On 13 Jul 2012, at 21:33, John Clark wrote:

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.

Because you seem to believe only in the post 523 occidental vocabulary.

>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.

God is the pointer to our ignorance. Most religion initially use God as a mark of accepting our ignorance. Of course, once the name of the one supposed (in most tradition) to be not unnameable, we get into problem.

> 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.

Free will is will and responsibility, and well explain for universal numbe by self-indetermination (à-la Turing, not first person indeterminacy).

> 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".

Yes. Indeed. So you agree with my point above.

And so God, a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe, suddenly gets demoted and becomes just another yellow bulldozer;

I don't believe in your notion of God.

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.

You fail to see that even just in arithmetic we can prove the existence of many alternative to machine. there is a transfinity of weakening of the notion of machines, most of them are used implicitly in calculus.

To deny the field theology today makes physics into a theology by argument from authority. Can't you doubt physicalism?



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