On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea but >> not a word; >> > > > Logicians work axiomatically or semi-axiomatically. If an idea/theory > seems absurd, we make the minimal change to keep the most of the theory > (the words). >
The changes you make in "God" are as far from "minimal" as you can get, the magnitude of the changes are quite literally infinite. >The term "God" is typical in that setting, and I find absurd to deny some > concept by keeping an absurd theory. > I don't know what you mean, a theory is a concept and the God theory is a very bad theory and thus so is the concept. > You do the same with free-will, by saying it is non sense, but this by > deciding to accept the nonsensical definition. > That is incorrect. The God theory is perfectly meaningful and so is the astrology theory, it's just that they both happen to be wrong. The free will "theory" on the other hand is no more meaningful than a burp and thus is neither right nor wrong. > so "God" becomes "something more powerful than yourself" >> > > > This is frequent fro Gof. > Yes, something more powerful than yourself is what those who love the word but not the idea mean when they say "God". And so God, a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe, suddenly gets demoted and becomes just another yellow bulldozer; and theology, the study of bulldozers, degenerates into diesel engine repair. > God is not a machine. > Then there is no alternative, God is not a bulldozer after all, God is a roulette wheel. John K Clark -- 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.
