On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> the atheist "scientists" I met, who were probably manipulated (which
> makes things more complex) made clear that physicalism is not something you
> can reasonably doubt about.

If doubt is not productive then it is not reasonable, if a physicist or
chemist or biologist or geologist or astronomer doubts "physicalism" then
there is nothing more for him to do and he might as well burn his books go
home and stare at his navel or just play video games all day.

> Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let

And let "God" be anything more powerful than myself, or the mystery of the
universe, or the joy in life, or a oak tree, or anything I think is
important, then I agree all those Gods exists.  But if "God" is a
omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe then I don't think God

>  you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of us have
> given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it

That definition must be very very new indeed, I mean it must have been
created in the last few seconds because I've been on this list for over
half a year and I have never seen anybody do anything even close to that.
And I don't even demand precision, at this point I'd be happy with even a
vague hint of a hint of what the hell you mean by making the "free will"
noise and how it differs from plain ordinary "will" which I do understand.

> I am using Plato's conception of God, as he handle it in the Parmenides
and Timaeus, and that Hirchberger sums up by saying that Plato's notion of
God is "Truth".

You're in love with the word but not the idea so you've redefined the word
"God" so radically that only a idiot would be a atheist because then he
would be saying that truth does not exist. I have a really radical idea, if
you want to talk about truth why not use the word (drum roll please)
"truth"?   If you're interested in communicating ideas (and if you weren't
you wouldn't bother writing anything at all) then you must admit that
"it's true that 2+2=4" does a better job than "it's God that 2+2=4". You'd
have to be disingenuous or incredibly naive to write a word like "God" and
not expect the reader to form associations with the greatest monument to
folly the human race has ever produced. And philosophy is more than a silly
game of giving common words unusual definitions, or at least it should be.

However I realize that language is always in flux so if God now means truth
we need a new word for the old meaning of God,  a omnipotent omniscient
being who created the universe; what word do you suggest? I have a idea,
the word "truth" isn't doing anything anymore its job being taken over by
"God" so "truth" could now mean a omnipotent omniscient being who created
the universe. So now I can say I do believe in God but I don't believe in
truth. I hope there are not too many other words you want to exchange
meanings because this is getting a little complicated, it might be easier
to learn Chinese.

  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