On 21 Oct 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational.
>> So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet
Uranus does not exist is not rational.
> I think you allude to the fairy tale notion of God,
I was alluding to a china teapot. I want to know if the belief that
God does not exist is more irrational than the belief a china teapot
in orbit around the planet Uranus does not exist, and if so why.
Because I have a not so imprecise idea of what is a china teapot, and
I find rather unplausible that there is one around Uranus, although I
can't certainly exclude this (as a tea pot might be loss by a
cosmonaut, then kicked by some asteroïd, or solar fare, etc.)
But God is well known for not being a precise notion--- it is even
excluded from some religion to make it too much precise (that is the
case in the ideally-correct-machine's theology, actually).
I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale notion of
god, but I have hundreds of book on theology in many diverse cultures
and civilisation, and those theologian ever mention such notion.
> I use the original conception of those who invented theology,
In other words you use the conception invented by Bronze age
ignoramuses.
Non valid argument.
> the branch of science [...]
Theology is a branch of science??!! Jesus, Mohamed and Martin Luther
were scientists?!
No.
But that does not change the fact that the early theology was handled
with the scientific attitude, and indeed the occidental science is
born from that. But the branch of theology is still a taboo---unlike
the orther branch, we still fake it is not something that we can
approach scientifically. Alas, this leave the filed to the non-
scientists, which means those using argument-per-authority.
> which by definition address and attempt to unfify all questions
(including consciousness,
According to theology
Which one?
how does consciousness work? Exactly how does the God Theory explain
it better than the I Don't Know Theory?
Read Plotinus, read my thesis. But I know you are stuck at step 3. Why?
Or read the math part, which is self-contained. But you need to be
familiar with a bit of computer science and mathematical logic. I
gave references.
Just do the work.
> we still believe when we begin to lost faith in the aristotelian
[...]
You know something, if I never see another word about the ancient
Greeks on this list I will not in any way feel deprived.
That is because you are not interested in the fundamental questions, I
guess. As you say above, you seem glad with the "I don't know" theory.
That means you want to stay ignorant, or that your religion forbid you
to do research in that field, or something (what?).
Bruno
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/d/optout.
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 [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/d/optout.
