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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (154194)	2/7/2009 3:59:20 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"You've discovered an awesome all knowing God. Surely an awesome all knowing God couldn't just exist naturally, in nature." I'm not sure 'discovered' is operant in this context. Things we observe as natural, exist in a temporary and limited state or form, according to certain rules or laws of nature. A tree exists only for a time, continually changing in its form from seed to dust. A tree is not a rock or an old spirit woman, in spite of legends and cartoons to the contrary. A natural fact of physics is only a proven fact until new theory advances the topic and reveals more or something uniquely different about our fact. The truth of history is often a matter of personal perspective even for those living at a particular point in time, rather than an absolute fact, and only relevant by contrasts to those living at a different time. Yet we have the concept and evidence of unlimited wholeness, of infinity, and of eternity. We use these concepts in our sciences and we can consider them in other disciplines. Not as a separation but because wholeness over laps, enmeshes, and envelops everything else. We know that you or I cannot express the complete truth about any issue. That doesn't reduce us to liars, only that there is always more to it. When we label something good, we can imagine better, or going further an absolute goodness even if we can't quite grasp it in hand or circumstance. So, the issue has not been ignored. Far from being ignored libraries have been devoted to its consideration since the first written languages and the content grows even as we discuss it. "Surely an awesome all knowing God couldn't just exist naturally, in nature. Something even more awesome and even more all knowing must have created this awesome all knowing God you've discovered. How could it be any other way?" The nature of the Temporal universe is obviously creative. If we consider a bang, a genesis (or any other euphamism for the beginning) we must consider either an eternity of befores which immediately discounts the bang concept and suggests natural laws beyond temporary and beyond limited... or we must humble ourselves enough to consider a nature that is not bound within the nature we are endowed with. A nature that is eternal, unlimited, and absolute would be one to consider. If you understand the concept of eternal, then your requirement (must have been created) does not apply. "Your logic demands it. How do you account for this, besides ignoring it, i mean? Far from being ignored, the logic of partial vs whole, of beginnings/endings, temporary and eternal, limited and unlimited, relative and absolute etc are important concepts which have been under consideration to advance truth and revelation since humans have been able to communicate. Water exists in the tree but we can not explain water by simply looking at the tree. Nor can we understand everything we need to about water without considering its involvement in the tree, its processes, life cycles and effects on living things. 'Truth' exists in nature. 'Facts' can be found using a scientific method when discovering and applying laws of nature. But an explanation of truth can be no more understood by staring into a microscope than water can be explained by staring at a tree. There is a wholeness of truth that includes your willingness to engage self evidence about sacred, absolute, and undeniable existence.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (154194)	2/7/2009 9:43:26 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I submit what would be unnatural in a computer is the software Why are you ducking the obvious next question? You've discovered an awesome all knowing God. Surely an awesome all knowing God couldn't just exist naturally, in nature. Something even more awesome and even more all knowing must have created this awesome all knowing God you've discovered. How could it be any other way? Your logic demands it. How do you account for this, besides ignoring it, i mean? The most immediate ignoring going on here is you ignoring the problem of the natural origin of information. Then your pulling the old 'you can't believe in God unless you can tell who created God' atheist argument out instead doesn't get you anywhere. We KNOW we (and our universe) had a beginning. We DON'T KNOW that about God. ------------------------------------ And the ignorant dishonesty continues. Sounds like you were thinking: 'I don't have much of an argument here. I want to call the guy names, but can't pick between ignorant and liar .... ah, I'll call him both. Yeah, thats the ticket.' ----------------------------------- You should admit there are no scientific reasons to believe in God, that belief is a leap of faith. Why can't you do that? I'm not asserting scientific proof of God. I'm asserting its reasonable to believe in God and not irrational to do so, which I think you believe and want others to believe. And in fact, I consider it actually more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in an infinity of universes, each of which is slightly different. ---------------------------------- Consider alien abductions. I know you'd to put across the idea believing in God is like believing in alien abductions. One difference - science doesn't tell us alien abductions are real. Science does tell us our universe looks incredibly designed for life. Science also tells us life is based on information encoded in chemical bonds.