On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:45 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/14/2015 3:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:56 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/14/2015 12:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1/14/2015 6:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> In Buddhism: Samantabhadra Buddha declares of itself: >>> "I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I >>> am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am >>> the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the >>> core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I give birth >>> to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" >>> because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the >>> foundation" because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am >>> everything." >>> >>> Various thinkers over time have, apparently through reason, come to a >>> similar conclusion: >>> >>> "Geometry existed before the creation, it is co-eternal with the mind of >>> God, Geometry provided god with a model for creation, Geometry is God >>> himself." -- Kepler >>> >>> "To all of us who hold the Christian belief that God is truth, anything >>> that is true is a fact about God, and mathematics is a branch of >>> theology." -- Hilda Phoebe Hudson >>> >>> "I would say with those who say ‘God is Love’, God is Love. But deep >>> down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is Truth above >>> all. If it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest >>> description of God, I have come to the conclusion that God is Truth. Two >>> years ago I went a step further and said that Truth is God. You will see >>> the fine distinction between the two statements, ‘God is Truth’ and ‘Truth >>> is God’. I came to that conclusion after a continuous and relentless >>> search after truth which began fifty years ago." -- Gandhi >>> >>> >>> And how are all your examples different than "God is money" or "God is >>> power" or "God is a bearded dude in the clouds" They are just instances of >>> a simple formula: "I think X is really important and deserving of your >>> adulation. So God is X" >>> >> >> No, they provide (potentially verifiable) answers to the question of >> what exists beyond the physical reality and why it exists at all (assuming >> it does and is not an illusion of consciousness), particularly those God >> definitions which you cut from your reply. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Some people say "God is love", Bruno says "God is unprovable truths.", >>>> Paul Tillich said "God is whatever you value most." But just because >>>> somebody says "Unicorns are rhinocereses" doesn't mean I have to start >>>> believing unicorns exist, or that that when I say unicorns don't exist I'm >>>> denying the existence of rhinocereses. >>>> >>> >>> Do you believe in a source of reality beyond the apparent physical >>> reality we find ourselves in now? >>> >>> >>> No. I don't "believe IN" anything. I entertain hypotheses. >>> >>> >> So then you're merely entertaining the hypothesis that no theistic God >> exists, rather than being a true atheist who would "believe IN" "no >> theistic god exists" >> >> >> I don't believe any theistic God exists - and so I'm an a-theist. >> >> > Having no beliefs is agnostic. > > > No, an agnostic not only doesn't know, but thinks it's impossible to know, > per #5 below. > I don't see how uncertainty implies impossibility. If I'm uncertain it will rain tomorrow, this doesn't imply impossibility of rain for tomorrow. PGC -- 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.
