On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an > atheist. I realized that atheists believe to much in the christian God, > paradoxically enough. > > > By your logic one cannot disbelieve in anything because to do so you have > to conceive of what it is your are failing to believe (otherwise you don't > know what you're talking about); > > > > Well, yes. Of course you have to be able to conceive of what you are going > to make a choice to believe in or not! Implying that you "have the right" > to disbelieve in something you cannot conceive of is the height of > sophistry. You are merely testifying to the limitation of your own, or of > human imagination but that is precisely the terrain we are treading here: > the interface of human ignorance with what is really real. > > Of course the human imagination cannot conceive of God the way God is. > This is because WE ARE ALL THE EYES AND EARS OF GOD. The eye cannot see > itself. The hammer cannot hit itself. It can only infer it's true nature > using the imagination and HOPE that the description adopted is exact. It > never is. We cannot know what or who we are. It's a pretty miserable state > of affairs, particularly if you are a hard-nosed scientist, I gather. > > > > and therefore you believe in it because you conceive it. > > Brent > > > > Not BECAUSE you conceive it but because you find it ATTRACTIVE to believe > in it (caps for italics, not shouting) having successfully conceived it. > Nobody adopts a definition of God that they hate. You cannot find something > attractive or unattractive if you cannot conceive of it, obviously. > > "Seeing is believing" the saying goes. > > Actually, it's the reverse. "Believing is seeing" which is "the reversal" > of comp. There is a knower to start with. That's God or the One. What comes > next is what the knower knows. That's what we call "the universe". This is > the fracturing of the One into all the numbers that follow zero I don't > know what my number is but I doubt I could tattoo it on my wrist. > > Like Russell, I tend to feel (or believe, if you prefer) that this One or > what the physicalists call "the beginning" also includes observers. I can > conceive of the possibility that observers were present right from the > start, > Can you kindly elaborate on the above statement? It reads similar to something I've been wondering about but haven't been able to understand. Samiya > but I disbelieve that there WAS a beginning because that involves time > which is already a state of human belief. > > > K > > -- > 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.
