RE: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:50:23 -0700 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, 
non-digital, computer architecture

 

On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational


If you read it as "In every possible world g is false and g=Some God", it's 
irrational (unless g entails a contradiction).  But that isn't atheism.  An 
atheist says "g doesn't exist" and that's prefectly rational if g=Yaweh or 
g=Zeus or g=Baal or...  Which is why I said it depends on g.  If g is "some 
mystic unifying principle" then I'm agnostic about g.  If g is some vain 
despotic theist god, then I'm an atheist about g.

 

Nicely put distinction between… degrees of ‘g’s

Chris



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/d/optout.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to