On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that >>>>>> Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing >>>>>> mechanism >>>>>> and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher >>>>>> often >>>>>> after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology >>>>>> with >>>>>> Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists >>>>>> confuse >>>>>> the >>>>>> notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in >>>>>> prediction, >>>>>> but >>>>>> naive about explanation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good >>>>> predictions? >>>>> >>>>>> Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that >>>>>> "there >>>>>> is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical >>>>>> universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not >>>>>> better. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure it is. It is better not to add imaginary beings to your >>>>> explanation >>>>> for several reasons. First, it implies you know something for which >>>>> you >>>>> have no evidence. >>>>> Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God: He's a >>>>> powerful person. He demands we enforce certain laws. He hates the >>>>> same >>>>> people we dislike. He rewards worship.... >>>> >>>> You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess >>>> Judaic-Christian). >>>> >>>> I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text: >>>> God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it >>>> does. It is not possible to know God. >>>> >>>> Does your argument hold for my religion? >>> >>> >>> Your religion, like Bruno's, misuses the word "god" which has always >>> meant a >>> person; >> >> Brent, sorry, this is just not true. There have been many different >> conceptions of god throughout history. > > > Indeed. But they are all persons, agents, intelligent actors. > >> >>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage. There was a group of >>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and claimed >>> to >>> be a religion for tax purposes. They defined "God" to be whatever was >>> good >>> in the world. The IRS disallowed their claim. >> >> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on >> such a matter is a joke, right? > > > But they are as good an authority as any. Unlike theologians they have to > make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.
But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls under anthropology and history. Go ask the people in Aleppo if such matters have real world consequences or not... Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > 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. -- 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.
