On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> I said "almost". I defined free-will not really by an inability, but by > the knowledge of that inability. > It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below is still utterly ridiculous: "I don't see how the notion of moral responsibility make sense without free-will. Without free-will everyone is innocent. Free-will is why there are prisons." > I am not a philosophers. I don't do philosophy in public. > Hmmm. >>When I write the word "God" I mean the same thing, or close to it, that >> most people mean. >> > >> > >Not all, if you look at the humanity. > True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called "philosophers" who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the concept of God, therefore they redefine the word accordingly. >> when you write the letters G-o-d you mean something so general and >> innocuous (something greater than yourself) >> > > >Yes, transcendentally. > So anything greater than me is God, therefore Einstein is God. As I was saying, they redefine the word accordingly such that only a fool would say there is no God. > It is also what is responsible for our existence. > So being intelligent or even conscious is no longer an essential ingredient that "God" must have, and so now logic can be "God". If you change the meaning of the word "two" to mean "two and one half" then the sentence "two plus two is equal to five" would be perfectly true. And such a redefinition is exactly what you would do is you felt you just must say "two plus two is equal to five". But don't you think it would be a rather silly and pointless game? >It has no name. Which hasn't prevented you from giving it a name G-O-D! > >I use the notion of God by those who created the field of theology. I agree with Richard Dawkins who doubts that theology is a "field" at all and who "compares it with the study of leprechauns". Dawkins also said: "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot? In another book I recounted the words of an Oxford astronomer who, when I asked him one of those same deep questions, said: "Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good chaplain." I was not quick-witted enough to utter the response that I later wrote: "But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?" Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves?" > The europeans seem to be rather different from the US on this. > Yes. Although things were very different a few centuries ago today Europe is the least religious continent on the planet. Europe is leading the way, but America is still stuck in the dark ages and your love affair with the word "G-O-D" is not helping them advance. John K Clark -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
