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: Father Terrence who wrote (13691)	11/19/1997 2:35:00 PM
From: Skipper	Respond to of 108807

John, "Science, of course, dismisses the question altogether as what exactly it is one is looking for in a 'Creator' is not clear." I think the reason for this is because science has retained the conditioning that the "Creator" is that which created "everything". Still, I don't think that the question has been entirely dismissed by science; I am thinking of Arthur C. Clarke in particular. I think that it is more useful to consider what might have created "us", in the same way that we would consider what might have created the sun. In considering these questions, it is not proper to rule out the effect of some other "mind". But we should proceed on the basis of evidence. The benefit of discovering a "Creator" is the same as the benefit of any other (real, not supposed) knowledge. Skipper

To: Father Terrence who wrote (13691)	11/19/1997 9:53:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Respond to of 108807

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! A creator without a physical nature is a commonplace in Greek theological speculation, anything otherwise would have been a scandal to them. Go read up on "aeons" and "logos" and such. A physical god would have been seen as an incredibly primitive idea, and this is one reason the Christian incarnation was such a shock to the Greeks. Greek theology regarded the physical as corrupt, and the spiritual as being pure. Christian theology disagrees with this Platonic conception, seeing physical creation as "good", and the spiritual realm as being a great source of corruption: pride, avarice, sloth and so forth. Again, science has nothing to say about any of this, there being nothing to measure or quantify, those being the tools of science. This isn't "dismissing" science, it is merely knowing to what sort of problems its methods are suited. You persist in a categorical fallacy; tell me, what would you measure?