On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > [Bridge] > > > It seems as if Alan is attempting to differentiate the anthropomorphic > > view with a less anthropomorphic view, claiming a god can't be the > > anthropomorphic view, thus there is only one. > > If we remove every aspect of God that is anthropomorphic, what do we end > up with? > > Is it distinguishable from the non-existent? > > Remove: > > 1. emotions > 2. sensory verbs (sees, hears, etc.) > 3. thought > 4. actions (does things with intent) > 5. temporal indexing >
Alan seems to be alluding to God being those things, not having them. > Not much left. Perhaps as a name for a blind force that instantiated the > universe but, beyond that, it is completely unknown. Or, non-existent. > As an atheist, any pondering of God is really just a pondering of the universe and one's self. > -- > WARNING: This message is only readable empirically. > > "There are some remedies worse than the disease." > [Publilius Syrus] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
