On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> You keep saying this, but non-comp has nothing to do with solipsism.
> Here is a simple logical counter-example. take any dualist theory in
> which *all* humans have a non mechanical soul responsible for their
> consciousness. This is logically conceivable
Yes that is logically conceivable, but there is not a human on this planet
who believes in that theory except when they are discussing philosophy on
the internet, because if they did and were consistent they would also
believe that other humans were conscious ALL the time, including the times
purely mechanical movements of other human's arms and legs and tongues
indicated they were not behaving intelligently, such as when they were
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. That's why non-comp fans are
MASSIVELY self contradictory.
>> in addition to being untrue, has brought more misery to the world
>> than any other single thing
> > You confuse religion/theology, with what some humans have done with it.
Please don't give me that tired old line about how a very few have
corrupted the noble concept of religion, religious idiocy and religious
evil is the norm not the exception.
>> God needs to be a person.
> > In some tradition, and it is a mystery why you stick on those tradition,
> given that you criticize them so vigorously.
Because "God" is just a word and morons fools and some of the most evil
people who have ever walked the Earth have mutilated that word far beyond
any hope of repair. Language evolves and like biological Evolution it
almost never goes backwards and retraces it's steps, let me give a example:
The word "gay" means happy and until just a few decades ago that's all it
meant, but today if I use that word just to indicate that somebody is happy
I am issuing a invitation to be misunderstood. I have a even better
example, technically the word "pedophile" means a lover of children, well
there is nothing wrong with that in fact it's a virtue, people should like
children, but today it means more than that and its far too late for the
word to be rehabilitated, so I would never dream of calling someone a
"pedophile" unless I had rock solid evidence they were a monster. In the
same way the word "God" has gone too far, it has much too much baggage to
be rehabilitated now. So use another word, there are lots to choose from.
> some, like Richard Dawkins presents science as if it was a sort of
> alternative, which makes science into pseudo-science
I have no idea what your complaint with Richard Dawkins is, I've read all
his books and think he's terrific.
> if you agree with Gödel's formalization of Saint-Anselmus' definition of
> God [...]
That was in Godel's later years when he went off the rails and thought he
had a rock solid logical proof for the existence of God, fortunately even
at his worst he retained enough sanity to know he should not publish the
thing. Godel was I think an even greater logician than Aristotle;
nevertheless he was always a very odd man and he got odder as he got older.
He sealed his windows shut because he thought night air was deadly, he wore
heavy woolen coats on even the hottest days because he thought the cold was
deadly too, and for unknown reasons he insisted on putting cheap plastic
flamingos on his front lawn. He ended up starving himself to death, he
refused to eat because he thought unnamed sinister forces were trying to
poison him. The great logician weighed 65 pounds when he died in 1978 from
lack of food brought on by paranoia.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at