> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 30 May 2019, at 19:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/29/2019 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> Only atheists insist to use “God” in the sense of the Christian (and only >>>> Aristotelian among them, where indeed materialism has been *the* dogma). >>> >>> Words are for communication and so their meaning is determined by their >>> usage. "God" in the sense of Christians is also God in the sense of >>> Muslims and Hindus. So it is the usage of at least 70% of humanity. To >>> use it to mean something else is obfuscation. >> >> >> Then mathematics and science is obfuscation 100% of the time. >> >> In science we don’t do vocabulary discussion. If you want call god “Arthur” >> or “Josephine”, just do it. >> >> Then what you say does not make sense. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have >> always been divided between the Aristotelian conception of God and Matter >> and the Platonist conception of God and matter, which are totally different. >> The Platonic conception is not well represented because Christians and >> Muslims have stolen theology from science to make it into an instrument of >> power, and have forced the Platonicians to exil, when they have not killed >> them. >> >> I think you want to please me by illustration how much atheists defend the >> Aristotelian Christian and Muslims materialist metaphysics. >> >> The God/Non-God debate looks exactly like a fake debate to make us forget >> that the original metaphysical question was about the fundamental existence >> of a primitive physical universe. The question took the form of what is more >> fundamental among mathematics and physics later. >> >> I am the atheist or agnostic here: I do not believe in your God Matter. I >> found no evidence. My whole work show how we can test mechanism/materialism, >> and the test shows that Nature confirms Platonism. >> >> I will change my mind if the physics which is in the mind of all universal >> machine differ from nature, but up to now, the evidences are that they fit. >> There is no evidence for materialism. None. It is speculating on some god to >> avoid science. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> You confirm, like many, that the atheists "are like slaves who are still >>>> feeling the weight of their chain which they have thrown off after hard >>>> struggle”, to quote Einstein. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> and it meant a supernatural human-like agent: Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah >>>>> Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, >>>>> Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, >>>>> Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, >>>>> Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, >>>>> Brigit,...Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, >>>>> Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, >>>>> Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, >>>>> Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, >>>>> Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus? >>>> I will ask you to use the word “Earth” for a Flat object on which the >>>> human stand up. >>> >>> An attempted analogy that does not work. Unlike "god", we can define Earth >>> ostensively and so learn that it has different properties, like being >>> spheroidal, without changing the definition. >> >> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed >> this by ostentation. > > Now you're just twisting words. Ostensive definition is by pointing. One > can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive definition makes sense. > >> Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and >> omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The >> correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have a >> conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 19th >> century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock >> it. >> >> I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the vocabulary. >> For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not God, but >> “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse physics and >> metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of metaphysical >> brainwashing. >> >> If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you can >> show it to us. > > Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality? Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical reality is primitive. > As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a matter > of faith… Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable > except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith. There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff with an elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping. > >> The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics is >> the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an evidence >> that reality is psychological. > > You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction. You > don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental. So you > are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to criticize > it and pretend you are above it. ? Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”. We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe that it cannot be recovered from other principle. Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be recovered, even in principle, by another science like chemistry or physics. I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in principle. With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain, in principle, by very elementary arithmetic. When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole picture. Bruno > > Brent > >> You need to address metaphysics with the same level of rigour than you show >> in physics. >> >> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a8585c1b-8134-bc81-59f6-145160c6bebe%40verizon.net >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a8585c1b-8134-bc81-59f6-145160c6bebe%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> -- >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D56FA904-9E25-4BE2-B8E9-21F1B98FA23C%40ulb.ac.be >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D56FA904-9E25-4BE2-B8E9-21F1B98FA23C%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98372c8a-3212-33ab-902f-12b477433d7b%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98372c8a-3212-33ab-902f-12b477433d7b%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C3143416-1168-4439-8FDF-7A13F762F229%40ulb.ac.be.
