James Devine wrote:
On 3/9/07, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... Thus for me a proof of the existence of a god
would have to be grounded in the premise that there was no god.
that sounds like circular reasoning.
Actually, this is exactly the famous "ontological proof" propounded
by Anselm: that when "the fool sayeth in his heart that there is no
god" he is being self-contradictory because the concept *god*
(included in the statement "there is no god") includes *existence*
as an attribute of that conceptual object.
and
Some people (not including me), have had personal revelations. They
would say that it's clear that "god" exists. Can we say without a
doubt that they're totally deluded?
Their experiences were real, and based on some not-understood psychic
reality, so they were not *totally* deluded. But since everything
"revealed" was a subjective phenomenon contradicted by a wide
range of other equally authoritative "revelations," the use of the
term "god" to denote an objective content to the "revelation" is
indeed delusory.
Shane Mage
"This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is
and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out
in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30
