On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:10 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> Bruno has a specific definition of God, >>>> >>> >>> >> He says he does, but when you probe a little deeper you find that he >>> does not. In fact he has specifically said and I quote " This is useful to >>> realize that the question "is god a person or a thing" is an open >>> problem.". So when Bruno talks about "God" he quite literately and by his >>> own admission doesn't know what he's talking about. >>> >> >> > So I take it number theorists have no idea what they're talking about >> either, because the Goldbach conjecture is still an open problem in their >> field. >> > > If mathematicians were as stupid as theologians (they're not) the correct > analogy would be if they were trying hard to prove or disprove "The > Goldbach Conjecture" but nobody could agree what the hell "The Goldbach > Conjecture" was. Perhaps an even better analogy would be lots of people > trying to prove that we have free will with not one of them having the > slightest idea of what in the world "free will" is supposed to mean. > > > What does "atheist" mean to you? >> > > A atheist isn't someone who claims that he can prove God doesn't exist, > it's someone who says God is redundant. > Redundant to what? > > > That you reject the God of every religion >> > > That's me. > Even those that say it's the ultimate reason for our existence? Given we exist, how can you deny those there is such a thing? > > > or only that you reject the Abrahamic conception of God? > > > That's me too. > > > Do you think there can be more than one possible definition for god? >> > > Yes and that's exactly the problem. Some people like Bruno and millions of > others are so desperate to stick some meaning to the 3 ASCII characters G > and O and D so they can say "I believe in God" without being ridiculous > that they find some fuzzy flabby useless concept that they can attach to it > like, something more powerful than myself (a bulldozer?) or, a higher > force (gravity?). So with a definition that broad and weak any rational > person would have to say "I believe in God", but that seems like a very > silly game to me. > > So when physicists was still wrestling for a consistent definition of energy, you would have told everyone to pack their bags and go home, and abandon the whole field entirely, because there was disagreement about the meaning of the term? > I think that if you're talking about something with zero intentionality, > zero intelligence, zero consciousness and has nothing to do with morality > you should give it a name other than "God"; and a refusal to do so can only > mean that you are more in love with the English word G-O-D than you are > with the meaning behind it. > What if we're talking about something eternal, immutable, transcendent, infinite, uncreated, immanent, containing everything/equal to everything, the reason for our existence, the source of our reality and experience? So what if it doesn't judge us after we die, it's still 9 for 10 for attributes frequently associated with God. Jason -- 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.
