On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>
> I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic.  But the  
> trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the  
> existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved  
> us but had an obsessive interest in our sex lives.  So now I  
> generally tell people I'm an atheist, unless I think they are  
> interested in a philosophical answer, because I don't believe what  
> theists believe.  So atheism is not a religion, it is a failure to  
> believe in the theist gods - those gods that are agents, omnipotent,  
> omniscient, and ominibenevolent.  Thinking that such a god is does  
> not exist is a scientific theory, i.e. one supported by the evidence  
> and not contradicted by any credible evidence.  I know you adopt a  
> very abstract and mathematical meaning for "theism", but we don't  
> get to define the meaning of words any more than I got to define  
> "agnostic".


Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly  
have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? The word  
and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer  
to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite,  
or inconceivable, in-something.
May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I  
did not. For me "God" refer to the all transcendant and ineffable  
things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are  
searching.
Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God,  
the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in  
its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in  
which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say "genetics is  
crap" because of Lyssenko.


The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any  
theory.


>
> You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually  
> claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it  
> does leads to contradiction.


Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter.
What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital  
Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense.

I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism.  
And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine  
can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a  
classical teleportation).

Digital Mechanism is only my favorite working hypothesis, and also, I  
admit, I find it rather plausible given the quantum facts. But  
honestly, I don't know, and I gave reason why we cannot *know* that.  
It is part of the true but uncommunicable theological facts, and  
eventually it concerns only me and my doctor/shaman/priester/whatever.

And then, as a computer scientist, I show also that the logic of self- 
reference by self-correct machine provides an arithmetical  
interpretation of Plotinus theology. But from this, comp is only made  
refutable, not proved.

Bruno



>
> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2009, at 12:17, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>> http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov
>>>
>>>
>>> Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite
>>> female on the planet.
>>>
>>> If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel "Contact" (or saw the  
>>> movie)
>>> - this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie
>>> Foster in the film)
>>>
>>> Introduction by Richard Dawkins
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Kim Jones
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl= 
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything- 
>> l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl= 
>> .
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl= 
> .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.


Reply via email to