Just to be clear, I was not equating "God" and "the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything". I was just noting that my statements work with either one.
On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 10, 7:38 am, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Tom, please see after your quoted text. > > John M > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily > > > beautiful. > > > And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of > > > why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if > > > they think God is about functionality. > > > > Tom > > > ------------------------------------- > > > JM: > > And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) beauty without > > function(ality)? > > * > > This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the > functionality word "how", "how" would I sense/acknowledge > (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like > beauty). I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical. (I > think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.) But this does > not imply that beauty is not primary. (And by the way I am not saying > that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.) > > > You have all the right to be a theist and formulate your 'theos' anyway you > > wish for yourself. IMO people 'not believeing in God' do not "think" that > > this nonexisting concept is about anything. It "IS" not. > > Just trying to read you within my logic. (Common sense that is). > > Greetings > > John M > > Let me rephrase my statement for two different hypothetical cases: > > 1. If God does not exist, this does not imply that concepts of God do > not exist, but that they are just incorrect (all of them in this > case). So when I say, "I don't blame people for not believing in God > if they think God is about functionality," the words "they think" in > this case would refer to a concept of God that they have, and what I > meant in this case was that I don't blame them for not giving a mental > assent to those concepts of God. > > 2. If God does exist, but someone's concept of God is different from > the actual God, then similarly I don't blame them for not giving a > mental assent to those wrong concepts of God. If God does exist, then > God is more than a concept. So in that case, in fact believing in God > would amount to something far more and far different from a mental > assent to a concept of God. > > You can substitute for the word "God", in all of the above, the words > "the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything" and it will > also apply. > > So what I was getting at is this. I think that a concept of God (or > the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything) that is based > fundamentally on functionality is indeed a very unappealing (should I > dare say un-beautiful?) concept of God (or the knowable fundamental > Truth/Essence of Everything). In fact, it seems to fly in the face of > Occam's Razor. Functionality is a very complex thing. Occam's Razor > is about the fact that beauty/elegance/simplicity seems to be at the > core of the truth about things. > > Tom- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---