Quote:
|
But then you say that the perfect model of reality *is* reality. For lack of a better word: duh. It's like saying A = B, and B = A, so A = A. IMHO, nothing is accomplished with that statement because you already assume what is required to prove your point. I'm not really arguing your beliefs I guess, just your methods.
|
Of course it's an obvious deduction. The part that is problematic/controversial is saying that knowledge is equivalent to a model of reality. Once that's out of the way, the rest follows by definition. All that this was meant to say was that once you make a fairly honest assumption, it's possible to easily derive a truth that is supports my view. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
|
According to the above definition, you won't get any criticism from me. I believe that is what John Lennon was. You may be too young to know who John Lennon was.
|
Of course I know who John Lennon was. I wouldn't be surprised if there are similarities, because John Lennon's personal philosophy was influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism. Here's a paper on Hinduism that highlights its Pantheistic side:
Swami Vivekananda
I wouldn't argue with that definition.
Quote:
|
Hmm, yes. By that definition, I must agree with rjwood. I see no objections. I would, however, point out that using the term "God" would still be misleading to some, despite your efforts to make it not so.
|
For some, it could be, but I personally believe that we are talking about the same Being, so we can use the same word. After all, even Biblical scholars tend to agree that the bible is not to be taken literally, that God's personality is in no way human-like, that He should not be considered in human or animal form, and so on. The traditional religious view of God is simply more metaphorical, but not fundamentally different. I think that by using the same terminology, we can have much more meaningful and polite conversations with theists, and maintain our ability to have emotion, artistic and poetic views of God.