Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness

NMF neil.fournier at
Sat Dec 6 19:08:45 EST 2003

"tactile" should read "tackle"  (sorry).

"NMF" <neil.fournier at> wrote in message
news:S7uAb.17427$yd.2803852 at
> This is such a terrific news group posting.  Especially with such a
> statement like "Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness".  I
> paticularly loved the last post's statement, "Could you tell us what is
> God?"
> I actually looked at a few of the postings.  Definitely we should applaud
> the attempts that each of you undertook for trying to tactile such a
> circular argument (this isn't meant to sound condescending or
> Let us not forget that this argument is entirely restricted by the
> circularity and the ambiguity of the terms and concepts that we apply for
> such a discussion.  Semantics, by their own virtue, limit answering
> such ambiguous (and even affectively dependent) discussions.  (This
> mean we should not discuss them, however, we must be aware that there
> is no complete or true answer to a question which by virtue is set upon
> largely abstract, vague and ambiguous terminology.)
> In response to a previous writters comment that stated, "Have you ever met
> Walter Freeman?". (I really didn't see the relevance in that statement
> apologize for that), however, "have you ever met Roger Penrose or ate
> with David Hubel?"  The truth of the matter is "who cares"!!!!!!)
> "Dio" <dadaismo at> wrote in message
> news:T_iAb.164145$hV.5978046 at
> >
> > Eray Ozkural ...
> > cut
> > >Many of us including me do not believe in a theological story about an
> > >entity called God.
> > cut
> >
> > Would you mind to explain what you mean when you say "god"?
> >
> > You're using a term (god). Could you explain what you you mean by that
> term?
> >
> > Could you tell us what is god?
> >
> > Thanks a lot
> >
> > Regard
> >
> >

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list