Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my
>> book) to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call
>> 'God'" 
> 
> Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?  It seems
> kind of odd to define "God" as "that which I don't understand." I mean,
> if you're going to start giving attributes to God, such as omnipotence,
> benevolence, etc, then you *do* think you understand something about God.
> 


Switch it from 'God' to 'god', and I think yes, that would be
acceptable. "That which is unexplainable is the work of some higher
power whom we shall hence forth call Joe."

Darren New also wrote:
> Oh, and this also implies that if you actually *did* know everything, you'd realize
God doesn't exist. ;-) You might want to rethink that one. 

Why? If Tim ever does understand and know *everything* then maybe he
would become god, or a part of god.

This reduces to either "knowledge is god" or "knowing everything allows
one to be (like) god." Both seem like good options to me.

Post a reply to this message