On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > * From -500 to +500, theology has progressed a lot.* > I'd like to see some examples of that. Religion didn't progress logically it just got dumber. Moses didn't claim to be God, Jesus did. And the entire crucifixion thing is comically stupid. God can do anything but He can't forgive the human race because one of them ate an apple when He told them not to, so he arranged to get his son (who was really Him) to get tortured to death by those same humans, after that God gained the ability to forgive mankind. If this is true then God is an imbecile.... Hmm ... now that I think about it that could explain a lot. And moral teaching declined as well. As cruel as the Old Testament God was at least when you were dead you were obliterated and He stopped messing with you, but if you place one toe out of line the New Testament God will use all His infinite power to torture you in fiendish new ways for an infinite number of years (the Bible does not make it clear if that infinity is denumerable or not but considering His sadistic nature my guess would be it is not) > >> > Leibniz invented the silly catch phrase but, as is customary whenever > scientists put on their philosopher's hat, he was rather vague (and Bruno > even more vague) > > > > *Not at all. There is not one statement I make which is not a precise* > Then tell me, which unique person is Mr. YOU after Mr. You is no longer unique? > >> >> about what "primary matter” means; and that's why specialists in the >> study of matter, physicists, have never found the idea useful. > > > *> Solving fundamental question is not necessary useful, or not directly > useful.* > By “useful” I don't just mean the ability to make a better can opener, I also mean the ability to pry out more secrets about how the universe works, and Leibniz's idea has never been shown to be able to do that. That wouldn't be so bad if it could do other things but "primary matter" can't seem to make a better can opener either. > >* * > *Free-will is often defined by an ability to do something randomly, * Free-will is NOT *often* described that way, I have but I've never heard anyone else do so; I like it because, although it is not useful to the slightest degree it is one of the very few free will definitions that is not pure gibberish. >* * > *but that is impossible * Randomness is impossible? What law of logic demands that *EVERY* event have a cause? > > * that is just, imho, a very bad definition.* > [...] > *Free-will is the ability to say no to God * Speaking of bad definitions... there is no God... but if there were then being omnipotent He would have the ability to cause us to want to say yes to Him... and if God is not causing us to say stuff then there are only 2 possibilities: 1) Something other than God is causing us to say no and therefore saying no was deterministic. 2) Nothing caused us to say it and therefore saying no was random. 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.
