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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (767181)	1/31/2014 2:22:16 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

Your idea about what's a fact really fits a Reptile micro-size brain. Frying pans - if they can be detected - are FACTS and thus exist. Love and hate - detected or not - are no FACTS and thus don't exist, right? What drives world history more, frying pans or love-and-hate? Your problem is a semantic one, typical for the lack of capability if lizard micro brains: Concrete Facts are recognized by such brains as facts, Abstract Facts are not, period. /Taro

To: koan who wrote (767181)	1/31/2014 2:40:11 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

Not true. We don't even know much about any of that stuff. And what we do know we argue about. <<What is the nature of awareness? What is the nature of truth? What is the nature of justice? What is the nature of love and hate? What is the nature of purpose? What is the nature of Consciousness? What is the nature of reason? What is existence/non-existence? Why is there experience? Why is there something instead of nothing? >> I can declare as a fact that we are aware and we all know it as we are also self aware. I can declare this to be an indispubable fact. Physical facts, on the other hand, are disputed and disproven repeatedly. I can also speculate that the universe is aware but you would have to read a few books to be able to discuss that topic. Start here: amazon.com I can declare facts about the nature of truth and justice. It is a fact that when a person attempts to decieve another that person is not being truthful. That fact is indisputable. I can declare as a fact that when a wrong has not been made right through resolution and reconciliation justice has not prevailed. I can go on but apparently you are either unwilling or incapable of thoughtful discussion, so I will end here and you can look for some one else to throw your nonsensical challenge at. You have not even shown you understand the difference between non-physical and physical issues. The kind of fact you are demanding involves physical evidence, which of course is ludicrous. * The challenge you issue requires that any God be limited enough to objectify, which contradicts the idea of a being beyond the ideas of limited or even unlimited. * The challenge you issue requires that hard facts can be observed. Hard facts are bound in the limits of space and time, which contradicts the notion of an eternal being. * Mystical experiences which some people have claimed (not me) cannot be observed. * No type of objective evidence would conform to the characteristics given to God, even though charlatans continue to surface claiming they have some sort of objective evidence. So demanding objective evidence just sets up a false notion of provability. Belief in God is a faith based notion not a hard facts based issue. Based on arguments like these, attempting to prove God is a fool's errand. "God does not exist, he is eternal. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." Kirkegaard. "God does not exist, He is the Ground of existence." Tillich According to these philosophers, existence is the hard proof of God. However, those with no faith are bound to struggle with alternative explanations, which never seem to pan out.