On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations

> I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.

It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word "God" is too ambiguous, I thought you were fine with words meaning whatever and whenever you personally want them to mean whenever.

You confuse "large sense" and "vague sense". It is not the same.

You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above "God" is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing.

God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave equation, or responsible for the equation itself, hardly the one driven by the equation. A bit like the set of all sets cannot be a set, in most set theories.

Here you assume matter and a material God.
Even Aristotle did not go that far.

And if experiment showed that there was actually something that corresponded to such a solution then I would be a believer in "God". Of course in this case the meaning of the English letters G-O-D would not necessarily be the same, or even be vaguely similar, to the meaning of that sequence of ASCII characters as used in common language, but if words can mean whatever you want them to mean that is no problem.

Words does not mean what we want them to mean, and you just demolished your own argument.

> you restraint the English language "God" to the post-523 occidental use of the term.

After decrypting the above enigmatic statement as near as I can tell you are complaining that the common meaning of the English word "God", the meaning of the word that I have been using, has only been in common usage for 1490 years. Have I got that about right? Is that what you're complaining about?

Not just that. They are used since 1490 years by people prerending to know the truth, and believing in revelation. But the word were used before by inquirer interrogating all prejudices. I point that those question make sense again when we work in the computationalist theory.

> You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the God notion:

That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one greatest being who created the universe because that's what another English word "greatest" means.

You admit you are christian apparently.

> Many Christians have already a larger view.

Many Christians are morons.

Many <anything> are morons. Perhaps.



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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to