On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> To reject *all* theologies, you need *a* theology.
Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea
but not a word;
Logicians work axiomatically or semi-axiomatically. If an idea/theory
seems absurd, we make the minimal change to keep the most of the
theory (the words). The term "God" is typical in that setting, and I
find absurd to deny some concept by keeping an absurd theory. You do
the same with free-will, by saying it is non sense, but this by
deciding to accept the nonsensical definition.
The logicians ways avoid throwing babies with the bathwater.
so "God" becomes "something more powerful than yourself"
This is frequent fro Gof. This means for example that God is not a
machine. But This was just one axiom among other, and I use theology
in the same sense as any general (non confessional) dictionnary. See
my answer to Brent. Theology is concerned with afterlife, soul,
deities (non Turing emeulable person), wholeness, fundamental reality,
and now "theology" becomes "any field of study you think is
This does not follow from what I said.
If you unilaterally decree that words mean whatever you want them to
mean then garbled communication is inevitable.
I insist I use them in the sense of many, and your way to keep
definition explains why you reject the whole notion.
Like some atheists you seem to take seriously the definition of
theologian you decry. You might read Aldous Huxley "philosophia
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