On 17 Jan 2013, at 22:16, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
