From bwebste@simons-rock.edu Tue Jun 13 06:39:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18920 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 13:38:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 13:38:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO durandal.simons-rock.edu) (206.97.124.71) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 13:38:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 5586 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 13:38:48 -0000 Received: from dhcp-126-104.simons-rock.edu (HELO simons-rock.edu) (206.97.126.104) by durandal.simons-rock.edu with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 13:38:48 -0000 Message-ID: <39463AD1.87FF4D2E@simons-rock.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:44:49 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ben Webster I think the point is that God means a lot of things to a lot of people (and nothing to some), and thus it makes more sense about what one describes as God, because putting a 'lo' in front of something about God says you know for certain that at least 2/3 of the world is wrong. Anyone who does that has more confidence than I do. By the way, I'm not offended by the idea of God having a mother, but I do find it vaguely amusing. pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 00-06-12 18:12:27 EDT, robin writes: > > << If I read "lo " where foo translates to "the mother of > God", I'm going to be pissed. It assumes that there is an objectively > observable God _and_ that said God has a mother _and_ that it's the God > you're talking about. I would find that set of assumptions offensive. >> > > Since you have already withdrawn the basic one paert of this, it seems > overzealous to work on another, but where in is the "objectively > observable" part? Real, sure, existent, yes -- but not observable (let > alone objectively observable -- a remarkably unlojbanic notion, even if it > were meaningful). If you mean to insist that that is what "real" means, then > I have to tell you that, if so, then almost nothing is real at all -- nothing > in science and almost nothing in your room. Even Carnap got around to > admitting that eventually -- and changed what was needed for soemthing to be > real. > > I do agree that I would find the assumption that God was objectively > observable or that God (as God, at least) had a mother offensive, and that > may be your complaint, lese deite. If so, sorry to jump at you. But it does > sound otherwise, and about that other view I wonder what is offensive (or is > it just the assumption part) about the common view that God exists and > interacts with the world. It is hard to prove, of course, or even to make > plausible, but it shares that position with its denial, by essentially the > same arguments (and the denial has the added burden of the difficulty > --legendary in detective fiction -- of proving a negative). "We had no need > of that hypothesis" just means we have not gotten the system complex enough > to adequately represent reality. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Remember Father's Day Is June 18th > Click Here For Great Gifts! > http://click.egroups.com/1/5037/3/_/17627/_/960888066/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com