Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit :

 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. 

Sure. I do it on purpose, but atheists I met can agree, with some instanciations of "God"'s meaning. But we are scientists, and we search explanation which should not depend on definition restricted by political power.

I could say that earth do not exist, if you take the definition of some community.

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. 

Why to restrict to such definition? Why, if not to keep the notion in the hand of those who sell feary tales to control people by fear (cf hell). Why does atheists, who does not believe in the God of the theist, want to keep that definition? The reason, is that they does not want to admit that they believe in a God, when they believe in "the third Aristotelian God", which is primary matter.

Let m be the proposition that matter (tables and chairs and atoms) exists.

Hmm... That is not the Aristotelian primary matter, which I was mentioning. I tend to believe in atoms, chair and tables, yet I tend to not believe and remain agnostic on primary matter (but I know, or I am pretty sure, that the concept is non sensical in the comp theory, which I interrogate only).

  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.

Sure, but you avoid the real question: is the physical universe primary (physicalism, Aristotelism) or is it the shadow of a vaster reality (platonism, computationalism)?



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