[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Thu Jan 17 19:15:12 PST 2008


Chris Doss wrote:
> For that matter, why can't anything, taken as a
> totality, be self-existent? It doesn't just apply to
> the universe and to god; it applies to everything.
>
> God is only supposed to "exist" analogically, by the
> way.
>

According to whom and what evidence do you have to support this position? You make these types of statements as if they were agreed upon suppositions yet the disagreement on what god is is quite large. The only thing that can exist analogically are human thoughts since humans create analogies. What does it mean to claim god only exists analogically? This is a nonsense statement. It's the kind of thing that sounds deep to college students until they figure out it is meaningless. Rather than just chide people for not reading the specific texts you rely on for an understanding of god why don't you just write down your description of god and see if it holds water?


> BTW as CG has already pointed but no one seems to have
> noticed, the statement "there is nothing in this room"
> does not mean that there is a thing called "nothing"
> in the room. Good God, to what level of sophistry can
> one descend?

Who claimed this? No one that I read but perhaps I missed something?

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list