Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 22 Jan 2017, at 02:33, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​In Plato-like theology​ [blah blah blah]​ ​Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. ​ That attitude is the one that the radicals and the

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 22 Jan 2017, at 04:20, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics. It's Aristotle and Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as compatible with

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 22 Jan 2017, at 03:05, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote: ​ I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke ​that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two thousand years. And ​NOTHING comes from Greek

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 21 Jan 2017, at 01:16, Brent Meeker wrote: The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding. The polynomials depend on X and Nu. So what is an X and Nu for which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu? The specific encoding is given by the polynomial

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sun., 22 Jan. 2017 at 12:33 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > ​> ​ > In Plato-like theology > ​ [blah blah blah]​ > > > ​ > > It's unreasonable to call Plato an "imbecile". Have you read any of his >

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​ > You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics. It's Aristotle and Plato's > "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as > compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early Church. >

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote: ​ I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke ​that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two thousand years. And ​*NOTHING* comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either for that

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > In Plato-like theology > ​ [blah blah blah]​ > ​Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. ​ ​> ​ > It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological > assumption of the

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding. The polynomials depend on X and Nu. So what is an X and Nu for which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu? Brent P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their referents exist: "The Mad Hatter is

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive- Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its exoistence, and a materialist assumes that such a

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

t; Sent: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 7:31 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: ​> ​ I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe hadbeen sent to a

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:04, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe. ​That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator" is so large it becomes

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe had been sent to a star. And in any case the observable universe is very much bigger than our galaxy. Brent On 1/18/2017 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ ​Betters ​ ​ pace

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe. > ​That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator" is so large it becomes meaningless. Your God does not ​need to be a person,

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​Betters >> ​ ​ >> pace telescopes >> ​ would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it >> would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. ​ >> > > ​> ​ > Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of Aliens in > far away

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 17 Jan 2017, at 00:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Aristotle God = Matter Plato God = something else People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle theology for granted. I have a dream that one

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Aristotle God = Matter > Plato God = something else People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle > theology for granted. I have a dream that one ​day ​ ​you will write an entire post

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 16, 2017 9:33 am Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On 16 Jan 2017, at 03:17, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegr

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

hing-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 9:17 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 16 Jan 2017, at 03:17, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: ​> ​Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super intelligent fellow, It takes more than being smarter that a ​human

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 16 Jan 2017, at 00:10, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever. ​That's exactly the problem. You use the word

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 1/15/2017 6:17 PM, John Clark wrote: ​If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't ​heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist. Or they are very far away on the scale of the duration of high-tech civilization times the speed of light. There's a

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of > super intelligent fellow, > It takes more than being smarter that a ​human to be God, you've got to be omnipotent and

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

e- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 6:11 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: ​> ​ I use "

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest > follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever. > ​That's exactly the problem. Y ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 14 Jan 2017, at 18:10, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" It is not so much a question of knowing, than sharing some definitions, and then reason, or read reasoning made by others. I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Bruno, You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" and that other one: our "subconscious". At least you say so about "HER". Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer' to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has no meaning). We talk in human

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12 Jan 2017, at 02:41, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​​There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> ​There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, >> cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. >> Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing ​​>​And ​I define a glodlyrapicul by a ​dragon. Did my definition

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> ​> ​ >>> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes >>> the glodlyrapiculs existing >> >> >> ​ >> ​>​ >> And ​ >> I define a glodlyrapicul by a >> ​dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 10 Jan 2017, at 04:12, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>A definition can't make something exist!​ ​> ​Wrong. ​Are you being serious?​ ​> ​Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> >> A definition can't make something exist!​ > > > ​> ​ > Wrong. > ​Are you being serious?​ > ​> ​ > Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes > the glodlyrapiculs existing ​And ​ I define a

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 08 Jan 2017, at 03:16, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics​ ​is not involved somewhere along the line ? ​> ​because with the standard definition

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 07 Jan 2017, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/7/2017 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ ​>>​ It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of >> physics >> ​ ​ >> is not involved somewhere along the line ? > > > ​> ​ > because with the standard definition of computation, they exist >

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 1/7/2017 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal >wrote: ​ ​>>​ It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>>​It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 1/6/2017 5:42 PM, John Clark wrote: ​How long do you suppose the ​ Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob ​.​ ​"​ ​ ​?​ ​ I would estimate about .9 seconds. No, that's how long the Pope would

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>>​ >> It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an >> explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it >> will say something like "take this number and place it

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 04 Jan 2017, at 18:59, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ ​>> ​I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong. ​> ​because those

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing >> out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong. > > > ​> ​ > because those textbook explain what is a computation,

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 03 Jan 2017, at 21:52, John Clark wrote: ​I agree, and yet bizarrely whenever I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong. because those textbook explain what is a computation, without

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>> ​ >> ​I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists >> who ever lived. Full stop. ​ > > > ​> ​ > It was wrong, > ​Aristotle's physics was more than just wrong, it was stupid, and could have

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 03 Jan 2017, at 02:01, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​The​ ​primary cause​ may be attached to the word "God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, ​so is "a being who can think". ​> ​That is exactly what

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> The >> ​ ​ >> primary cause >> ​ may be attached to the word "God", but we both know that is not the >> only attachment, ​so is "a being who can think". >> > > ​> ​ > That is exactly what the greeks put in

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:36, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote: I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. You just have to ask God what she is.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote: I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. *You just have to ask God what she is. Then she will answer. But it may take two years to

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Brent I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. 1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?) 1.B a Force - a Complexity - a System (etc.) or the like? 1,C Did He/She/It

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

glegroups.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:36 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: ​> ​ My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal mod

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 10:39 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ John, isn't there a Buddhist

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > ​> ​ > John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands > in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? > ​I don't know about the Buddha but I do know ​ Jack Handy

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

16 3:36 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: ​> ​ My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived > from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a > quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical >

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal >wrote: ​>> ​ Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And speaking of a ​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word​​ [God]​.​ ​> ​But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And speaking of a ​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 12:06 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

ject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: > On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: >> >> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my >> subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsc

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the >> word >> ​ >> ​ [God]​ >> .​ >> > > ​> ​ > But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve. > ​Because the meaning

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And speaking of a ​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian? The first one

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/26/2016 2:24 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus > wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/26/2016 12:06 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I talk to

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:06, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I talk

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 25 Dec 2016, at 03:07, John Clark wrote: First I want to say ​Merry Newton​'s birthday! On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus > wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal >> wrote: >> >> ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious. Then my subconscious talks

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped. ​>

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

ith your unconscious. -Original Message- From: Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Cc: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> Sent: Sun, Dec 25, 2016 3:40 am Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God 2016-

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped. ​> ​That's the Christian use ​ ​. Why do atheists insist so