From sentto-44114-3033-960888095-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue Jun 13 09:19:41 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 17609 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 09:19:40 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 09:19:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 16103 invoked by uid 40001); 13 Jun 2000 09:22:20 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 16100 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 09:22:20 -0000 Received: from ml.egroups.com (208.50.144.77) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 09:22:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3033-960888095-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Jun 2000 10:21:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 25884 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 09:21:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 09:21:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r20.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 09:21:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.ca.5ec07b8 (3953) for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: To: lojban@egroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:00:40 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Since you have already withdrawn the basic one paert of this, it seems overzealous to work on another, but where in is the "objectively observable" part?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