Re: virus: RE: Future of Man

Dan Henry (
Sat, 06 Apr 1996 16:52:07 +0500

At 06:25 PM 3/29/96 -0600, John A wrote:

>I do not believe that god is a spritual entity. When I use the term
>"god", I mean it in the most abstract way. I believe that humans can
>understand the workings of god just as we understand chemical processes
>and laws of physics.(Which I ultimately would describe as the "god" of
>the universe) What I acknowledge as "god" is completely different than
>that of any spiritual or religious viewpoint that I am aware of. God is
>the ultimate statement or Theory of Everything that encompasses all
>physical goings on. If no such theory is possible, (what do you think?)
>then no god exists, at least by my definition.

I like this, but prefer something a little more minimalist (which also
eliminates the concern you expressed about there being no god if no Theory
of Everything is possible):

god is the source of all natural phenomena

This definition is from Dr. A. J. Galambos, Free Enterprise Institute, and
its simplicity appeals to me greatly. I'd be interested to hear what others
think of it.

James Martin refered you to the philosophy of "The Way" (that can not be
described) or the Tao of ancient Chinese philosophy. I learned back in
symbolic logic that "if P and -P, then Q." That is, if you have two
contradictory propositions, then you can prove any other proposition. I've
always felt that eastern philosophies can be used to prove anything for
exactly this reason. We have a proliferation of people claiming that
ancient eastern philosophies had a deep understanding of the world (at least
that's what's presented to westerners in books like Capra's "The Tao of
Physics," and others of that ilk). I'm skeptical.