On 17 Jan 2013, at 22:16, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> This shows that you have not studied the field, which seems indeed pretty obvious.

>> 13 years of studying this useless bullshit is not enough? I'll bet I know more about the Bible than most Christians.

> It was not scientific studies.

Well of course it was not scientific studies, it was glob talk about God, and that is about as far from science as you can get. You can study history or literature or myths but there is no field of learning called "theology" that one can claim expertise in.

Because it has been "stolen" by some authoritative power. But you can read many text and see the idea behind. If you concentrate on the fairy tales aspect, you do not help the coming back to seriousness in the field.

If you declare the whole field as intrinsic bs, then it means that you have a theology, and that you are not aware of it, making you unconsciously dogmatic on your conception of reality. You are unaware that the scientist still don't know. In particular they didn't decide between Arstotle and Plato. Current science is, if taken as fundamental, Aristotelian theology. But with comp, and perhaps with just QM, it stops to work.

And if you doubt this then name something of interest theology has discovered in the last century, and if that's too hard try the last millennium.

Theology was part of science, and most of aristotelian science is born from the naive aristotelianism. So I would not separate the progress in science from a slow refutation of a part of the greek theology, done up to now, mainly of Aristotle's physics, biology. But why should we stop. Comp refutes Aristotle's theology and bring a simple (arithmetical) intepretation of Plotinus.

It's just bizarre how so many people feel it is their obligation to defend something that has caused so much human misery and made so many people so very stupid.

You totally confuse a science, and a misuse, even a perversion, made by humans, of that science. The result: you give the place for the abusers, and you prevent the use of seriousness in the field. You confirm that atheists are de facto an ally of the Aristotelian theologian.

> I did provide a general axiomatic of God, and you do seem quite religious in that sense.

As I said before many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word "God".

I care on the concept. It is not a big deal, by definition, "God" is the ultimate reality, if it exists, responsible for us talking here and now.

And my point is that with comp, we already can deduce that it is not the physical reality, (but the arithmetical reality).



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