Just to be clear, I was not equating "God" and "the knowable
fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything". I was just noting that my
statements work with either one.
On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor <daddycay....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 7:38 am, "John Mikes" <jami....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom, please see after your quoted text.
> > John M
>
> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor <daddycay....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> > > I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
> > > beautiful.
> > > And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
> > > why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if
> > > they think God is about functionality.
>
> > > Tom
> > > -------------------------------------
>
> > JM:
> > And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) beauty without
> > function(ality)?
> > *
>
> This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the
> functionality word "how", "how" would I sense/acknowledge
> (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like
> beauty). I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical. (I
> think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.) But this does
> not imply that beauty is not primary. (And by the way I am not saying
> that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.)
>
> > You have all the right to be a theist and formulate your 'theos' anyway you
> > wish for yourself. IMO people 'not believeing in God' do not "think" that
> > this nonexisting concept is about anything. It "IS" not.
> > Just trying to read you within my logic. (Common sense that is).
> > Greetings
> > John M
>
> Let me rephrase my statement for two different hypothetical cases:
>
> 1. If God does not exist, this does not imply that concepts of God do
> not exist, but that they are just incorrect (all of them in this
> case). So when I say, "I don't blame people for not believing in God
> if they think God is about functionality," the words "they think" in
> this case would refer to a concept of God that they have, and what I
> meant in this case was that I don't blame them for not giving a mental
> assent to those concepts of God.
>
> 2. If God does exist, but someone's concept of God is different from
> the actual God, then similarly I don't blame them for not giving a
> mental assent to those wrong concepts of God. If God does exist, then
> God is more than a concept. So in that case, in fact believing in God
> would amount to something far more and far different from a mental
> assent to a concept of God.
>
> You can substitute for the word "God", in all of the above, the words
> "the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything" and it will
> also apply.
>
> So what I was getting at is this. I think that a concept of God (or
> the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything) that is based
> fundamentally on functionality is indeed a very unappealing (should I
> dare say un-beautiful?) concept of God (or the knowable fundamental
> Truth/Essence of Everything). In fact, it seems to fly in the face of
> Occam's Razor. Functionality is a very complex thing. Occam's Razor
> is about the fact that beauty/elegance/simplicity seems to be at the
> core of the truth about things.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 11 2008 - 03:26:14 PDT