On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Most catholic theologians have already abandoned the idea of an
> omniscient and omnipotent being,

Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most
certainly NOT what they preach to their congregation on Sunday, if they
even hinted at such a thing they'd be excommunicated and would no longer be
catholic theologians. And a disbelief in a omniscient omnipotent being is
all I mean when I say I'm a atheist. You have no definition of the word
"God" and so anything, science, mathematics, philosophy, standup comedy,
every human activity becomes a "religion". This is nuts, if you want to say
truth say truth if you want to say unknown say unknown and leave the word
"God" for the times you want to talk about a omnipotent omniscient being
who created the universe.

> I have never insisted on the "free" qualifification, and I have often
> defend your point on this.

I understand will, you take actions to make some things more likely to
happen and others less likely. But why does this trivial observation
deserve the billions of words written about it?

>> 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.

> Some people go that far.

The world is full of fools but fools of that particular type are far too
rare to worry about.

  >> I have a really radical idea, if you want to talk about truth why not
>> use the word (drum roll please) "truth"?
> > Because the use of the word God, there is less risk as being taken
> literally.

Don't be ridiculous. No word in the English language carries more baggage
or has more idiotic associations than "God", if a scientist wants to be
misunderstood he couldn't do better than use that word.

> The "truth" about a machine cannot be defined by that machine.

Godel didn't say a machine can't prove anything, he said it can't prove

What I just explain here can be derived from the discourse of the Löbian
> machine, by the theorem of Tarski.

Nobody except you knows what a Löbian machine is, even mighty Google
doesn't know. Did Löb know?

> We should do what mathematicians always do: search for principle on which
> we can agree, and then define God

Definitions should come first or a proof is incomprehensible. A
mathematical proof usually starts with "Let X be this and that" , and then
we find some interesting principle that X has, in the same way we should
first define God and then examine what properties can and can not be
derived from it, like the property of existence for example.

> You have a too much precise conception of God

The advantage of my approach is that when I say I don't believe in God I
know precisely what I'm talking about; but when you say you do believe in
God you have only the haziest idea of what you mean, I don't say this
insultingly but you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

  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