Sorry, Danny, for my convoluted style. Also, for having missed you
'original' explanation of (your) God. I try to concentrate on SOME of the
texts, it is getting too much indeed, to memorize week long postings of
You wrote:

>>>I disagree and think you misunderstood the point of my original post.  I
don't really have time to get into it in detail now, but I was really trying
to get outside of any faith-based aspect of the question.  Perhaps the word
God should not be used.  The question I guess boiled down to its essence is
can you have an ensemble theory of any kind (everything exists) that does
not end up having intelligence playing an "interesting" role in the process.
 For future reference, when I refer to "God" in a post I will not be
referring to anything relating to personal relationships (in the general
understood sense that I think you meant) or hallucinations, but will be
referring very specifically to an entity capable of emulating or creating in
one manner or another the "universe" we observe, either from a 3rd person
viewpoint or from the 1st person viewpoint.  The question is can you have
ensemble theories without having these entities, and if so, what assumptions
do you have to make about our underlying reality (or the ensemble theory) to
avoid them.

I don't see those types of questions as being exclusive of some type of
tentative scientific scrutiny, but I guess you do or perhaps you thought I
meant something else when I said "God" (despite my defining the term in the
original post).

It may be that I just totally don't understand you John.  To be honest I
more than occasionally have a difficult time understanding what you are
conveying in your posts.



"GOD" is a historically overloaded word. Connotations are hard to eliminate.
I cannot 'free' the word from a smell of the burnt flesh of "witches", or
the thousands of cadavers around Darfur, etc. -  all in that 'name'. Is
there a chance to invent a different group of letters for a different
connotation? If we learn your identification, we can learn the word for it
as well.

The 'faith-based' aspect is not a privilege of 'godly' connotations. it is
also part of our mindset, although it irritates some if I assign it to
'science' as well.

(Here comes the question "WHAT science"? Well: THEIRS. - 'Yours ad 'ours' is
free, clean cut and objective.

I let it go now HOW do we "observe the universe?" and 'what' is 'underlying'
our image of it?

Please, let me go free from my mistake to speak into the 'godly' topic what
I try to avoid most of the time. I used to be an altar-boy. (Was not

Best regards


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to