Tom Cayolor writes:
> > > Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
> > > an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
> > > is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
> > > being there). The existence of the persona
Tom Caylor writes:
> > I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by "machine" you talk
> > about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine.
> > We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see
> > why a present "God" would abandon them. I hope you can har
Le 01-déc.-06, à 20:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Le 01-déc.-06, à 10:24, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno Marchal writes:
>>>
> We can assume that the structural difference makes a difference to
> consciousness but
> not external
Le 02-déc.-06, à 06:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> In addition to spectrum reversal type situations, where no change is
> noted from
> either 3rd or 1st person perspective (and therefore it doesn't really
> matter to anyone:
> as you say, it may be occurring all the time anyway and we wou
Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote :
>
> The existence of a personal God who is not silent answers the questions
> in a way that an impersonal god or reality does not...
I certainly have a methodological problem with such an idea. This is
due to my motivation in the subject. I am searc
Nice try Colin! :-)
and very thought provoking, as are all the contributions of yours which
I have read on various discussion groups.
Here though I think your assumptions are driving your conclusions and
you beg some of the questions you seem to be assuming that you are
answering.
I don't se
Hal Ruhl wrote:
> I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
> not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
>
> The idea is based in the description of objects.
>
> It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
> Alastair Malcolm.
>
> The idea i
Tom Caylor wrote:
> Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
> > not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
> >
> > The idea is based in the description of objects.
> >
> > It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
>
Mark Peaty wrote:
> Nice try Colin! :-)
> and very thought provoking, as are all the contributions of yours which
> I have read on various discussion groups.
>
> Here though I think your assumptions are driving your conclusions and
> you beg some of the questions you seem to be assuming that you
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Tom Cayolor writes:
>
> > > > Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
> > > > an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
> > > > is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
> > > > being
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Tom Caylor writes:
>
> > > I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by "machine" you talk
> > > about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine.
> > > We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see
> > > why a present "God" wo
Tom Caylor wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Tom Cayolor writes:
>>
> Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not
> that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the
> basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who
> is there (as oppose
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> Tom Cayolor writes:
> >>
> > Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not
> > that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the
> > basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the
Tom Caylor wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Tom Caylor wrote:
>>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Cayolor writes:
>>> Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not
>>> that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the
>>> basis for antithesis is reality
Bruno Marchal writes:
> Le 02-déc.-06, à 06:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
> > In addition to spectrum reversal type situations, where no change is
> > noted from
> > either 3rd or 1st person perspective (and therefore it doesn't really
> > matter to anyone:
> > as you say, it may be occ
Tom Caylor writes:
> Mark Peaty wrote:
> > Nice try Colin! :-)
> > and very thought provoking, as are all the contributions of yours which
> > I have read on various discussion groups.
> >
> > Here though I think your assumptions are driving your conclusions and
> > you beg some of the questio
Tom Caylor writes:
> As I've mentioned in my other more recent posts, I'm talking about our
> different beliefs underlying the fact that we live as though there is a
> nature to reality, as though we have personal meaning and significance,
> that there is a why to our existence, not just a how (
Tom Caylor writes:
> > Anyway, I don't see how you could deny you are a machine any more than you
> > could deny a car is a machine. You are made up of tiny little components
> > all working
> > together smoothly, and if something breaks, you break. God could have made
> > us solid
> > like a
Hi Tom
At 11:10 AM 12/4/2006, you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > The idea is presented below and its result appears to be to exclude
> > continuums from universes.
> >
> > Assumptions:
> >
> > 1) There is a list of all possible properties of objects.
> >
>The above object #1 is countable by defin
19 matches
Mail list logo
