Re: GOD=G_uv=GARBAGE
From: xeno (xeno_at_transbay.net)
Date: 03/08/05
- Next message: Todd: "Re: Simultaneous events - nonsensical result?"
- Previous message: mingstb_at_sim-ss.com: "Re: Flaw in Stowe/LeSage Heating"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv versus JOHN ANKERBERG"
- Next in thread: TMG: "Re: GOD=G_uv versus JOHN ANKERBERG"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:03:27 -0800
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> Total blindness may be properly defined as "only an illusion".
Then poke out your eyes & see if total blindness is ONLY an illusion.
> God by any other name is STILL God.
You can signify a million names to the same referent but if the referent
doesn't actually exist, conjuring names is just magical thinking.
> ... if you want to call total blindness an "illusion" fine,
That's what you're saying. I didn't say that.
> ... if you want to call God an "illusion" fine....
Then what are you complaining about?
- Next message: Todd: "Re: Simultaneous events - nonsensical result?"
- Previous message: mingstb_at_sim-ss.com: "Re: Flaw in Stowe/LeSage Heating"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv versus JOHN ANKERBERG"
- Next in thread: TMG: "Re: GOD=G_uv versus JOHN ANKERBERG"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
