On 1/26/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:OK, so your notion of God is "whatever is fundamentally responsible for existence" - hence primitive materialism makes matter (energy etc) play the part of God, in that sense. I can see that - an explanation that stops at matter and says "that's it!" is indeed making it a God, in the same way a religious person does when they say "God did it, end of story!" fwiw I agree with Bruno on this, his broader sense of "God" makes sense and is more worthy of our attention than the "Sky Father sitting on a cloud" (which isn't even the concept of God in all religions).Except then it's not a proper noun and should be written "god". Incredibly picky, but annoyingly true.
It's picky, but notice how much difference it would make, psychologically, if it were followed by Bruno and the theologians he quotes. And Bruno even says god is unnameable, so it can't be a name. So I think John Clark has a good point - Bruno really *wants* to connect with the idea of the creator man in the sky.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
