tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1700824336397152332..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Is God Toxicity Itself?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31003432717698091402016-12-26T12:54:02.305-08:002016-12-26T12:54:02.305-08:00I'm trying to help you work out your idea....
...I'm trying to help you work out your idea....<br /><br />If we say rational thought should be based on obvious axioms, like 2+2=4, what's that mean? The world is such that it only makes sense if there's such a thing as a '2', & the sum of a pair of them is 4 ? Even tho we can't really say what a '2' or a '4' really are? <br /><br />How different is that than your 'ground of being' sort of arguments? <br /><br />PS (... This is a bit tangential but.... Imo you need an "unground of being" argument too, btw. To cover stuff like apophatism, chaos in physics, and the historical fact that the most intense forms of mysticism aren't always "social-friendly and accessible as you and Hood characterize, but often have pissed off the powers of the state, & gotten practioners persecuted or even lit on fire. <br /><br />Tillich himself also invokes that Schelling-like "unground" concept at times, doesn't he? )<br /><br />Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28824595198513604852016-12-22T06:46:03.824-08:002016-12-22T06:46:03.824-08:00seePaul Tillich and The personal God where i show ...see<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2011/03/paul-tillich-and-personal-god-was.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Paul Tillich and The personal God</b></a> where i show how I depart from Paul Tillich,k my theological hero over the issue of God and consciousness.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16382034304367770562016-12-22T06:40:09.902-08:002016-12-22T06:40:09.902-08:00You do say God is analogous to mind is some ways, ...You do say God is analogous to mind is some ways, which perhaps indicates conscious/sentient, but is sufficiently vague that it does not really say anything. In what ways is God analogous to mind? I am guessing that residing in a physical, organic brain is not one?<br /><br />How does this relate to Christian belief? It seems far closer to pandeism than Christianity.<br /><br /><b>This article is about Schweitzer's view. I don;t think he did see god as conscious,I do so I stuck that in about mind, But I he did not because we a 19th century liberal,so it really wasn't germane to the article.<br /><br />I have written elsewhere about God and consciousness, see the stand alone pages under God, also science were i talk about the brain/mind issue.,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42964926975000862222016-12-22T00:40:38.106-08:002016-12-22T00:40:38.106-08:00A few comments...
A see nothing there to indicate...A few comments...<br /><br />A see nothing there to indicate that God is conscious/sentient. I would say that that is a very necessary part of being God, so I find that a strange omission.<br /><br />You do say God is analogous to mind is some ways, which perhaps indicates conscious/sentient, but is sufficiently vague that it does not really say anything. In what ways is God analogous to mind? I am guessing that residing in a physical, organic brain is not one?<br /><br />How does this relate to Christian belief? It seems far closer to pandeism than Christianity.<br /><br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48565144320492243222016-12-21T20:44:38.210-08:002016-12-21T20:44:38.210-08:00that's not his only problem. shooting his mout...that's not his only problem. shooting his mouth off when he doesn't know what he;s talking abouit is also high up on the list,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9555287148004676082016-12-21T17:46:17.864-08:002016-12-21T17:46:17.864-08:00There's a lot there that you're working wi...There's a lot there that you're working with....<br /><br />I think "depth" could be described in terms of something irreducible, unanalyzable? Something has "depth," to the exact extent it can't be broken down into parts and structures? But that's problematic to show, to "prove" in reductionist terms, bacause that's precisely asking for "depth" to be "broken down"<br /><br />bikerjohn, however, has a similar prob, namely the comprehensible, systematizable CAN'T be based in itself, as that would be question begging, so comprehension, if it has any universal validity, HAS TO be based on something incomprehensible.....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.com