Le 22-juil.-12, à 20:45, meekerdb a écrit :
On 7/22/2012 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud
of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops "Good riddance
to bad rubbish!".
Things are not that Black and White. The churches pervert an original
idea, but don't make it disappear entirely.
> Why do you defend them? Why does atheists always defend the most
conservative position in religion? It looks like defending
something stupid just to be able to say "I don't believe in it".
I think the ultimate nightmare would be to be tortured to give
information that you simply did not have, that's what would happen
to me if the Gestapo demanded I explain what you were talking about
in the above.
The fact is that you act th same toward free will and theology, and
probably toward the mind-body problem, each time by pointing on some
popular discourse without ever addressing the question behind. You
confuse concepts with their plausible misconception of it.
And so if you tell me "Bob is a theologian" I know absolutely
posatively nothing about Bob because now the word "Theologian" has
joined "atheist", "theist", "God" and of course "free will" as words
that mean absolutely positively nothing.
Do you have an answer for what we can expect through death? Can you
justify it, and in which theory?
If yes, you have a theology.
Why should that necessarily have anything to do with a judgmental god?
Judgmental god is particular to some theology.
Theories about what happens after death might be part of a science
called "thanatology", but only some of those theories would overlap
with theology. I expect that we don't exist after death - that's
contrary to all theologies.
Including correct machine's theology, so what your belief is
problematical even with just strong AI, not to mention comp.
If no, either you make research, and believe in theology, or you
don't make research and are not interested in theology.
When I addressed that "mortality" question and showed that
computationalism makes the question just more difficult, but
partially formulable in arithmetic, I was told that it was
"theology", as it is with the large defiition I gave, because
assuming comp, it is related with non provable truth (by the machine,
And so if you tell me "X is a religion" you have told me nothing
about X because meaning needs contrast and everything is a religion
is equivalent to nothing is a religion
But nobody ever said that everything is religion.
OK, with comp "correct human science is included in correct human
theology" (as G is included in G*), but 1) the inclusion is strict,
and 2) from a human point of view, there is necessarily an act of
faith if he want to apply that theology in practice (like when
accepting the surgeon's proposition).
You use the word "theology" but you don't define it.
It is the theory of eveything, including the fundamental questions: who
am I, afterlife?, nature of soul and matter, God, etc. As a scientist I
have to use a definition which work for any religion, as we need to be
agnostic on such matter.
You only say it includes all science (which is contrary to any
dictionary definition) and that applying it takes faith (which is
obvious since applying something ill defined takes a lot of faith).
? In AUDA all theological propositions are either arithmetical
sentences or defined in terms of set of numbers, with precise
definition (you can measure their arithmetical complexity). It contains
physics and so is testable, and so I don't see what do you find non
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