God or not?

All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and tha

God or not?

All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and tha

Re: God or not?

2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen > All, > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise > everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. > > If you need a God there is only one

Re: God or not?

On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about dif

Re: God or not?

2013/12/23 meekerdb > On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen > >> All, >> >> The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving >> some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise >> everyone is talking about diff

Re: God or not?

On 12/23/2013 11:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first g

Re: God or not?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > All, > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise > everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. > > I agre

Re: God or not?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a Go

Re: God or not?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:43, meekerdb wrote: On 12/23/2013 11:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 meekerdb On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is m

Re: God or not?

Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exist. Very simple logic... I'm surprised you would disag

Re: God or not?

That makes it ill defined and useless... As reality is not well defined, so is god then... also, why use "god" instead of reality, the word reality is enough. Quentin 2013/12/24 Edgar L. Owen > Bruno, > > No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply > a definitio

Re: God or not?

Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of reality is not known. The definition itself is tight, exact

Re: God or not?

On 24 Dec 2013, at 14:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exis

Re: God or not?

On Dec 24, 2013, at 7:33 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of

Re: God or not?

Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. Thus since it does exis

Re: God or not?

- From: Edgar L. Owen To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Dec 24, 2013 11:12 am Subject: Re: God or not? Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it woul

Re: God or not?

On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompl

Re: God or not?

On 12/24/2013 5:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of reality is not

Re: God or not?

How does defining God as the Universe get us anywhere? Why not just call the Universe the Universe? PS What's all this dissing of Zues and Odin? "Thor promised to rid the world of frost giants. I don't see any frost giants..." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: God or not?

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegrou

Re: God or not?

ng-list > Sent: 24-Dec-2013 13:16:11 + > Subject: God or not? > > All, > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some > definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone > is > talking about different thin

Re: God or not?

gt;> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Edgar Owen >> To: everything-list >> Sent: 24-Dec-2013 13:16:11 + >> Subject: God or not? >> >> All, >> >> The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first givi

Re: God or not?

On 23 December 2013 09:10, Edgar Owen wrote: > All, > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise > everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. > The concept of G

Re: God or not?

On 22 Dec 2013, at 21:10, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God t

Re: God or not?

you just come out and say so? :-D -Original Message- From: Edgar Owen To: everything-list Sent: 24-Dec-2013 13:16:11 + Subject: God or not? All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Othe

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 09:18, LizR wrote: On 23 December 2013 09:10, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing

Re: God or not?

ys home in, the Existential. Sincerely, Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Dec 24, 2013 11:12 am Subject: Re: God or not? Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for whic

Re: God or not?

limburger ;-) Joyes Noel, to all, (Tho' tis' not my faith). Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:14 am Subject: Re: God or not? On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:24, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: My iteration is simply this: H

Re: God or not?

Bruno, There simply is no physical universe. The universe is information being computed in OE only. Physical universes are interpretations of the actual information universe in organismic minds. That is their only reality. They are mental models or simulations of the actual information reality,

Re: God or not?

Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... Edgar On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Re: God or not?

Why and How does all exist? Samiya On 25-Dec-2013, at 8:21 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: > Bruno, and Samiya, > > Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the > universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia > ago. The universe by definit

Re: God or not?

but it light be necessary. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:14 am Subject: Re: God or not? On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:24, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: My iteration is simply this: How does this help our species, how might

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 16:15, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, There simply is no physical universe. We might agree, if you use "physical universe" in the Aristotelian sense. The universe is information being computed in OE only. OE? Can you make precise what you mean by information being c

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 16:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... But "what exists" n

Re: God or not?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. > God noun A noise many members of the Everything list still insist on making with their mouth even th

Re: God or not?

On 26 December 2013 04:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, and Samiya, > > Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the > universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from > millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... > > ...and not me

Re: God or not?

I use my fingers. On 26 December 2013 07:26, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving >> some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. >> > > God > noun > > A noise m

Re: God or not?

What is OE? In New Zealand that stands for Overseas Experience when you go off in your gap year to travel. Or is it Owen, Edgar?! :) Again this begs the question of how and where and when are these computations occurring? This implies a time external to the universe, at the very least, computation

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 19:26, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. God noun A noise many members of the Everything lis

Re: God or not?

The Tao that can be named... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email t

Re: God or not?

On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:51, LizR wrote: The Tao that can be named... ... is NOT the Tao. Indeed. this is common with most notion of (unique) God, despite most institutionalized religion fall in the trap. The comp "religion" has this more in common with taoism. On the divine truth, the wi

Re: God or not?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. > So God is "my dog just took a dump". > "God" is not that much a bad name. > It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and wants to use language honestly. Never mind what y

Re: God or not?

On 29 Dec 2013, at 17:14, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. So God is "my dog just took a dump". Oh! I hope your dog is OK. > "God" is not that much a bad name. It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely w

Re: God or not?

On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. I know what "truth" means as an attribute of a sentence. But I don't know what "Truth" means? The set of all true sentences

Re: God or not?

On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. I know what "truth" means as an attribute of a sentence. But I don't know what "Truth" means? The set of al