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: Neocon who wrote (51416)	6/3/1999 2:42:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Thanks for the mostly kind-hearted response. I really don't like fighting with you. "If something existed outside of time and space, it would comport with at least two of the attributes we traditionally ascribe to God..." What are these? "If you think that something arising from nothing makes more sense..." I didn't say or mean to imply that it made more sense, I simply can't dismiss it out of hand. "...either the universe is eternal, or it is created. Current science seems to point toward the latter..." I still feel that this is too specific. More accurately and simply, either the universe is eternal, or it is not. If it is not, that still doesn't in any way prove that it was created, but rather simply that there was a point at which it did not exist. While this may imply some sort of creation, that is simply one assumption hung on top of another assumption. "Quick, tell me what energy is essentially...you will only be able to give a utilitarian definition. And so it is with God." I will grant you that the definitions of each are probably equally murky, but at least energy can be measured and observed. Its existence can be proven empirically. This is not the case with God. I really don't want to go into this much further, because it's not my goal to dispute anyone else's faith. I simply require something more than faith, and in lieu of some sort of objective evidence remain content to simply play with these ideas without forming any conclusions. I want to thank you for your attempt to get through to Johannes last night about agnosticism. I would only pick one small bone. You seemed to be saying to him (and I recognize that this might have been simply a compensation for his dogmatism) that agnosticism was a state of questing, or even confusion. For me at least, it is not. Agnosticism is not a way station on my road to enlightenment (although I accept that it may end up that way). It genuinely is the only system that makes sense to me, since it doesn't require belief. I really am perfectly content to leave unanswerable questions unanswered. And as a sort of aside, I have often at least tried to engage atheists in debate, because I believe that their view is just as unprovable as theism, but I don't feel as guilty for goading them. The opening statement goes like this: "I cannot be an atheist because I have no more faith in the nonexistence of God than I do in His existence." -BLT