On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:56, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you
define it... then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious).. but
you're not agnostic either, you're what is called a believer...
OK lets redefine the word as follows: "God is anything that exists
and anything that exists is God". Then I could shout from the
rooftops "I John K Clark am a believer in God".
The only trouble is that's not science and it's not even philosophy,
it's just a very very silly word game.
No doubt about this!
The idea that each thing is god is pantheism, and is indeed not
interesting, especially if the fundamental ontology is not among the
carts on the table.
The idea that the set of everything is God is already more interesting
but again, without managing the "things" it leads quickly to
contradiction and problems. Both Plotinus and Cantor are aware of the
theological difficulties here, which is related to the set theoretical
difficulties, although the theological one run deeper, as should be
expected.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
