Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:JwURj.230491$pM4.227783@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:42SRj.2417$Zs1.1961@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ben Goren" <ben@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1209438312_909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Much exists  that is not objectively  verifiable. Good character
>>>>>>> > exists, interest  in certain topics, affection,  sense of humor,
>>>>>>> > compassion, courage, just to name a few.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you'll  find that, once you provide  cogent definitions of
>>>>>>> those terms, every  one of them will be  objectively verifiable --
>>>>>>> in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tough job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can 
>>>>>>verify
>>>>>>it's existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>Why is that?
>>>
>>> Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
>>> implicit in calling it "God".
>>>
>>> You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
>>> make her one.
>>
>> Dutch is big on making up definitions to suit himself.
>
> I'd like to take credit for that one but it's been around in Eastern 
> spiritualism for a few thousand years, and aboriginal religion as well.

No, 'God' mostly was "whatever the hell we don't understand at the moment"


>