Fairy tales for adults

Jochen Schroeder jschrod at uni-muenster.de
Thu Feb 13 02:16:14 PST 2003

Am Don, 2003-02-13 um 06.30 schrieb Steve Bougerolle:
> On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 03:49, Björn Lindberg wrote:


> > I have had to reject each and every definition of (one or several)
> > god(s) so far on the basis of science. I cannot, of course, rule out
> > that someone at some point would present a definition that I could
> > agree with. (Although I suspect that such a definition would be
> > meningless, and thus of no interest to me.)
> I agree with you that it would be meaningless.  How can you define
> something beyond your experience?

This argument is quite old and has been proven wrong. Descartes used it
for his prove of god. I can define something beyond my experience by
simple deduction. Take infinity for example, infinity is clearly beyond
my experience, I assume it is beyond the experinece of us all, I can
still define infinity simple by stating the principle, you just add a
constant bit to something and continue doing this. Now I have defined

> But you CAN deal with god in symbolic form, and that can be very
> profitable.  All our thinking is really symbolic anyway; we just don't
> often realize it or want to see it.
> -- 
> Steve Bougerolle
> Creek & Cowley Consulting
> http://www.creek-and-cowley.com

What I realy don't understand about religion, and especially about the
ethics in religion, is: How do you judge which parts of the e.g. bible
to take and which ones not. Take you shall not kill for example, but
there's also an eye for an eye, and many accounts of heros who
slaughtered their enemies with wives children... and they all did it for
god(take David for example). So how do you know which rules to follow? 

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list