neither is any human. So, how did I get the idea? The idea came from the Perfect being, God. Thus, God is proven to exist from the idea of Perfection. The Lutheran refutation of the Ontological Argument was very simple: it is impossible for a human to form an idea of Perfection. Thus, God cannot exist from the idea of Perfection. Moreover, to reason from effect to cause is invalid. Classically speaking, the Modus Ponens argument (Law of Detachment), says that it is possible to reason from cause to effect: Premises: p p implies q Conclusion q P is assumed to be true because statements are statements of Truth like stars are stars of the sky. This comes from the Greek word, Logos. Now p cannot be false because if it were then Truth would imply Falsity, which is False. After all, we all know how pure and wholesome Truth is. LOL. The whole idea or purpose behind therapy and counseling is that once a person is aware of the cause of his destructive or negative behavior, he will then cease to perform that act. Of course, some people are so strung out or extremely sick that even when they are aware of their destructive behavior, they cannot stop from performing it over and over again. But still the whole premise behind therapy and counseling is valid and many people are helped. The Cosmological Argument is invalid because it tries to derive a specific cause from an effect. Just because the effect is true does not mean a specific cause follows. Premises: q p implies q Conclusion: p Invalid Cosmological Argument If q is true then p may be either true or false and still have p implies q be a true statement. But this means that if I substitute q for creation and if q is true, then p or not p may be true. That is to say, if I substitute p for Creator, then I can say that a Divine creator implies creation is true and No Divine Creator implies Creation is also true. I know a number of people who were lying on their death bed and remained quite down to earth and intellectually honest. Like I said before, we are here for a relatively short period of time and the point is to live life fully, to be what we are, and to become what we are capable of becoming while giving to others and making the world a better place to live in. The miserable wretches of this world will always create other worldly gods for themselves. It takes guts and courage to die a Happy Death. But many have done it.