On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> There is no "field" of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect of
it would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.
> To say that there is no "field" of theology is equivalent to say
"I know the answer to the fundamental questions",
It is equivalent to saying that the "field" of theology has never
once in its entire history explained anything about anything.
It led to monism and science. You confuse theology and post 500
occidental use of the field. Theology did come up with the idea that
there is a reality, and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of
it. The religious feeling starts when you develop faith, like when you
believe that you have parents and that things occurs for a reason.
Without spiritual faith there is no science at all, nor even technic.
And it is equivalent to saying that many things about the universe
are so mysterious that I don't even have a theory to explain them
because unlike theologians I believe that no theory is far superior
to a theory that is obviously very very very stupid. I define a
stupid theory not as a theory that is necessarily wrong (the Steady
State Theory was wrong but not stupid) but as a theory that explains
nothing, such as the God theory.
Because you are unaware that the God theory is the Mother of all
theories, even if the progresses consists to revised it again and
again. The physical universe theory is an intanciation of the God
theory, it explains a few thing, but it is inconsistent with
computationalism. That is nice because the new theory, false or not,
gives at least an example of what could be like an explanation of the
origin of the (appearance of) the physical universe.
>> I'll tell you what I am aware of, that many people, such as
yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word
> I gave you my definition,
That is true you did, you said "by definition, "God" is the
> which is close to the original one used by those where the first
to practice the scientific attitude in a systematic way, in *all*
That is also true, everybody believes in that. And so I want to
thank you for buying my course and congratulate you for finishing
the first 2 steps in my patented home study course BECOMING A
LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 EASY STEPS, namely:
STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't
matter what it is.
- the natural numbers and their + and * laws.
- the particles and forces.
STEP 2) Define the word "God" as meaning that thing whatever it may
This will work or not depending on what you assume at the start.
Numbers and + and * will not work per se. you will need a (meta)-
notion of arithmetical truth, which needs a (tiny but non null) amount
of faith. this can work for the "outer God", but you might abandon
some attribute, like personhood (open problem).
You can take the particles and forces, and that is (basically)
Aristotelian theology. But we have discover that it is inconsistent
with computationalism. But a priori that's OK for some notion of "God"
or ultimate reality.
Now you just need to complete the remaining 2 steps to become a
official liberal theologian:
STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God.
That contradict step 1, or make it trivial. usually the assumption are
not (meta- provable, and that is why we assume them. they become
provable in the logician sense, with very few words: "see the axiom".
STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere.
Indeed. All genuine believer know that they cannot prove the existence
of an ultimate reality, and that's explains why you need faith to
search it, be it under the form of cosmology or arithmetic.
>> All that is very nice, but name something of interest theology
has discovered in the last century, and if that's too hard try the
> "interest" is subjective.
OK, then tell me something that you think is of interest that
theology has discovered in the last century,
Theology is mainly perverted since 523. Before: the theologian
and if that's too hard try the last millennium. I have asked this
question several times and on each occasion you have used legalese
and weasel words to avoid giving a clear answer; but if I had asked
the same question about mathematics or physics or astronomy or
chemistry or biology or art or literature or even politics you would
not have needed to hire a lawyer but would have simply supplied a
long list of wonderful achievements.
The goal of fundamental science is not necessarily in the
applications. We just try to figure out what is and what can be.
> If you are not conscious of the dogma you support,
Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
What is your theory?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at