|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Orphelin@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Here is a rational proof.
>
> If God doesnot exist
> then God doesnot exist.
> Then if God doesn't exist (3)
> then it is God who doesnot exist. (4)
> Therefore, God exists.
Nothing rational about this - it's not even a valid set of propositions really.
However, it does touch on something I was getting at in my previous post. It is a
contradiction to state that X does not exist - it's rather a matter of the nature
of it's existence. >>
> Funny, but false.
> The above rethoric piece proves that you can give a name (4) to something that
> cannot exist (3).
Nothing to do with naming - this "argument" is silly and totally contradictory -
but - ask yourself - what is it that doesn't exist? Rather, it's a matter of
whether it has certain alleged properties, which is not exactly the same thing.
Suffice to say, though, that the properties attributed to God cannot be discovered
through tautology.
> The existence of the name is not the proof of the existence of the supposed
> thing.
Why not? I can conceive of unicorns, for instance - in what sense don't they
exist? Well, they certainly do exist essentially, perhaps not being discoverable
in a particular form through sensory apparatus - what makes such a discovery so
special though? <g>.
> So much for rationalism.
> The proof or evidence of religion is when you have faith.
This worries me as well, perhaps even more. Of course, this depends on what is
meant by "faith" - however, accepting something without sufficient basis cannot
suffice for anything other than evidence of the belief itself. If the term is
broadened to encompass a different sort of knowledge other than physical sensory
consensus, then this may be a different matter.
> You confuse faith and ceritude (or high probability).
> Faith is necessary to belive (again, it's for you that I use it) because faith
> replaces the proofs
Getting into probability only represents the potentiality of experiences being
repeated - it is of limited use in it's application to knowledge - other than for
its predictive value.
> Faith is not necessary for a tradig system.
> Better is the highest proven probability of success.
In a sense it is - if you wait around for statistically significant results, you
are chasing your tail to a degree, since conditions cannot be constant enough over
time to achieve the proper sample. If one is to do well at trading, a certain
amount of insight (faith) is needed, utilizing the powers of one's mind to
perceive successful patterns without the benefit of such a rigorous compilation of
data.
> Yet the scientific community struggles with this very problem. How did the
> universe start and where is it going. If you want to talk about fairy
> tales let's talk science. Theories change faster than people selling
> trading systems.
If the universe did in fact "start," or what the heck the "universe" is
essentially. Science is a pragmatic dicipline, as is trading - seeking to explain
things in a useful way. If it would limit its assertions thusly, - IOW in the
context that they are placed, then perhaps the dicipline could avoid the specious
foray into the metaphysical on the guise that such events can be excluded out of
hand.
Regards,
A.J.
|