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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (13688)	11/19/1997 11:33:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Again, Jfreddy, you continue to evade the central issue. John Galt does not entirely disagree with the definitions and relationships of epistomology to science you've expressed. John Galt needs no classroom instruction, here, Jfreddy, so spare me your book. The problem is a central one: "If the question to the existence of a Creator cannot be established in Science, than where can it be established?" Somehow, you have already concluded that the 'Creator' has no physical nature, that it cannot be quantified or measured in anyway. Even Science makes no such leap! Science, of course, dismisses the question altogether as what exactly it is one is looking for in a 'Creator' is not clear. That is not to say, however, that it is not the domain of science to determine what is and what is not. And to determinine what is and what is not is based on established rules and principles of what constitutes acceptable 'evidence'. It is enough for epistomology to struggle with the problems of what constitutes 'evidence'. The question of a Creator belongs to Science and Science has dismissed it. Your solution, Jfreddy, is rather than to dismiss Science, you spare the question by dumping it upon another, less stringent, school. But the question of a 'Creator' belongs in the school of dimwits and bonehead philosophers. Please note: Father Terrence acts only as medium for the spirit of John Galt upon these threads. He is of his own mind and may or may not agree with John Galt statements. Please do address John Galt when responding to his statements. Thank you. John Galt

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (13688)	11/19/1997 11:34:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Jfreddy, that because logic, mathematics, etc... fail in singularities does not mean one should dismiss these valuable tools. One should work to sharpen them or, perhaps, invent new ones. We do know where they work and where they fail. A is A, Jfreddy. The struggle continues... You must accept what is. Your own very survival depends on it. Indeed, you are using these very tools you dismiss in your own arguments. As for Godel's Theorem, John Galt has always maintained that we live in a universe of uncertainties. We live in a universe of impressions and probabilities. We are entangled, each of us, in the present with the impressions of the past and with the probability states of the future. Yet, it is only the present that exists. Each of us are riding impression waves eminating from everywhere that define us. We are both guided by and restrained by them, and, yet, options, choice, at any moment do exist for us. Jfreddy, you are riding impression waves of ancient men and archaic debates. Your position on the John Galt 'sense of life' scale is severely out of position! Give more weight to the tumultuous discoveries of today and hop on the John Galt impression waves to tomorrow. John Galt