Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book "Moses and
What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can give a reason
doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true, it would be
it did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in myth and
I call this the "nothing but" fallacy. It is the bread and butter of
atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other
critics made a good living based on this fallacy.
Simlilarly critics of the near death experience sometimes
explain away the near death experience as due to some
chemical that the brain exudes as death nears. To repeat,
if the near death esperience is real I would be surprised
if there WEREN'T a physical correlate.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
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
Time: 2012-09-11, 11:13:48
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers
On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:45, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes
> come from
Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English language I
stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said "I don't know".
Good. So we can do research.
> 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,
Science can't explain everything but it beats something like religion which
can't explain anything.
Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine)
attitude. Why not apply it in theology?
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