RE: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses,or a combinati on of the above
I wrote: >> As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of "god."<< Carrol: > The presumption is always that X doesn't exist; hence the absence of > convincing arguments against the existence of X is in no way evidence > that X exists. that's why my working hypothesis -- the one I put into practice in my life -- is that there's no god (or goddess) even though I'm an agnostic. Of course, when I get up to heaven Shiva will send me back as a cockroach. which of course means that I (and my fellow roaches) will inherit the earth. JD
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
I too am a Unitarian Universalist, and my answer is that we believe in God, but we refuse to speculate in detail on what She's like. This invariably draws an interesting reaction whenever I say it. Scott Gassler At 23:45 22/02/02, you wrote: >>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>I was raised as a Unitarian, a "faith" that believes that there exists at >>most one god (and argues about whether or not to capitalize). So my >>question: is why believe in the existence or non-existence of "god"?[*] why >>not simply express ignorance on this question? > >Why not indeed! One of the things I find most annoying about religion is >each faith's insistence: (a) that G/god is ultimately unknowable, and (b) >that it, as a particular faith, knows perfectly well what G/god is and what >G/god wants. So much avoidable agony has resulted throughout history >because of these preposterous claims to certain knowledge of a subject that >is, by definition, beyond understanding. > >Carl > >_ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > >
Re: Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods,goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
Ian Murray wrote: > > - Original Message - >ultimate guarantor of the > intelligibility/knowability of the world. Why would one want such a guarantor? Carrol
Re: RE: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
How many, and/or what percentage of economists are in the last category -- i. e. "don't know that it's an assumption"? My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the percentage is somewhat higher than 99. Gene Coyle "Devine, James" wrote: > > Actually, neoclassical general equilibrium economists have proved > > that God exists. The tatonnement auctioneer! All knowing, > > capable of millions of decisions instantaniously, does not need to > > be paid to exist, and able to determine the future in perpetuity. > > Sounds like God to me. > > strictly speaking, these folks are like good theologians: they assume that > God exists. The stupid ones don't know that it's an assumption. > Jim Devine
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
- Original Message - From: "Carl Remick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23090] Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above > >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I was raised as a Unitarian, a "faith" that believes that there exists at > >most one god (and argues about whether or not to capitalize). So my > >question: is why believe in the existence or non-existence of "god"?[*] why > >not simply express ignorance on this question? > > Why not indeed! One of the things I find most annoying about religion is > each faith's insistence: (a) that G/god is ultimately unknowable, and (b) > that it, as a particular faith, knows perfectly well what G/god is and what > G/god wants. So much avoidable agony has resulted throughout history > because of these preposterous claims to certain knowledge of a subject that > is, by definition, beyond understanding. > > Carl > === Lest we forget, science inherited this notion and has gotten one hell of a lot mileage out of it. G/god as ultimate guarantor of the intelligibility/knowability of the world. Schrodinger, Einstein, Whitehead, Cantor and Godel made the issues involved over the signifier damn complicated . Ian
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
Are you saying that Enron was in the God marketing biz? Paul Phillips wrote: > Actually, neoclassical general equilibrium economists have proved > that God exists. The tatonnement auctioneer! All knowing, > capable of millions of decisions instantaniously, does not need to > be paid to exist, and able to determine the future in perpetuity. > Sounds like God to me. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
> Actually, neoclassical general equilibrium economists have proved > that God exists. The tatonnement auctioneer! All knowing, > capable of millions of decisions instantaniously, does not need to > be paid to exist, and able to determine the future in perpetuity. > Sounds like God to me. strictly speaking, these folks are like good theologians: they assume that God exists. The stupid ones don't know that it's an assumption. Jim Devine
