On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> The question is not if God exists or not. But if >> God = the physical universe? >> God = a mathematical structure? Which one? >> God = a dream by a universal machine? >> God = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines? >> God = the one who lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams? >> God = the one who plays hide and seek with Itself? >> God = the universal person? >> God = the universal person completions? (if that exists) >> God = Allah? >> God = Jesus? >> God = Krishna? >> God = my tax collector? >> God = the one who made the cat in its own image, and then made the humans >> to gives the vat the modern comfort, with TV nad bag of catnip? >> etc. >> > > >> If you're correct about that, and I think you are, and it could mean a > tax collector or the mathematical universe or anything in between then the > word "God" has exactly ZERO information content and writing about "God" > accomplishes nothing except cause excessive wear and tear on the O D and G > keys on your computer. > And yet some people still insist on using the word. Go figure. > > > > That would be the case if God was defined by the disjunction above. > You wrote that disjunction not me. > But God was defined by "roots of the physical, psychological and spiritual reality". That certainly is NOT the definition of God used by people who carve statues, or perform sacrifices or say prayers or built churches or mosques or temples. I very much doubt that the person who carved the Venus of Willendorf in 30000 BC or the Venus of Hohle Fels in 40000 BC was thinking about the "roots of the physical, psychological and spiritual reality"; I believe all these people were thinking about a *PERSON* who is vastly more powerful than themselves who can get things done for them it you ask that *PERSON* in just the right way. And I still don't understand what you mean by "spiritual reality" and "physical reality" and the examples you gave don't have any logical consistency as far as I can tell. It is not clear if mathematics is the root of physics or physics is the root of mathematics. I know for a fact that the idea of the sun exists and I can tell you lots of specific things about the idea of the sun, and use those ideas to generate yet more ideas about the sun, that seems pretty down to earth concrete and physical to me. All I know about is ideas and ideas are information and I would say that information is physical, but you would call it abstract and non-physical, in contrast I can say virtually nothing about the sun itself but you would say that was physical and non-abstract. John K Clark l <everything-list@googlegroups.com> -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
