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 (51419)	6/3/1999 3:12:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I must really be missing something here, unless you've switched sides mid-stream. This sounds more like an argument for the non-existence of God. "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." Yes, this does make sense. However the fact that there is no evidence outside of the Bible (which could hardly be considered an objective source) for such an interference seems to argue against the existence of God. "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..." I don't see this at all. You seem to be saying that: 1.) God must have interfered (not only an unproven assumption, but one which all the evidence aside from the Bible tends to dispute); 2.) Only the Bible records such an interference (certainly understandable for a book that is clearly intended to convey the existence of this assumed being); 3.) Therefore the Bible is a true history.(?) Your first premise is simply an assumption and a shaky one at that. Remember, you haven't even proven that God exists, much less that He has interfered in our affairs. Your second not only says that the document in question bolsters that assumption, but that no other evidence does, which seems to me to be an argument against the validity of said document, not for it. Your conclusion then is that since the document in question is the only one that bolsters that assumption, then the document must be true. I'm afraid that I really don't see how a document that alludes to an assumed truth that is recorded nowhere else has been proven to be true simply because of its reference to that assumption. This seems to not even be circular logic, but circular illogic. Sorry if this offends. -BLT