Hi John Clark Try God= universal intelligence.
Roger Clough, [email protected] 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:36:24 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: ? > God = truth Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a profound discovery when they have not, they probably work so well because people often want to be fooled, but all they have obtained from their efforts is a unnecessary synonym. Redundancy is not the same as profundity? > makes a bridge between two fields, What two fields?? > I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale > sense I have been hearing that claim for months now, but whenever I ask for a specific example all I get is new age pap like God is one or God is truth. >? the term "God", and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. >In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term Absolutely true, so why use a term that has such a astronomical amount of baggage? I am now going to make a radical statement, If you want to say that something is true then use the word "true". ? > God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. If they can't make it public why the hell do people talk about God so damn much in public? > Read Plato for learning more on this. I already know far more philosophy than Plato did so I don't think that would be helpful. Of course today we don't call it philosophy we call it science; philosophy deals in areas where not only the answers are unknown but you don't even know if you're asking the right questions. Forget about the answers, in Plato's day he didn't even know what questions to ask about the nature of the stars or of matter or of life, but today we do and so those subjects have moved from philosophy to science. > Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality. There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. > I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the > 3-view on the 1-view There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. ? 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
