On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> God = truth

Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a profound discovery when they have not, they probably work so well because people often want to be fooled, but all they have obtained from their efforts is a unnecessary synonym. Redundancy is not the same as profundity

> makes a bridge between two fields,

What two fields?

The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics, it is interdisciplinary) and theology.

> I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale sense

I have been hearing that claim for months now, but whenever I ask for a specific example all I get is new age pap like God is one or God is truth.

Yes, it is the idea.

> the term "God", and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term

Absolutely true, so why use a term that has such a astronomical amount of baggage? I am now going to make a radical statement, If you want to say that something is true then use the word "true".

We don't talk about "true", but about the notion of truth.

> God is the truth that we search, but can't make public.

If they can't make it public why the hell do people talk about God so damn much in public?

For the same reason we talk about feeling, consciousness, etc. We refer to experience, and attempt to make sense of them.

> Read Plato for learning more on this.

I already know far more philosophy than Plato did so I don't think that would be helpful. Of course today we don't call it philosophy we call it science; philosophy deals in areas where not only the answers are unknown but you don't even know if you're asking the right questions. Forget about the answers, in Plato's day he didn't even know what questions to ask about the nature of the stars or of matter or of life, but today we do and so those subjects have moved from philosophy to science.

Plato's questions are at the origin of science. It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't want to get informed.

> Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality.

There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused.

Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the physical science. Even Aristotle did not make that error, and present the primary matter as an hypothesis, or a theory, needing such statement to be made explicit.

I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive physical reality, still less a paper showing how to test such idea. Comp, mainly the movie graph, debunks such an idea.

> I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3- view, or the 3-view on the 1-view

There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused.

You are the only one who have a problem here, and you did not succeed in showing any confusion, except your own about 1p and 3p.
Little sentences with a dismissive tone are not arguments.



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