On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest > follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever. >
That's exactly the problem. Y ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that saying "I believe God exists" is equivalent to "I believe stuff exists" ; and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the best known words in the English language and changed its definition so it means everything and anything. Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless. That's just what would be expected to happen from somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but still likes the ASCII sequence G-O-D and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means anything. > > I am a scientist, > Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in empirical results, and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us. Pure mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an armchair and thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find out new things in science. > > the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle > Aristotle was an imbecile, and theologians are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts in a field of study that doesn't exist. With theology there is no there there. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
