On 07 Mar 2012, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> For example, they [Dawkins and Stenger] never say that they *assume* the existence of a primary physical universe

Do they really have to state that they assume existence exists?

You mean that primary matter exists? Yes that is an hypothesis.

("Existence exists" is a much too much vague assertion).



It would be great if I could explain exactly why there is something rather than nothing but unfortunately I don't know how to do that, but a atheist does not need to,

I am not sure anybody needs that, no more than anybody needs to know facts about Jupiter's satellites. I have no problem with those who say that they are not interested in such or such question. Only with those who assert that it is a false problem, a crackpot field, and this by letting believe that science has solve or dissolve the question, when it is hardly the case.



it's not as if the God Hypothesis can provide even a hint of a answer.

There is no "God hypothesis" by many "God Hypotheses". Yes the theory "God = the primary physical universe" has failed on that question, but have you read Plotinus, or Tchouang-tseu. Or my favorite text: "The quastion to King Melinda". They are close to what a computer can guess about itself and what might be.





> they dismiss the mind-body problem, they dismiss the mind problem, and the body problem.

it would be great if I could explain exactly what the nature of consciousness is, but unfortunately I don't know how to do that, but a atheist does not need to, it's not as if the God Hypothesis can provide even a hint of a answer. And I didn't even know the body was a problem.

There is an easy body problem, and an hard body problem. The easy problem is what bodies do, and that is solved by the inference of sequences of deeper and deeper relations between numbers, and some hope to unfiy them. that's phsyics. The hard body problem is the question of its existence, its nature, ontological, or epistemological, and where it comes from. With comp both problem can be handled, although practically the easy problem becomes very hard, but the hard problem is practically solved: matter is an epistemological reality, if we are machine. Of course you have to understand step 3 for progressing toward understanding this.




> This is just arrogant.

Arrogant?? Like any good scientist Dawkins is always quick to say "I don't know",

I am not sure. It is not my impression from my reading. I did like a lot "the selfish gene", but was rather disappointing by its other "philosophical book", where he lacks rigor in the large, and make believe that science give credits on his pseudo-religious opinion.


but theologians always know, they even know the trivial little likes and dislikes of a infinite being, although I've never understood how something a omnipotent being dislikes could continue to exist or even existed in the first place.

"I don't believe in the God you don't believe in".

Most european christian don't believe in it either, but still believe in Christian value related to their favorite legend. I can respect that.

Vindicating or fanatic atheists and fundamentalist religious people are ally in demolishing the moderate agnostics interested in the field. It seems to me. Eventually they care more on power than truth.

Bruno


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-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=en.

Reply via email to