On 15 Jan 2015, at 00:45, meekerdb 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.
Those are "or", and that meaning of agnostic is technical, and put out
of its context. That is because atheists want to include the
agnostics. I comply and distinguish the strong atheist (non agnostic)
from the weak atheism (can be agnostic). But I point that the
difference between string and weak atheism is far bigger tha between
string atheism and christianism (which for a mathematician is just
about the same main belief in Aristotle conception of reality).
By allowing agnostic to be a form of atheism leads to trivializing the
term, and is very misleading on the meaning of strong atheism.
Better to accept that science = agnosticism in all direction, be it
matter, god, equality between matter and god, or difference between
matter and god. We start from scratch using some general assumptions.
The interesting question is not god exists or not. the interesting
question is "is the physical universe the reality, or is it an aspect
or mode of a deeper/simpler reality".
Bruno
Brent
adjective
4.
of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or
beliefs.
5.
asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6.
holding neither of two opposing positions:
If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear
thatyour decisions to implement one solution or another should be
drivenby need.
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 everything-
[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.
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/d/optout.
