[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

I do not think it shows its emptiness necessarily. It depends on what one
views as being substance or content.  If one is looking for the meaning of
non-empty to be a rational or "factually" concrete answer, then it will be
empty; but if its content is psychological (e.g., the provision of emotional
security, feelings of non-randomness, the furnishing of comfort, etc.). then
it is not empty.  One might argue that deluding oneself into believing
scientific findings and theories are knowledge is empty and Science as an
answer to what is truth & knowledge is a postulation of an empty concept.

-----Original Message-----
From: Morton K. Brussel [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:16 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: LAURIE SOLOMON; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

.That which we don't know is what People call god, which shows its  
emptiness.

--mkb

On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> I agree that we don't know the answer to the question, Why is there  
> anything instead of nothing?
>
> But that answer (which we don't know) is "what people have called  
> God," as Thomas Aquinas says.
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> You can ask all you want; but that does not mean that there are  
>> any answers
>> that are The Answer.  Thus, the exercise can turn into intellectual
>> masturbation, which may give some pleasure although it may not  
>> furnish such
>> pleasure to all.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
>> Estabrook
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:00 PM
>> To: Morton K. Brussel
>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
>> The universe just is, and we can't ask about it?
>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> I submit that gods have no substance to answer this question.  
>>> They are totally insubstantial.
>>> My guess is there has never been "nothing". There's no need to  
>>> question existence; it's axiomatic. --mkb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is there anything instead of nothing, Mort?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>> All this preaching on this list!  Perhaps I can insert the  
>>>>> opinion that "God"
>>>>> (or gods) are totally empty concepts, explaining nothing, but  
>>>>> giving rise to
>>>>> endless ratiocination.  --mkb
>>>>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:35 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>> God is not a necessary component of morality for the simple  
>>>>>> reason that God
>>>>>> -- the answer (which we do not know) to the question, "Why is  
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> anything instead of nothing?" -- is not a component of anything.
>>>>>> God is not a thing in the universe -- we can't point to  
>>>>>> something in the universe as the reason for the existence of  
>>>>>> the universe -- and God and the
>>>>>>  universe don't add up to two. (Two of what would that be?   
>>>>>> Two things?
>>>>>> But God is not thing in the universe, etc.)
>>>>>> Morality is a component of human nature (for the existence of  
>>>>>> which God of
>>>>>> course is the reason, as for everything), as grammar is a  
>>>>>> component of language. Just as an intelligent visitor from  
>>>>>> Mars would think that all
>>>>>> humans were speaking one language with regional variations, so  
>>>>>> human ethics
>>>>>>  might be regarded as the rules (or grammar) for humans' being  
>>>>>> together --
>>>>>> with some interesting regional variations... (That's what  
>>>>>> makes horse racing, or at least philosophical argument -- and  
>>>>>> literature.)
>>>>>> Well over a thousand years of Christian philosophical  
>>>>>> reflection took it as
>>>>>> a commonplace that the Decalogue is not a set of rules imposed  
>>>>>> from outside, as it were, that might have been different, but  
>>>>>> rather rational
>>>>>> conclusions from reflection on what it is to be human.  (They  
>>>>>> did think it
>>>>>> was a little hard to derive the 3rd/4th Commandment -- there  
>>>>>> are different
>>>>>> numbering systems -- this way.)
>>>>>> Christian theologians thought that, although ethics could be  
>>>>>> descried rationally, that took effort (and time) -- hence all  
>>>>>> that literature -- and
>>>>>> so God generously provided in the Ten Commandments as it were  
>>>>>> an operating
>>>>>> manual ("documentation," we would say) for being human.
>>>>>> More on this from me (quoting others), if you want, at "The  
>>>>>> Subversive Commandments," <http://www.counterpunch.org/ 
>>>>>> estabrook03292005.html>. --CGE
>>>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>>> ... I'd be more interested in hearing one or both of you  
>>>>>>> Bible scholars
>>>>>>> explain to Jenifer why God is a necessary component of  
>>>>>>> morality.  Or
>>>>>>> conversely, how one can be moral without a belief in God.  
>>>>>>> John Wason
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss