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
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
I could say that earth do not exist, if you take the definition of some
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
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
Let m be the proposition that matter (tables and chairs and atoms)
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
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