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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2660)	10/12/2006 6:01:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

But that would be an assumption not a logical inference. Seems to me that a straight line projection is an entirely logical default, not that a straight line will necessarily occur, but the odds are with it. I don't think there was any assumption that it would occur. Just a smart money play.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2660)	10/12/2006 6:15:35 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

'Natural' is our experiential basis for reference to the idea of Supernatural. I see no conflict in a faith that sees the natural as having a complete validity of its own. The same nature should also be fully explainable given extended knowledge (especially when extended to the an all knowing level); while such faith can maintain a belief in the Supernatural which lies beyond what can be known about the natural, as one having sprung from the other. I also see no need for believers to apologize for having inaccurately attributed supernaturalness to naturalness prior to having a more thorough understanding of the nature of a thing. When Aristotle flubbed on spontaneous generation, we did not reject the validity of the scientific method. Finding out more about the physics of clouds and rain does not nullify the idea of a Supreme being who wills it to be, or some such wistful words of wisdom as 'just let it be'eee'.