On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>  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 changes you make in "God" are as far from "minimal" as you can get, the
magnitude of the changes are quite literally infinite.

>The term "God" is typical in that setting, and I find absurd to deny some
> concept by keeping an absurd theory.

I don't know what you mean, a theory is a concept and the God theory is a
very bad theory and thus so is the concept.

> You do the same with free-will, by saying it is non sense, but this by
> deciding to accept the nonsensical definition.

That is incorrect. The God theory is perfectly meaningful and so is the
astrology theory, it's just that they both happen to be wrong. The free
will "theory" on the other hand is no more meaningful than a burp and thus
is neither right nor wrong.

> so "God" becomes "something more powerful than yourself"
> > This is frequent fro Gof.

Yes, something more powerful than yourself is what those who love the word
but not the idea mean when they say "God". And so God, a omnipotent
omniscient being who created the universe, suddenly gets demoted and
becomes just another yellow bulldozer; and theology, the study of
bulldozers, degenerates into diesel engine repair.

>  God is not a machine.

Then there is no alternative, God is not a bulldozer after all, God is a
roulette wheel.

 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to