Auke, List: AvB: I will not respond to the content of your words since my aim was not to start a discussion about religion.
Understood, although I consider the subject matter of my previous post to be metaphysics rather than religion. AvB: By the way, I like this one most: I will simply point out that Peirce is not identifying those "immensely superior" beings with God, since they would still be *finite*; he is stating that the being of God would not rule out the possibility of such beings. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:39 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon Alan, > > Thanks for your response. I will not respond to the content of your words > since my aim was not to start a discussion about religion. In general I > skip mails on the list on that subject. But by our communication on > semiotics being in a cul-de-sac kind of state I started wondering if the > cause could reside here. With our respective views on the final > interpretant I think it does. > > By the way, I like this one most: > > This statement excludes a finite god; although the Being of God would > not, as far as I see, necessarily exclude that of a whole race of beings > immensely superior to ourselves, such, for example, that the whole visible > universe might be no more than a nucleolus in a single cell of the body of > one of them. > > Best, > > Auke >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
