On 27 Jan 2014, at 04:00, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb <[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.
As we don't know, in the comp theory, if God is a person or not. It is
more polite to use a proper name. And to use the substantive god for
the name (God) is a way to be as neutral as possible.
Then, as I said, using another name would be like taking his name
seriously, which *is* the main error. God, like the Tao, has no name.
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
