From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 11:58:13 MST
athe nonrex wrote:
> but really, you said,
> "I know of no "god" notion that works with what we know to be true about the Universe around us."
>
> but the qaballa (sp?) suggests that god is an entity that lives outside
> of time, and therefore, isn't within this universe, per se.
> not that this is relevent to anything, i just thought i'd offer it as
> a response to your quote.
>
This is a good example. To live "outside" of time would violate much of what we know to be true of physics. Anything outside of
the Universe is entirely irrelevant and moot - as there is no way to detect anything that lies outside of the Universe, and it is
impossible for anything outside the Universe to interact within this Universe without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Then you can always take the route that Daniel Dennet deals with at the beginning of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". I can't remember
it word for word, but the basic argument goes "If your god concept can defy logic and physics - then I say to you that god is the
tuna sandwich I am eating, prove it is not". Reason has to come into the discussion somewhere, or the notion is just silly and
forever pointless to discuss. Are you going to permit your ability to reason function, or will you conveniently let that ability
sink away so that you can retain a god notion? That is why I say that you must, somewhere, want there to be a god - that or you
want to give up reason.
>
> question: why do you think i would be afraid to accept the notion
> that god is not real? i actually don't believe that there is a god,
> or gods, but the possibility still remains. i was only arguing aginst
> what you offered to me. (by the way, that reminds me, wasn't this
> thread *supposed* to be about the nature of existance in general,
> instead of the existance of god(s)? i think so, but what do i know, i
> only started it... =%|
You are welcome to go back in the threads and see - but I think this is about existence. The qaballa, by what you said, occupies
no time - therfore it does not exist other than as a concept. But you said that you weren't even sure if time existed. So,
existence is predicated occupying time. But time might not itself exist - I can see your confusion.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT