29
" Can we say an abstraction called “God” exists, then? Perhaps we can, depending upon how the term “God” is defined. Indeed, I would argue that such an abstraction can be defined saliently. But we cannot conclude that “God” exists as a real agent, upon which the wide majority of religious belief is based, without physical evidence of it, and this conflation of the abstract and the actual is the source of many highly consequential errors. I'd also advise against calling such an abstract thing by the name “God,” since people will certainly be confused by it due to more common uses of the term. "
― James A. Lindsay , Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly
32
" Surprisingly, absolutely no decision making is involved in playing a game of Candyland. Thus, once the cards are shuffled, the game is over. “Playing” merely reveals what is already determined, however much it feels like playing a game. The game was actually played, in a sense, when the cards were shuffled, it just doesn't look or feel like it. "
― James A. Lindsay , Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly
40
" Once we've chosen the axioms and the logic, the whole thing is built, and it's up to us to explore the system and discover the timeless truths contained within it, if we want to know them. Thus it feels like those truths exist and that we are discovering them, but this is because it is easy to lose sight of the fact that we made the whole system by choosing the axioms and logic. Also often lost in the shuffle, the axioms and logic are abstract things that do not “exist” in reality. They are abstract statements (hence their timelessness, incidentally—and yes, do draw the relevant analogy to an “eternal” God here) made in and shared by the minds of thinking beings who created them. "
― James A. Lindsay , Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly