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 (51576)	6/4/1999 6:45:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"I was not proving the existence of God, but showing that reasonable arguments could be made based upon current scientific theories." If so, then the form of those arguments would have been: If A, then B Ah, but it wasn't, was it? Rather it was: A. Therefore B. If you actually had presented these things as surmises, or theories, or logical parlor games, or even as possible proofs then we could have just dived in and played with them. But you didn't-- you presented them as proofs. No "if/then," no "let's assume," nothing of that sort. In short, nothing that would lead one to believe that you intended them as anything other than proofs. And while they potentially could have been entertaining as theories, as proofs they were at best unproven and at worst fallacious. "I think that they are likely enough, but not clinchers..." If you were being intellectually honest, you would have said that then, not now. "...and was amused to see that you would not even concede that they had some validity." That's because they didn't have any. I mean please-- "...that which has eternal existence outside of time and space we call "God"...?" This is a patently ridiculous statement. Again, if you had proposed your premises as simply possibilities, then I might have been willing (and certainly would have been able) to follow along and see where they went. Well, except maybe for the above statement, it would have taken either a lot of convincing, or a willing suspension of definitions, for me to even consider it. "It was not very consistent with a claim of suspended belief..." Theres an enormous difference between "suspended belief" and accepting that which is clearly irrational or inconsistent as axiomatic. "...Shameful." Ahhhh..... judgment. "I go out of my way to defend your position to Johannes..." For which I thanked you... in a post almost immediately preceding the one wherein you disputed my position based solely on my statement that the universe does not have an ethical structure. Well, that and whatever it is that gives you this irrational need to dispute my own definition of who I am. On the ethical structure of the universe: I continue to fail to see how my disbelief in such a thing proves that I am, contrary to myself, an atheist. Maybe you should define your terms, because to me "ethical" implies volition. It's a term used to define a proper course of action when one is confronted with choices. You have a number of paths, but generally one of them is more "ethical." Since the universe seems to not be sentient, I really don't see how it can have volition, and therefore how it can have an "ethical" structure. Hmmmm? "...you say something that totally belies your profession of "suspended judgment"..." I simply refuse to accept as true or assume as false that which is unproven. This doesn't mean that I disregard logic. You stated as given something that is merely a theory, and a fairly untenable one at that. The fact that I recognized and refuted its illogic really doesn't have any bearing on any other statement that anyone might make or on any belief, disbelief or lack of belief that I might claim. This seems to be the point that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp. "...I ejaculate a response..." Uh huh. "...and now you accuse me of setting you up to embarrass you." Embarrass me? Embarrass me? Puh-lease! First, I never said or implied that your intention was to "embarrass" me. I thought I made it pretty clear that I believe that your intention was clearly to draw me out so that you could dispute my claim to agnosticism. And I still don't understand why you feel the need to pronounce your judgment, not even of my view (which would be crass enough), but of my integrity. "If one is sincerely perplexed, I respect that..." Ahh... so you can respect my view so long as I am "perplexed." Apparently then, as I've already stated, the problem is that I'm not perplexed; I simply refuse to assume an answer to unanswered questions. You would have me simply be confused and in need of an answer, but you cannot tolerate the idea that I might actually be comfortable with my lack of belief and have no need to pick a side. Certainly you have repeatedly failed to show me or my claim to the view that I hold any respect, so either this statement is totally false, or it hinges on the word "perplexed." "What more do you want?" .........