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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51415)	6/3/1999 2:08:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You would not have read it in an unbiased way anyway,not this week at least, so I teased you...If you deny the self- evidence of the first proposition, well, okay, what can I say...Thus, far, the BB theory still hinges on the idea of a "virtual vacuum", from which the universe originates, and which exists prior to time and space. The oscillating universe solution is still in the inferior position. As far as anyone can figure, there was no matter and energy before the Big Bang...Since the void is nothing, it has no existence. If something existed outside of time and space, it would comport with at least two of the attributes we traditionally ascribe to God...If you think that something arising from nothing makes more sense, I cannot say much, but it seems to me that there are two choices: either the universe is eternal, or it is created. Current science seems to point toward the latter, even if most scientists are loathe to admit it. Hanging a name on the unknown does not make it known? But we have no real idea what anything is...and yet we hang names and strive for glimmers all of the time. Quick, tell me what energy is essentially...you will only be able to give a utilitarian definition. And so it is with God. :-)

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51415)	6/3/1999 2:33:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Is the universe ethical in its "deep structure"? If the universe is meant to reflect God's glory, then it is animated by an organizing principle, namely to create creatures who can appreciate the handiwork. Angels would suffice for some things, but the lack of corporeality would leave them unable to experience crucial aspects of creation. Thus, the universe required human beings, although that is not to say that there are not myriad creatures throughout the universe who play a similar role. If we are meant to appreciate the handiwork, then it is also true that on some fundamental level our reactions to things can be true, not merely logically, but aesthetically, ethically, and morally. Therefore, the universe is ethical in its "deep structure", and also therefore God cares, in some manner, about the outcome of our travails, and would likely interfere to some degree (traditionally presumed to be consistent with not totally overriding free- will).

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51415)	6/3/1999 2:43:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

If God cares about what happens to us, and is capable of doing something about it, then it makes sense that He should have interfered quite visibly at a discrete point in history, especially if it were necessary to get things back on track. Since only the Bible reflects such an historical approach by any Being remotely philosophically identifiable as God, it is likely to reflect a real history, not necessarily infallibly (since it is up to God if saving the various writers from error is essential to His purpose), but with underlying truth. And if the purpose of the universe is to reflect God's glory, than it makes sense that He should have performed miracles in order to make His presence in history felt...