On 2/18/2012 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 18 Feb 2012, at 17:57, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/18/2012 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
but I don't see the point.

The point is to come back to the scientific attitude in the field of theology.

Except the effect is to drag the baggage of the Abrahamic religions into 

What are your evidences for that. See "Conscience et M├ęcanisme" and my papers, machine's theology is close to the Abrahamic religion as far as they have succeed to keep the most of Platonism. It is more easy to get arithmetical interpretation of Lao-Tseu, the philosophia perennis (Aldous Huxley) and the platonists than the mainstream part of the confessional religions, except for the sufi and the Kabbalah, which is unfortunately hidden (mainly because those could be considered as heretic). You might be to quick on this. The mainstream religion, including atheists, have adopted Aristotle's metaphysics, not Plato's one.

They've also adopted and defined "God" and "theology", so I think it is foolish to think you can use them in a sense they haven't had in a millenium and not be misunderstood. Assigning private meanings to words, even if they were once public meanings, is no different than inventing words with private meanings - something you've criticised Craig for.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to