On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:14, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

> same definition of the creator

EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word " God" so when I say "I don't believe in God" it actually means something, and the meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say "I don't believe in God" but at least they know what I'm talking about.

The usual answer here is that i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. I agree with you, but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, or even by the fairy tales popularly added to it.

God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation which we are searching. It is the ultimate "ensemble", or the ultimate reason for that ensemble. Then comp makes even clearer why such "reason" is related to many intuition conveyed in many texts inspired by people having "mystical experience", or going through "altered state of consciousness".



In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when you say "I do believe in God" nobody knows what you mean and in fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally, when you say "I do believe in God" you don't know what you're talking about.

It means that I believe that a theory of everything makes sense. It is a way for me to communicate that I am AGNOSTIC on the current paradigm which presuppose or assume (very often implicitly) the primary physical universe.



I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in,

Really? It looks like Santa Klaus to me. You know that both of us does not find such existence plasuible, or even capable of explaining anything. But comp explains that the assumption of a primary physical universe does not only NOT explain much more (it just compress information), but fails on the mind-body issue, so we have to use a term different from "universe" (which has physicalist connotation), and I use the term God, as it was used with that large and vague meaning for a millenium before it becomes a political tool of manipulation. But if you don't like that term I will use "ONE" with discussing with you, as you take the vocabulary too much seriously, imo.



but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the word "God" .

I search a TOE. Concentrate on the understanding, not the vocabulary.




But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't understand some atheist just want to make the noise "I do believe in God" with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it means.

I think that you have not understand the mind-body problem, from cognition to after-life, and the problem of the origin of the physical universe.

Do you believe in a primary physical universe? Are you physicalist?




> same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions.

Bullshit. I'm a atheist
because a world that was intelligently designed


We both have agreed that this does not make any sense, at least as an explanation.



would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be resolved just like any other.

Not really with comp. A machine cannot distinguish the result of some simple programs, and a random (or not ORACLE. That makes most conventional religion not interesting, as being irrefutable. And thus non scientific. That is why comp is interesting, as it is completely refutable. If your were willing to study step 4, you would be able to progress toward the understanding of that fact. You have not replied to my last refutation of your prediction algorithm.




> I was just asking what do you mean by "grand concept", with the goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point.

I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words, and away we go.

You elude my simple question. What do you mean by "grand concept"?


> BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your predicting algorithm in self-duplication.

I wasn't aware that I had a "predicting algorithm in self- duplication",

In the WM-duplication, with annihilation of the original you do have agreed on many things, including that both the M-guy and the W-guy would feel unique in One city, but you have predicted W and M, onstead of the W or M made obligatory by the fact on which you agreed (above). So you were shown to believe in a contradiction. It is only a matter of reading the definitions and doing the home work. It is mysterious why you remain stuck at step 3. You are the only one I know doing that (usually it is step 0, or step 8).



and I have no way of knowing if I should praise your rebuttal or condemn it because I don't know what on earth you're talking about.

> you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem,

The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what you mean.

So you do assume the existence of a primitive or primitively material brain?

Are such brain Turing emulable?

If yes, how do you predict the first person feeling of a person doing a physical measurement?

You might study some book on the mind-body problem. Serious books makes clear that we have not yet solve the problem. Note that UDA, and especially MGA (which I will re-explain on the FOAR list) is by itself a formulation of the problem, in the mechanist frame.

My feeling is that you might be genuinely not aware of the problem. You might genuinely been not aware of the "religious" character of believing in a primary universe, but this does still not explain why you don't see the contradiction you put yourself in.

Of course the tone of your comment indicates perhaps that you are just not willing to stay cold on those questions, and I should perhaps not try. Unluckily for you, as a vocational teacher I love the challenge.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to