On 3/3/2018 1:47 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/28/2018 3:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
So what do you find more convincing: An axiomatic proof that God exists,
e.g. St Anslem's or Goedel's. or The mere empirical absence of evidence.
In these proves, God = Totality / Ultimate Reality / The Whole
Shebang. They don't mention commandments, or talking snakes or burning
bushes. I think you are proposing a false equivalence.
No, you are inserting one. St Anselm proves that perfect being/agent
exists. He didn't claim to prove any other mythology. So the question
stands: Who ya gonna believe? the axiomatic proof or your lyin' eyes?
I find St. Anselm's proof meaningless, because perfection is a human
concept, i.e. it is relative to our evolutionary niche and
circumstances. The perfect shot for the hunter is not the perfect shot
for the prey. Ok, so let's say that reality as a whole counts as the
perfect being. Perhaps. Could it be any other way that would be worse?
I meant "that would be better", of course.
Well I have a friend whose 12yr old daughter died of leukemia in great
pain. I think it could be better.
Brent
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
