A brilliant passage by Bruno recently - may have been rendered a bit more clearly by the following redaction:
Well, I have discussed this on FB in different groups. I got confirmation that strong atheists always use insults, jokes and mockery instead of arguing something of substance. Not just at me, but toward anyone guilty of nothing more than presenting the difficulties of making atheism scientific and avoiding contamination by pseudo-religious bigotry. Many atheists have understood that they are not bigoted atheists, but merely agnostic. As atheism is sometimes defined as agnostic I add that there is no problem with that larger definition (but I suspect this is just a trick by the atheists to bring agnostics into their camp). It took time but eventually mathematicians accepted 0 as a number. It simplifies everything to accept a general definition asserting that God is at the origin of consciousness and matter, or, the appearance of matter. That definition has the advantage of being acceptable to religious people of quite different traditions, together with the non-religious as well. The interesting question then becomes "what is the nature of God: a thing, a person, a mathematical reality etc?" Many atheists believe in a primary universe. What this inescapably means is that they believe God = Primary Universe, and conceive of it usually as a thing. This is already theology. Translation: We CLAIM something about the personal God: "there are 0 personal gods" They also assert some things about the NATURE OF God: that God is non-personal AND it is a physical thing (which in addition does not exist...) This way of talking is usual enough in science! All you need say is that ... theology must be confined to the irrational, and confirms that atheists are allied to the institutionalized religions. Strong atheism comports the following "religious" beliefs: 1) the belief that there is no personal God 2) the belief in metaphysical naturalism: the universe is a god (personal or not, but usually not personal). That was Einstein's position, although he may have changed his mind near the end of his life, thanks to Gödel. But Gödel was closer to me in defending the (trivial) fact that we can do theology with a scientific attitude. He provided a proof of the existence of God to illustrate that fact. I guess you know of it: what is your opinion of Gödel's proof of the existence of God? Note that little errors have been found, and corrected (by Scott, I think). Of course this does not prove the existence of God, because he used the modal logic S5 in a context where Mechanism would impose S4Grz1. Can we construct the proof of God in S4Grz1? Open problem (at least for me). You really seem to act like a bishop of religious atheism, although your position on the ontological status of the physical universe remains unclear. Do you believe in a PRIMARY physical universe? Or are you agnostic on this? Bruno Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: [email protected] [email protected] Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "I'm not saying there aren't a lot of dangerous people out there. I am saying a lot of them are in government" - Russell Brand -- 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.
