On 7/18/2012 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Not for the atheists nearby. They vindicate that the believe that there is no God.

You need to distinguish what you mean by "God".  When written capitalized as a proper noun it refers to a person/being who created the world and wants to be obeyed and worshiped, i.e. the god of theism.

But that is the problem, indeed. Atheists nearby disagree with themselves on this.

What you describe is simply agnosticism. I know in the US that some atheists includes the agnostic in their camp, but it makes the position confusing.

No, what is confusing is your redefining "God" to mean whatever is fundamental - a theological move made popular by Paul Tillich. 

Yes, there is a long tradition to look at theology in a way which does not refer too much to the authoritative use of the words.

"Agnostic" means inability to know.  It is the position of those who claim that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. 

I disagree with this. You are right, historically, but it is not the sense commonly used today.

So technically I am both an agnostic (since I allow that it is possible that some deist-like god might exist in an unknowable way) and an atheist (because I am reasonably confident that no theist God exists).  But I usually tell people I'm and atheist, because if I tell them I'm an agnostic they assume that I am agnostic about their theist god and they proceed to try to convert me.

In such context I can do the same, but to explain how physics arise for the numbers, I use and refer to more serious contribution of theologians.

"God" as "truth" is very useful (although it has its problem), because almost everyone agree that "truth" might encompass their own belief. Ig od has creates the world, then "God has create the world" is TRUE. Likewise, if "the physical universe" is all there is, then "the physical universe is all there is " is TRUE. Both proposition are theological/metaphysical. But again, that word "true" is just a pointer too. In computer science theology is given by Tarski minus Gödel, and it gives a testable theory because matter is defined as a particular sort of hypostases (in a sense slightly more general than in Plotinus).



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