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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (82271)	1/22/2010 9:05:47 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

""Proof is not the topic, as I understood it, evidence is" Sound positions do not need to dribble semantics. Proof, evidence--whatever." We should pause here and get clarity on this. It is not just slippery semantics for me. I am in no way entertaining the idea that I can prove God to someone else ... someone like you, or provide proof positive in the empirical sense for mankind in general. I am completely confident that I can not proof any such thing. I picked up the topic only with the idea that evidence can be presented. "I take you back to your metaphor about "jurors" and I repeat that in a court of evidence there are not thousands of "verdicts"--there is ONE. That was what I had in mind too and as I had declared, the ultimate judge in this case is within each individual, where one cannot determine for another what conviction to make. Which makes the case even more exta-ordinary since it is reconsidered by every human/judge for his/her own sake. So I am going to refer back to my first post about available evidence where I prefaced my commentary: " It may not be what some would consider solid, substantial, persuasive, or proof definite but there is evidence just the same." I suspect we agree on most of that statement. So, I have presented what I consider to be evidence, historical evidence attributed to persons considered credible, along with the historical and nearly universal inclination of human beings to consider higher will and purpose... will and purpose that tends toward agreement at the core of human conscience. I said from the start 'it may not' be persuasive but in fact I was nearly certain of it. You've no doubt judged it to be weak or unqualified in the scientific sense, I can't wholly disagree at least on the grounds you lay. On the other hand this claim has been verified by men believed to be of the highest character, over and over again. In any case that is considered evidence even if it is not strong enough to convince some judges. Why else is it weak ... because it's not testable. That seems also verifiable across time and circumstance. No one has been able to test God and in fact there is a curious scripture forbidding it... "Thou shalt not test the Lord they God." So that nixes any possibility of using tests like replication. I maintain there is evidence everywhere one looks if they are open to it, as I'm sure you are convinced such a notion is "poppycock." I don't expect us to get beyond that. I've presented my evidence and you are free as the judge in this matter to throw the case out of your court for reasons you've already mentioned. I rest my case.

To: Solon who wrote (82271)	1/26/2010 8:47:47 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Your presumption is erroneous. I do consider the "ethereal aspects of existence". I was asking you why the poppycock about religious claims ... So then, let's set aside religious claims for the time being, since neither of us is answerable to 'claims' other than those we should each make on our own behalf... and let us consider the ethereal on it's own merit. There are simple statements that we can all address. For example, normally intelligent human beings are inclined to wonder. A couple of big questions driving scientists and thinkers from all genres are ... What if? and Why? 'Wonder' is at center stage to human curiosity. We could make some simple presumptions and test them out. Why are humans curious as they are? If we presume, it is a function evolved from human need to explore the environment in the interests of survival. Abraham Maslow didn't think so when he developed his pyramid of needs, and most of modern thinking about why humans attend to the things they do has adopted in part or as a whole his perspective of the multi-dimensional human being who will attend to circumstance based on the level of needs which remain unmet. Survival doesn't satisfy the question of why some take the road less traveled, why some risk life or limb to investigate uncertainties or for a cause larger than survival. It doesn't suffice as an explanation for why perfectly comfortable people take risks just to seek novel sensation and adventure.