On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> I think "God is a white man with a beard" is a more intelligent
>> statement than "God is truth" because its actually saying something, it's
>> something that happens not to be true but at least its saying something,
>> while "God is truth" is not saying anything, it's just silly wordplay.
> No, it is not.
I already know what the word "truth" means so when you say "God means
truth" you aren't telling me anything of philosophical or mathematical or
scientific interest, you're just giving me a synonym. But when you say "God
has a beard" you're actually saying something, you're saying something
about God; it happens to be something that is not true but at least its
saying something. If I believed in God I would feel that I knew a little
more about the being who created me and the universe, but no matter how
deeply I believed I couldn't do anything with "God is truth".
> > If you are so worry about fairy tails notion of God, why are you
> limiting the meaning of God to such fairy tale notion.
Because that's what the word "God" means, without those fairy tail notions
it would no longer be God, at least not in the English language. Everybody
on this list seems to want to mutate the meaning of the word "God" into
something more reasonable so you wouldn't have to be a idiot to say the
words "I believe in God". Well that certainly can be done, make the word
"God" mean "truth" for example, but I don't see the point, we already have
a perfectly good word for that, truth. But if you should succeed in this
ridiculous quest then we're going to need to invent a new word to replace
the old meaning of the word "God", let me suggest "Klogknee", then I'll be
able to tell people I do believe in God but I don't believe in Klogknee.
> you are the one preventing theology to come back to seriousness
Come back? When was theology ever serious?
> some people have made the physical universe into a sort of authoritative
Unlike God physical reality can smack you right on the head, in fact it
seems to have habit of doing so, thus when physics says that bridge is not
strong enough to hold your weight it would be wise to listen to what that
authority is saying.
> this not only does not explain where it comes from but prevent progress
> both on the origin of the universe and on the mind-body problem.
And the God theory does not help one teeny tiny bit in explaining any of
> >You're saying that the Brahman is the truth and the truth is the
>> Brahman, well OK but other than being able to say that its Brahman that
>> 2+2=4 what have I gained from learning that?
> A foreseen of the fact that if "2+2=4" is a scientific statement, the
> following is not: ""1+1=2" is true". This plays a key role in the comp
> theory of consciousness.
Well duh! The fact that 2+2=4 plays a key role in EVERYTHING and anybody
with half a brain knew that long before being told that the Brahman is
truth and truth is the Brahman, this new information is of zero utility to
> > It becomes clearer and clearer for me that your avoidance of going from
> step 3 to step 4 might come from your religious atheistic beliefs.
Maybe but I'm not sure because I've long since forgotten what step 3 or 4
is, or even step 2. All I remember is you claimed to have discovered some
new type of indeterminacy that was fundamentally different from regular run
of the mill indeterminacy and it never made any sense to me.
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at