On 05 Aug 2012, at 19:26, 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> wrote:

> 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 machine) truth.

> 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 God.

I'm astonished that you think accepting the definition of a being by those who claim to believe in it is 'defending' it.

There are thousand definition of God, but as a scientist I limit myself on sharable semi-axiomatic definitions. I do that for geometry (i reject the intuitive common notion of line for axiomatic definition of points and lines), so why would I not do this for theology, unless I would like to defend some dogma in the field?

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.

But they would not *define* fascism by "best form of government". For the christians you seem to accept that they have find the best definition of God. So it is different.

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'?

I was using "responsible" in the large non human sense of "reason", itself in the large sense, like when we see that a tempest is responsible for the death of many people. Perhaps this is not a practice in english, but we do that in french. Sorry if this was an french only expression.



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