On 09 Sep 2012, at 23:06, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
> 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
No, it is not. It comes from the important intuition that truth is
transcendental, something explained today in the computationalist
sciences, by Tarski mike theorem.
If you assume that the primary reality is a physical universe, you are
doing physical science.
If you actually believe that the primary reality is nothing but a
primary physical universe, you are doing Aristotelian theology, as
such a belief is metaphysical/religious.
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 believes this.
If you are so worry about fairy tails notion of God, why are you
limiting the meaning of God to such fairy tale notion. By doing this
you are the one preventing theology to come back to seriousness, and
you are the one presenting as fact a religious belief, like the
existence of a primary physical universe (the third god of some antic
> "According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or
Brahman is the One,
It just amazes me that so many people think this sort of drivel is
profound philosophy, ITS NOT SAYING ANYTHING!
No. Occidental science has developed through the belief that reality
is one, and to a reaction of its most naive descriptions. It is the
same as conjecture and refutation.
The problem is that some people have made the physical universe into a
sort of authoritative God, and this not only does not explain where it
comes from but prevent progress both on the origin of the universe and
on the mind-body problem. The God Matter hypothesis has failed, simply
(provably with comp).
> 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 the shy.
> 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 that?
A foreseen of the fact that if "2+2=4" is a scientific statement, the
following is not: ""1+1=2" is true". This plays a key role in the comp
theory of consciousness.
>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
This is because you believe, irrationally (as you don't even argue,
but take for granted) in a primary physical universe. Monotheism has
led to monism, and is a key in the birth of the modern science.
It becomes clearer and clearer for me that your avoidance of going
from step 3 to step 4 might come from your religious atheistic beliefs.
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