Comments on: A Slippery Trinity http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/ It's just a shadow you're seeing that he's chasing... Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:23:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Ragged Clown » Blog Archive http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-9262 Ragged Clown » Blog Archive Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:50:45 +0000 http://www.raggedclown.com/?p=234#comment-9262 [...] my Slippery Trinity, I called this kind of God The Mysterious God. PZ Myers calls it “Oom“. Theologians [...] [...] my Slippery Trinity, I called this kind of God The Mysterious God. PZ Myers calls it “Oom“. Theologians [...]

]]> By: Bob http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-735 Bob Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:15:10 +0000 http://www.raggedclown.com/?p=234#comment-735 Granted :-). However, I worry about pushing this concept of God very far as I am unsure how it will hold up once subjected to things like categorization. Granted :-). However, I worry about pushing this concept of God very far as I am unsure how it will hold up once subjected to things like categorization.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-731 Kevin Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:10:08 +0000 http://www.raggedclown.com/?p=234#comment-731 Excellent point. With your permission, I will need to slip the Sense of Wonder into category three (Not God) or they will mess up my trinity. Excellent point. With your permission, I will need to slip the Sense of Wonder into category three (Not God) or they will mess up my trinity.

]]> By: Bob http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-723 Bob Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:35:09 +0000 http://www.raggedclown.com/?p=234#comment-723 Quick read, as I am way overdue in taunting back, but I think you forgot the other type of God. The metaphorical, non-personal, God who represents all the wonder and mystery of the universe that science has not yet explained (Things like how the Universe began, why we are carbon-based, why you managed to get by with a close shave instead of being tragically wounded in that crazy stunt from whenever in your childhood, why nice people get destroyed and evil people win fame and fortune etc...). That is the God of Einstein, and other great thinkers IMHO. Though Dawkins wants to get all PC and tells them to stop because they are confusing the issue, he still grants their right to metaphor. God Bless the metaphor! Quick read, as I am way overdue in taunting back, but I think you forgot the other type of God. The metaphorical, non-personal, God who represents all the wonder and mystery of the universe that science has not yet explained (Things like how the Universe began, why we are carbon-based, why you managed to get by with a close shave instead of being tragically wounded in that crazy stunt from whenever in your childhood, why nice people get destroyed and evil people win fame and fortune etc…). That is the God of Einstein, and other great thinkers IMHO. Though Dawkins wants to get all PC and tells them to stop because they are confusing the issue, he still grants their right to metaphor.

God Bless the metaphor!

]]> By: Matt http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-693 Matt Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:58:21 +0000 http://www.raggedclown.com/?p=234#comment-693 Cool! By those definitions, which I'd tweak slightly but are still quite good, put me down as a true believer for #3. As there are IMHO zillions of such beings out there way more advanced than us, that makes me a pagan, which sounds extra fun. Cool! By those definitions, which I’d tweak slightly but are still quite good, put me down as a true believer for #3. As there are IMHO zillions of such beings out there way more advanced than us, that makes me a pagan, which sounds extra fun.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.raggedclown.com/2007/01/05/a-slippery-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-686 Kevin Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:10:23 +0000 http://www.raggedclown.com/?p=234#comment-686 A couple of minor edits that I should have done before I hit 'publish' plus this whole paragraph: This argument is sometimes stated more succinctly as: Since it's possible that there are Not Gods, clearly you believe in gods. Your previous statements about being certain there are no gods and your claims to be an atheists are invalid. A couple of minor edits that I should have done before I hit ‘publish’ plus this whole paragraph:

This argument is sometimes stated more succinctly as:

Since it’s possible that there are Not Gods, clearly you believe in gods. Your previous statements about being certain there are no gods and your claims to be an atheists are invalid.

]]>