On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence,
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's
center keeps getting hit by facts.
Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious
commitment, with the large sense of God.
"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheism is a
religion like OFF is a TV channel. Atheism is a religion like an
empty lot is a building..."
--- George Carlin
Correct for agnostic atheism.
False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the gnostic
atheists).
Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and []~g.
The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between the
fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.
Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality
with the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That confusion
is easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does not make it
true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is the
explanation. God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is what
the fundamental researcher is searching: the reality (which is
transcendental, we cannot prove it exists) but can try theories
("first principles" in the antic terming).
Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.
Where?
You can't define things into existence.
That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo-scientists
claiming that science is materialist.
You can search for what is fundamental, but that doesn't prove that
it exists.
We can only start from what we agree on, and to just define digital
mechanism, we must agree that 2+2 = 4, and Ex(x+2=4) and things like
that, taught in high school since a long time. Then the reasoning
explains that matter and mind are phenomenological appearance
emerging, from 2+2=4 and alike. It works and is testable. Physics
works, but use contradictory statement to rely the equation and the
first person verification of the equation.
I have had recently a long discussion with an "atheist" who eventually
was forced, to make his point, to eliminate consciousness from the
picture, like Dennett and the Churchland did. He understood that a
notion of ontological matter simply does not work. It is equivalent
with God made it by violating the rules of logic.
There is no worry. Either digital mechanism is false, or physics will
relies on more solid base than observation and inductive inference.
Bruno
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.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
