in: PG; PG > 2010-04-01;
Doesn't rule out an all-powerful and malevolent god, of course.
The Noriega piece had a somewhat unexpected ending, I thought.
Agreed on both comments. I suppose an all-powerful and malevolent god does make more sense than the populer version, quite a lot more sense, though in my opinon the probability of either is zero.
But an APMG would explain a lot of things.
But if you really think about it, an APMG could do so much "better". Probablity must be zero.
If I were to believe in a god, which seems most unlikely, the kind I would believe in would be along the lines of what I think J-J referred to as the mitochondrial theory of god.
Well, sort of the opposite. The god is not the mitochondrion. Though I do call it "mitochondrial theology".
There's a lot of room between an APBG and an APMG. Like an all-powerful god whose only concern is whether we dress like pirates.
One day those people will be right. I suppose that is a version of Pascal's argument.
The suffering in the world argument is a bit hackneyed, as are the ripostes. Or at least they strike me as warmed over as the Ruy Lopez. Not that you shouldn't be familiar with it (them) but no one is advancing the game by covering that ground one more time.
Well, yes, eventually the end will be near. But it's unlikely that the form that the end will take resembles in any way what they are expecting.
The Rapture part seems particularly far-fetched. Is there nothing new in the Ruy Lopez? Sometimes there are surprising revivals in old lines, but I haven't been paying attention.
The god is not the mitochondrion.
In the "theology" one might say that the mitochondria have a theory.
And then you have people who fear that they may beleft behind
This discussion thread is closed.