On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Theology remains stupid because it's the study of nothing, > > > > It is the science of God. If your theory says there is no God, that is > still a theology, > If your field of study is the fact that 2+2 =5 and I show the 2+2 is not equal to 5 then what more is there to say about your field of study? > >In the theology of Plato > [....] > TO HELL WITH THEOLOGY AND TO HELL WITH PLATO! > your perpetual use of primary matter > TO HELL WITH PRIMARY MATTER! > > confirms that you seem to believe in Aristotle god: > TO HELL WITH ARISTOTLE AND TO HELL WITH GOD! > > > With the definition of god of the greek, indian, chinese, there is no > doubt that everybody believe in God. > Yes, even I believe that grey vague blobs that do nothing of importance exist. > > > The interesting question is not if God exists or not, but what is the > nature of God: > That's easy, God is a grey vague blob that probably doesn't exist and would make no difference even if He did because He does nothing. If God exists the universe doesn't need Him. > >> >> Name one time I invoked "primitive matter" >> in my arguments that intelligence needs matter. *ONE TIME!* >> > > > But then why do you disagree with anything I said, > I've disagreed when you said matter is not needed for intelligence, but as I've said over and over and over and over, matter or may mot be primary but it is certainly needed for intelligence. > > > given that all what I say is that the notion of primary matter is > epistemologically contradictory > I don't care if that matter is primary or not. I'd better repeat that because apparently you're a little hard of hearing: I DON'T CARE IF MATTER IS PRIMARY OR NOT. Should I say it again? > we are in the paradigm of Aristotle theology. > Speak for yourself. > > Only professional theologian knowing Plato > Given the fact that there is no knowledge there for a theologian to know I don't see how a knowledgeable theologian differs from a ignorant theologian. And there is no way any ancient Greek could be of the slightest help is solving modern scientific or mathematical or philosophical problems. > > science has not decided between Plato and Aristotle > Yes it has, science decided about 400 years ago that both are irrelevant. And a modern reader interested in philosophy would do much better studying Einstein or Darwin. > > > The epistemological existence of the appearance of matter is a consequence > of arithmetic. > Even if you're right about that it wouldn't change the fact that matter is required for intelligence. And I don't know that you're right, t here is at least as much evidence that you've got it backwards and matter implies the existence of arithmetic; > > > some mathematical realism independent of any language or formal system > used to described it. > Why mathematical realism ? Mathematics is a language just as English is, so you could just as easily call it English realism. > we can no more postulate a primary physical reality, > But I can postulate the in your next post you will continue to drone on about how matter is not primary even though it has nothing to do with matter being needed for intelligence. John 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
