|
asaris,
quick point because i'm being a jackass: i'd pick a different metaphor than square/circle. i believe that a complex variable transformation will allow you to map a square onto a circle, and vice versa. sort of like the (fuck can't remember the name) maps that "accurately" depict the spherical earth on a 2-D map. planar projection, perhaps?
quick questions: can i understand that "god exists in all possible worlds" points to all worlds of perception, in a subjective sense, and not to all possible worlds in a physics-based multi-verse sense?
do you believe, and/or are you defending the concept of god/God as a signifier of that which is beyond comprehension - an abstract quantity of mystical proportions that explains events counter to any "scientific" inquiry; or "God" who did all things in the Bible...or perhaps something in-between.
in essence, i see no point in arguing possibility. God is possible. no questions asked. God is possible.
when you turn to probability, i see no reason why God is necessary. Other than as a signifier for knowledge of a state of perfection we shall never ascertain, i can see no reason to postulate a personified deity.
i see all gods as (potentially) outdated sociological constructs, signifying man's search for deeper truth. i have no problem with this pursuit; in fact, in encourage it. i just don't see the need to fall back on these constructs. furthermore, when one adheres to these particular constructs, one would seemingly also be tied to other aspects of that God's teachings, which have clearly become outdated. so, the intelligent adherent must become metaphorical in his/her approach. fine. so why not go metaphorical all the way?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|