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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (25984)	5/26/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Please don't think that I'm calling your rationality into question!! I don't have The Answer, oh noooo. All I'm saying is that given the unmanageably large scope of the premises, there is no clean, clear way to prove or disprove any one position ("belief") without injecting axioms. To build a God-centric cosmogony you have to posit God a priori. You can't satisfactorily "construct" God from empirical observation of our limited sensory slice of the "real" universe. (Thus my longstanding beef with Romans 1:20.) Conversely, my pet "spontaneous generation" theory is just that and I prefer it aesthetically. In order to believe in it I do have to presuppose some interesting properties of higher-dimensional spaces. This is no less an act of faith, and I give you that. > because they don't require that you believe in God?< More precisely - they don't require me to ascribe certain controversial and very anthropic qualities to a God. Like conscious involvement in our existence(?). Wine. I love it, but it does not like me. I have a wheelbarrowful of '90 Bordeaux.