On 21 Jan 2013, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote
>> Speaking of confusion, I am using the word "theology", as you
admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If
you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and
give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we
need a language to communicate and a language known to only one
person is useless.
> If you define theology as the term is used after its political
perversion then I agree
I don't quite see how changing the meaning of a word is a
perversion, one meaning is as good as another as long as the meaning
is self consistent and known to all, but never mind.
That is why I make clear that I use the word in the sense of Plato,
and not Aristotle. Sometimes new discovery force to backtrack on
The important thing is that we both agree that if we wish to
communicate then it might be wise to assign meanings to words as
they have been assigned or 1500 years.
In science we just quote the reference of the papers we are using.
> trivially with you.
Trivially?! If 2 people want to communicate then agreeing on what
language to do it in the the first thing they need to do.
I am a bit astonished you defend so much the meaning of some words
given by people you mock completely.
> You just confirm again that atheists defend the Roman terminology
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
But then why do you keep defending their use of the word? This is
> you need to believe in the Fairy Tale Christian God to make you
feel serious in disbelieving it.
Well yes obviously.
I need to know what the hell they're saying before I can believe or
disbelieve it, if I don't know the meaning of the words they're
using then to me they're just making noises with their mouth, noises
that are neither true nor untrue.
You can also look at the reference or just read the post. I have
defined "God" by the "ultimate reality" responsible (causally,
arithmetically, whatever) for our existence and consciousness, that we
don't know but are searching with the hypothetico-deductive method. To
sum up with Hirschberger (a German expert of antic philosophy):
Plato's God is the "ultimate" Truth, by definition. This suits well
with the neoplatonist, for which I give an arithmetical interpretation
of all terms.
>> With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that
there is a reality, so did snails.
>Impossible, or comp is false.
Fine, then comp is false.
You believe that the brain are not Turing emulable?
I never liked it anyway and still don't even know what that made up
word of yours means, every time I think I know you say it means
something that contradicts what you said it meant before and I'm
back at square one.
At square three to be precise. (Which means also that you know what
comp means in my posts).
Many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of
God but not the word "God".
The concept of God, as used by Plato, the mystics, well many people.
That our culture has added fairy tales believed by a minority of
Americans does not change the fact that the term refer to what the
theologians are looking for, in general. It stultifies me that you
want only use the definition of some christians, despite you mock them
as not being serious. It means that you are unaware that you take a
big part of Aristotle theology for granted. I do not, and to get the
technical points and their possible realtion with "reality", you have
to make an effort for the weakening of your apparently unconscious
religion (the belief in primary matter, the belief that God =
Christian God, etc.).
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