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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at