Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him? - Page 6

RJT · #51 09-13-2005, 08:56 PM

“I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind.”
Freeman Dyson

I am sure this is obvious, but in case it isn’t, I would just note that Dyson might appear to be saying when we die we will become God. Or that we are already God. New Age-ers,, it is my understanding, think this - that we can become God. I highly doubt that Dyson does.

The important word to not over look is his word “degree”. And this is compatible with “God created Man in His image.”

siegfriedandroy · #52 09-20-2005, 03:38 AM

thats nonsense, and appears to be taken out of some postmodern philosophy book filled with the gibberish of some author who probably couldnt even beat the party 2/4 game.

the claim is not meaningless simply b/c you dont understand what 'god' refers to. we argue all the time about the veracity of many issues we cannot fully comprehend. and yet they are not 'meaningless' arguments.

chezlaw · #53 09-20-2005, 08:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
thats nonsense, and appears to be taken out of some postmodern philosophy book filled with the gibberish of some author who probably couldnt even beat the party 2/4 game.

the claim is not meaningless simply b/c you dont understand what 'god' refers to. we argue all the time about the veracity of many issues we cannot fully comprehend. and yet they are not 'meaningless' arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not obvious that the existence of god is a meaningful question and the doubt is not raised by postmodernist philosophy (as faras I know) but comes from the veins of analytical philosophy.

chez

bluesbassman · #54 09-20-2005, 12:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
thats nonsense, and appears to be taken out of some postmodern philosophy book filled with the gibberish of some author who probably couldnt even beat the party 2/4 game.

the claim is not meaningless simply b/c you dont understand what 'god' refers to. we argue all the time about the veracity of many issues we cannot fully comprehend. and yet they are not 'meaningless' arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it's nonsense, then please precisely define what you mean by "god." Only then can I answer whether I believe such a thing exists, and if not, why.

siegfriedandroy · #55 09-20-2005, 07:42 PM

okay. my mistake if it is not from postmodern thought. it seems precisely the kind of argument such philosophers would make, though.

by 'God', let's use the traditional Christian definition of Him that has been painstakingly elaborated on and specified by great theologians over thousands of years.

'God': an eternal, all powerful being, omnipresent, omniscient, merciful, etc., etc.

Here is a very cursory, succinct definition, yet definitely sufficiently clear in defining some basic attributes of God. You can read the Nicene Creed, etc., or the works of Aquinas/Augustine for much more in depth description. It is clear who the 'God' is that I refer to. Thoughts?