On 8/5/2012 1:26 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
> Define "theology"
The study of something that does not exist.
Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can be
defined by something which is supposed to be responsible, willingly
or not, for my existence, and which I cannot prove to exist. I
remeber having already some times ago provided this definition.
Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level, by
G* minus G. (if you have read my posts on those modal logics and
Solovay theorem). For example <> t (consistency, ~f) belongs to G*
minus G. Consistency is true for the machine, but it cannot prove it.
Yet the machine can guess it, hope it, find it or produce it as true
with some interrogation mark.
Theology is the study of the transcendent truth, which can be
defined, in a first approximation, by the non provable (by the
> Define "God"
The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who
created the universe. If you define God, as so many fans of the
word but not the idea do,
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception of
I'm astonished that you think accepting the definition of a being by
those who claim to believe in it is 'defending' it. I accept the
definition of Fascism by those who claim it is the best form of
government, but that doesn't mean I defend Fascism.
Your statement is a nonsequitur. In your acceptance of the
definition of fascism (as given by fascism promoters) is a tacit
acceptance of the existence of fascism as an actual matter of fact. The
"atheists" that Bruno is criticising are making claims against the
existence of the Christan or more generally the Abrahamic concept of
god. Bruno's point might be construed as that any and all claims for or
against a particular definition must assume as possibly existing the
entity in question. The concept of God as defined by its usage by most
philosophers (not just the small minority of Christian apologists) is
nowhere isomorphic to the definition of God as defined by Christians and
therefore is immune to your critique.
This confirms what I have already explained. Atheism is a variant of
christianism. They defend the same conception of God than the
Christians, as you do all the time.
Note that philosophers use often the term "God" in the general and
original sense of theology: as being, by definition, the
transcendental cause of everything.
as "a force greater than myself" then I am a devout believer because
I believe in gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear
force. I believe in bulldozers too.
But I have already told you that God is supposed to be responsible
for our existence;
Doesn't that responsibility require 'free will'?
Why are you tacitly assuming the Abrahamic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions> theory of free-will?
You could accept the secular version as it is used in game theory (that
I defined in a previous post) but you seem to ignore or refuse this
possibility. Why do you think that the concept of autonomy
or, its equivalent, agency (in economics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_%28economics%29>) requires the
Abrahamic theory? I think thou doth protest too much
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at