On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bruno makes a valid point, that you attack only the weakest, most ill
>> conceived, notion(s) of God.
>>
>
> It is my habit to attack only the weakest parts of ideas, attacking the
> strongest parts seems rather counterproductive because they may actually be
> true.
>

You call yourself an atheist, which means you reject every notion of God,
of any religion, does it not?

If so, then you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger
ones, and then consider yourself an atheist.  E.g., rejecting the idea of
Santa Clause won't make you an atheist, if there other God(s) you believe
in.

In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable,
unlimited, self-existent truth appears in many religions.  Do you reject
this concept of God?


>
> > Perhaps you have never bothered to investigate deeply the true claims of
>> various religions.
>>
>
> I've had 13 years of formal religious training. How much have you had?
>

Did this formal training present only a single perspective of a single
religion?  I had about the same number of years, although I am not sure if
I would call them formal or informal.  Since that time, I have studied some
of the beliefs of other religions.


>
> > Judaism:
>>    God is an absolute one indivisible incomparable being who is the
>> ultimate cause of all existence.
>
>
> Now that is a excellent definition of God, and a jolly fat man who
> delivers presents to all the children of the world on Christmas eve is a
> excellent definition of Santa Claus. I don't believe either of them exist.
>

I am showing the common themes: "self-existent", "cause of existence"


>
>
>> > Christianity:
>>   The book of John begins: "In the beginning was the λόγος, and the λόγος
>> was with God, and the λόγος was God."
>>
>
> The following sentence has identical informational content: "in the
> beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff".
> Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound.
>

Logos is not a meaningless term, and therefore the above expresses a
meaningful idea about the notion of god, which is almost word-for-word
identical to Keppler's quote below.


>
> > Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish of the first-century, taught that the
>> logos was both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human
>> mind can apprehend and comprehend God.
>>
>
> This human mind can not  comprehend God, so I guess God does not exist.
>

Mathematical truth may be the agent of creation, and it also seems to fit
the part about being the means through which the human mind can understand
God, although we can only access a finite piece of that truth (not even
scratching the surface).  As the quote by Hilda Hudson elaborated, any true
statement is a small understanding of the infinite truth, and mathematics
is a form of theology.


>
>   > "To all of us who hold the Christian belief that God is truth"
>>
>
> Only a fool would say truth does not exist so with that definition God
> certainly exists.
>

Ahh, so you are not an atheist after all.


>   This is a excellent example of something I mentioned before, somebody
> willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word "G-O-D".
>
>
This is not re-inventing language to keep the ASCII letters "God", this
concept of God has existed in Hinduism for thousands of years.



>   > "Geometry existed before the creation; is co-eternal with the mind of
>> God; is God himself" -- Johannes Kepler
>>
>
> Yet another example of the same thing because Geometry certainly exists.
>

Okay, am I correct in assuming from your statement that you are a Platonist?


>
>  > In the Bhagavad Gita, "You are the Supreme Brahman
>>
>
> A Brahman is a subset of beings and if there are a finite number of beings
> in the universe then logically there is a supreme being, but that doesn't
> mean he had anything to do with creating the Universe or us. In fact the
> supreme being could be working right now at The Institute for Advanced
> Study in Princeton New Jersey and in the morning he puts his pants on one
> leg at a time just like I do.
>

Again, you pick and choose what to reject.  I had quotes from religions
texts saying that "The infinite truth is the source of Brahman", and
"Brahman is the totality of what exists".  This is Platonism before Plato,
and not so easy to refute.


>
> >  the greatest.
>>
>
> I believe Muhammad Ali exists.
>
>   > In the Sri Brahma-samhita, the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth.
>>
>
> Yet more people interested in words but not ideas.
>
> > "I would say with those who say 'God is Love', God is Love.  But deep
>> down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is Truth above
>> all.
>>
>
> And more.
>
> > I have come to the conclusion that God is Truth.
>>
>
> And more.
>
> > God alone is and nothing else exists
>>
>
> Something certainly exists so God exists. Do you really think this sort of
> crap is deep?
>
> > It may be easy to dismiss some people's definitions of God
>>
>
> I don't dismiss definitions I just want to know what the hell people are
> talking about. You can define God as the thing you use to brush your teeth
> if you like, and if so then I believe in God.
>

Do you really see no connection at all between the notions of mathematical
truth and some of the ideas found in these religions?  I see you ignored
the names of God in Islam, as well as the Sikh mantra, which are very clear
on this.  "There is one creator whose name is truth", and among Islam's
names: "The Eternal, Immutable, Truth".


>
>
> > the scientific consensus is that infinite (mathematical) truth is the
>> self-existent cause and reason for our existence.
>>
>
> There is no scientific consensus that the Universe needs infinity to
> operate,
>

Platonism is the most common viewpoint of modern mathematicians, and this
leads to the existence of infinity.


> but let's assume that it does;
>
it doesn't take a genius to see where this sort of word play is leading,
> "God is infinity".
>

I don't see that it is word play if so many religions already profess that
God is the infinite: "Everything that is", "Totality of Existence", or
"Totality of Truth"


> The integers are infinite and they exist so God is the integer numbers.
> And this is wonderful news for people who just want to say "I believe in
> God" but don't care what "God" means, they just want to be able to say the
> words.
>

I take it then that it is terrible news for those that want to say "I don't
believe in any God".

Is this why you conveniently ignore these other (more difficult to dismiss)
notions of God and cling to the fairy tale versions?

I think this is why Bruno says atheists are the biggest defenders of such
notions of God, they need those notions, as much as the people who believe
in them, to preserve their identity.


>
>
>
>> > you might easily have missed some of the deeper meanings of God
>>
>
> I guess I have missed them, you should have mentioned some of those deeper
> meanings of God in your post.
>
>
Apparently you did.  You stripped many of them from your reply.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to