XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: talk.religion.pantheism   
   From: md_002@videotron.ca   
      
   On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 02:49:29 -0330, David Dalton wrote:   
      
   > ...   But it seems that you are saying that   
   > all/everything is not a someone so   
   > there is no match to #1 or #2?   
   >   
   > Back in mid-September of 1991 I was praying to just one   
   > deity, Gaia the earth.   
   >   
   > ... July of 1996 I was praying to just three deities:   
   >   
   > A little later (1997?) I modified that to Luna the moon,   
   > Gaia the earth, Sola the sun, Cosma the cosmos,   
   > and LOVE.   
   >   
   > Then later I added Galaxy, ALL, Human, and modified   
   > LOVE to LOVE2.   
   >   
   > Apologies to alt.atheism for this off-topic post,   
   > but I don't know which group Mike Duffy is reading   
      
   I consider it on-topic because Spinoza weak-atheism is a type of atheism.   
      
   The crux of the matter here is exactly where (and if) you consider the   
   residence of such an intelligent entity (a "someone" in your terms).   
      
   If it is inside the universe (or "known, observable universe as defined by   
   astrophysicists), it is different than if it exists outside of spacetime.   
      
   I don't consider such a thing (if it exists) to be either. One cannot   
   disprove the existence of anything, but I hold that if such a thing exists,   
   (i.e. an intelligent entity capable of hearing our supplications) it is a   
   subset of the universe; not the universe itself.   
      
   My insistence on it being part of the universe is simply because otherwise   
   there is a clear violation of information theory (both quantum and   
   thermodynamic) and general relativity. Also, it must be finite in scope,   
   and not omniscient nor omnipotent.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)