On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Omnipotent and omniscient may be inconsistent properties, which would
> mean they don't exist anywhere.
Good, you're making progress and God just got demoted.
*> Particle nature of light, and beginnings of matter-energy equivalence:*
> Indian Buddhists, Dignāga and Dharmakirti, in the 5th and 7th centuries,
> respectively, developed the view that light consists of atomic entities of
> energy and further postulated that all matter is composed of these energy
Bullshit, they didn't even know what energy is! As for the atomic theory,
there were only 2 possibilities, you can keep dividing matter into smaller
and smaller portions forever or you can not, so you had a 50 50 chance of
picking the right theory. And as for light, saying light is made of
particles is as incorrect as saying it is made of waves. Now if those 5th
century Buddhist natural philosophers had talked about the wave-particle
duality of things I would be impressed, but not by religion, Buddha was a
atheist just like me.
> *> Trichromatic vision:*
> In the Rigveda, a Hindu text that was composed between 1700 and 1100 B.C.,
> it was written, “Mixing the three colors, ye have produced all the objects
> of sight!” This predates Young–Helmholtz theory of trichromatic vision by
> over 3,000 years.
That was a excellent bit of scientific experimentation and its a shame it
didn't become well known in the west, but it has nothing to do with
religion. And it wasn't Young or Helmholtz who came up with trichromatic
vision, it was Newton.
> Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, a Persian polymath and Islamic theologian of the
> 12th century, wrote [blah blah]
And Isaac Newton was a English polymath and christian theologian of the
17th century, are you going to claim that Principia Mathematica was a
religious book too?
> Al-Razi went further and extended this to universes, saying “God has the
> power to fill the vacuum
And God's power to fill vacuums is why there was religious objection to the
very idea of a vacuum and set back science, for similar reasons religious
nuts didn't like zero either.
> I was merely showing that some religions do consider God to equal Truth,
But that tells me nothing, you're just creating a synonym. It's always the
same, somebody says "God is X" where X is some well known noncontroversial
thing and then they claim to be a philosophical genius.
> > As I believe in Platonism, it is very difficult for me to find something
> I do not believe exists,
You don't believe atheists exist because if I'm not a atheist nobody is.
> Okay, please tell me what this one God is that you are rejecting.
> You avoided the question with a bunch of references to properties of
> imagined objects.
But you asked me if I rejected God and I talked about imagined objects, so
I did not avoid the question
> Logos obviously is not a white man with a beard
I think "God is a white man with a beard" is a more intelligent statement
than "God is truth" because its actually saying something, it's something
that happens not to be true but at least its saying something, while "God
is truth" is not saying anything, it's just silly wordplay. And by the way,
in the Mormon religion God is a **physical man about six feet tall** who
lives near the planet Kolob; and the scary thing is that the most powerful
person in the world, the next president of the USA, could be someone who
> "According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or *Brahman*is the
It just amazes me that so many people think this sort of drivel is profound
philosophy, ITS NOT SAYING ANYTHING!
> but if you look at the whole message being communicated, you find many
> deep ideas.
I found many words from eastern languages but no deep ideas, just more pap
about God is one or love or truth or everything or the void or the infinite
or the blah blah.
>>> I see you ignored the names of God in Islam,Names?
>> >> What the hell difference would it make if God's name was Seymour Butts
>> or I P Daily?
> > Now you are just exhibiting willful blindness.
I am doing no such thing, I honestly don't understand why I should give a
tinkers damn what some bronze age hillbillies named their invisible man in
> You could interpret it as the infinite truth is the source of Brahman,
> [...] I think your are willfully shutting out these ideas, because of their
> origin, which is unscientific.
What ideas? Please I want to know, what ideas? Your saying that the Brahman
is the truth and the truth is the Brahman, well OK but other than being
able to say that its Brahman that 2+2=4 what have I gained from learning
>some religions assert their God as "the infinite, uncreated truth and
> source of existence"
And some comic books assert that Superman's name is Kal-El and he comes
from the planet Krypton. Both assertions have equal philosophical depth.
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@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at