On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:15:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> God encompasses everything, so no overlayer is possible.
>

So does the universe encompass everything. What's the difference?
 

>  
> Powerless to change ? God did perform some miracles such as the virgin
> birth and the Resurrection. To one who created the universe,
> these would have been child's play.
>  
> But otherwise, God is justice, so it doesn't make sense to
> say he would violate his own laws.
>

Nothing about God makes much sense really. What makes sense is that God is 
an idea of how to reconcile the Godlike experiences of subjectivity and 
imagination with the machinelike indifference of objective realism. Stage 1 
is to realize that everything must be ideas within a universal subject. 
Stage 2 is to realize the limitations of Stage 1 and embrace the objective 
at the expense of the subjective. Stage 3 is to realizes that Stage 2 is 
just the dialectic antithesis of Stage 1 and that the truth is that 1 and 2 
represent two of many extremes within a continuum of sensemaking 
possibilities.

Craig
 

>  
>  
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <javascript:>
> 9/11/2012 
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
> so that everything could function."
>
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-09-11, 09:00:27
> *Subject:* Re: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
>
>  
>
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:41:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Intelligence is by (my) definition an autonomous function,
>> so over-layers are not only forbidden, they are not needed.
>>
>
> What is God if not an over-layer of intelligence?
>
>   
>> But God does have to follow laws he already created.
>> If you jump off of a building you will fall to your death.
>>
>
> Why would he create laws that he is powerless to change?
>  
>
>>   
>> I'm missing a possible problem there.
>>  
>>  
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 9/11/2012 
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
>> so that everything could function."
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-09-11, 08:01:52
>> *Subject:* Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:29:00 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Bruno Marchal 
>>>  
>>> If I ever doubt that there is a God, 
>>> the regularity of Newton's physics or
>>> the microscopic structure of a snowflake
>>> dispels such doubt. 
>>>  
>>> These show design.
>>> Design cannot be made randomly.
>>> So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature.
>>> I call that God.
>>>  
>>> That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates
>>> that there must be some superintelligence at work.
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't the superintelligence also have to be highly structured ans 
>> lawful? Wouldn't those laws also suggest a meta-superintelligence, and so 
>> on?
>>
>> Why not just let the fact that we can make sense of a universe of 
>> sensible sensations be exactly that.
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
>>> 9/11/2012 
>>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
>>> so that everything could function."
>>>
>>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>>> *From:* Bruno Marchal 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2012-09-10, 13:17:52
>>> *Subject:* Re: The poverty of computers
>>>
>>>  Roger, 
>>>
>>> I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than 
>>> atheist.
>>>
>>> A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and 
>>> universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but 
>>> his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious believer in 
>>> a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps.
>>>
>>> To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means "I 
>>> believe in x", and if g means (god exists)
>>>
>>> A believer is characterized by Bg
>>> An atheist by B ~g
>>> An agnostic by ~Bg & ~B~g
>>>
>>> But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with 
>>> respect of matter, etc.
>>>
>>> Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for 
>>> granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which 
>>> is irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which is 
>>> just another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly.
>>>
>>> I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making 
>>> clear the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg than 
>>> to Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a 
>>> tiny part of it.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012  Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>   > If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, 
>>>> you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. 
>>>> You 
>>>> haven't a leg to stand on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the 
>>> wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting 
>>> the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God.
>>>
>>>  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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GJV6yFjTMoAJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/6jOnZH0QAEAJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/BuL6lVQ1-zQJ.
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