Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf)
I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in'
and want to redirect my previous post.
Please: put "GOD" into the first part of my post, instead of "BEAUTY"
- then think it over again with your similarly changed reply.
BTW: I am not an atheist: an atheist requires for a denial (at least your
'concept' of) 'a' God what I do not find reasonable for/in my thinking.
So I cannot deny it. I follow "MY" reason in "MY" common sense. -
Occam: I know some on this list will disagree, but in my view (totality view
unlimitedly interrelated and intereffective) is beyond the capability of our
present mental capacity. So human thinking/logic cuts domains upon topic,
function, into boundaries of exercised interest and observation, what I call
'reductionistic ways (cf: conventional scinences etc.) to make it simpler. I
call such limited domains "models" (Robert Rosen). These are still too
complex for easy handling, so Occam limited them even the further, cutting
off the connotations not essential for the actual view. Accordingly (I
consider) Occam's razor-cut as an increase in the reductionist view of the
models. The new way of thinking I *seek* goes the opposite way. BTW the
effects reaching an item in a model are NOT restricted to the
model-boundaries which causes problems in the model-based sciences.
JM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Tom Caylor <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> 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 - 10:49:01 PDT