On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the
empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a beginning, but a
sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis
enough. As Kronecker said, "Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist
Menschenwerk." At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who
rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily use "The One" or aperion or quintessence
other theologically neutral terms.
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is such evidence
that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - "Why is there something
rather than nothing?" It just changes it to "Why is there a creator?"
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever satisfies its existence
predicate is what exists.
Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and
incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
--- Ambrose Bierce
--
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.
