On 7/18/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let me be the proposition that Matter
(primitive matter) exists.
Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they
verify, with B for "believes": B~g and Bm.
Science is or should be agnostic on both ~Bg and ~Bm (and ~B~g, and ~B~m).
This is wrong in two ways, which you muddle by not defining God. Let g be the proposition
that some god(s) exist and let G be the proposition that the god of theism (a creator who
judges and wants to be worshipped) exists. Let m be the proposition that matter (tables
and chairs and atoms) exists. Then atheists B~G and ~Bg and all sane people Bm. So then
in parallel let M be the proposition that...what? I don't know what it would mean to say
M="matter is fundamental" because there is no definite boundary on "matter". Nobody
thinks table and chairs are fundamental. Some physicists think that the Standard Model of
matter is sufficient to explain all ordinary experience, but they know it doesn't include
dark matter, dark energy, or gravity. So they may hypothesize that some better
mathematical model will describe a more comprehensive 'matter' that will be a
theory-of-everything - but then 'matter' is just an honorific bestowed on whatever exists
according to the current best theory. It is only 'fundamental' in the sense that we
haven't been able to explain it further, yet. No one stops looking for the better theory
because they have faith or because it would be heretical.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at