On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe it should be "Logic" (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy) > >> 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. > Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact - which of course it may be. -- 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.
