On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:26 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
thereby explaining a variety of scientific problems and refuting your
absolute statement on what any god theory can/cannot
On 20 October 2014 04:23, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And to believe that something does not exist, you need a precise version
of it.
No, you just need a definite version. The god I don't believe
just need a definite version. The god I don't believe in is
the god of theism, which, as I've written many times, is a person who
created the universe and cares about how we behave and wants to be
worshipped.
So then do you believe in one that doesn't want to be worshipped? What
about one
On 10/19/2014 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have read many of them. No serious theology would use God as an explanation
of matter.
Neither would any true Scotsman.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On 10/19/2014 8:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't recall Bruno ever csaying if you don't believe in something then you
believe in it.
What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same idea/conception of god
that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic religions use
a grasp on some usual state of affairs. PGC
I works with house and Brent too. What's curious is that failing to believe in
anything implies that you do believe in it.
Precisely: atheists does not fail to believe in God: they believe that the notion of
God has no sense, but they use only
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
I will no longer respond to your queries on this
Mr. Cowboy, I just asked for one clear specific example of something the
God theory can explain, but all all got was more bafflegab; well I don't
need you to find
On 20 October 2014 03:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 21:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/17/2014 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's close to Plotinus outer God (that the called the ONE). I am OK.
But that is false for the Inner God.
For mystics and rationalist
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be
positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning.
If so, this rather defangs the MUH, which obtains its importance from being
logically prior to (the appearance of) a material universe.
, and as
I've attempted to do in my attempts to understand comp).
PS
If you've been on this forum very long you will already know my views on
the God hypothesis.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 20 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2014 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have read many of them. No serious theology would use God as an
explanation of matter.
Neither would any true Scotsman.
Do women count? I'm a MacDonald on my mother's side
On 10/19/2014 4:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 20 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/19/2014 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have read many of them. No serious theology would use God as an
explanation of
matter.
Neither would
Liz,
I am not sure that you can call the underpinning physical. But you
certainly have a good point.
According to one string theory, what seems to exist before the creation of
the universe are dimensions and flux, and symmetries and quantum theory. At
the big-bang some of the dimensions inflate
believe in it.
What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same
idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic
religions
use.
Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by
God,
Yeah
of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic
religions use.
Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by
God,
Yeah, they tend to be rational like that.
It's not raining so it never rains. There are no such things as
sophisticated French subtleties like
Oct 2014, at 21:42, John Mikes wrote:
I read Bruno's ID about theology some times - never really
comprehended it.
I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a
'startup of the World'
no matter on what theory.
About the GOD concept did ANYBODY EVER communicated about
On 17 Oct 2014, at 07:46, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not
some other word)
Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you
did not reply
On 17 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If Russell is to be believed, why is there something rather than
nothing? is a badly posed question,
I don't think so, it may or may not have a answer, nobody knows, but
it's a
On 17 Oct 2014, at 22:18, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not
some other word)
Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you
did not reply
On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't
On 16 Oct 2014, at 22:53, LizR wrote:
On 16 October 2014 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that believing and not believing in anything is consistent
with MWI (and therefore comp) for if you believe something in one
world, you will fail to believe in it in some
Bruno: Then by the ONE, I mean God, in the greek sense of whatever is
needed to have a reality and consciousness.
Richard: If MWI can be derived from comp and if the MWI is deterministic,
then IMO there is no need for consciousness.
I claim that a reality and consciousness , that is a single
Glashow's Crazy
idea, but is it crazy enough to be true?
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:22 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God
anymore
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com
On 10/17/2014 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's close to Plotinus outer God (that the called the ONE). I am OK. But that is
false for the Inner God.
For mystics and rationalist theologian, it is not completely false to believe that there
might be only one person, and that the one
On 10/18/2014 7:36 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
...
I question whether his arguments represent merely the other side of rather literal
Christian cultural coin, where it is o.k. to be patronizing in using psychological trick
like talking down to people about politeness and cultural
Urge versus demi-Urge?? I didn't think Plotinus was a Gnostic? What if God
was a, the, Great Mind? Would you, knowing that He was a space alien like to
interview Him, or would you bow out, given this ridiculous, opportunity?
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
produce something even if the nothing doesn't even have the potential to
produce something? Don't you think that may be just a tad unreasonable?
And whatever misgivings you may have about science failing to fully explain
some subtlety remember that the God theory can explain absolutely
positively
explain some subtlety remember that the God theory can explain absolutely
positively NOTHING, zero zilch nada goose egg.
Whatever misgivings you may have...remember... = Whatever you say...I
will have my canned spam message to place right here
Being our humble scientific role model again?
That's
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Lebowski caricature in Hollywood flick quote above utters perhaps a
stronger statement:
Yeah, well... that's just like your uhmm.. opinion, man.
Can anybody translate this for me? What on earth this man talking
, man.
Can anybody translate this for me? What on earth this man talking about?
Perhaps it's sort of machine's theological universal refutation statement.
Concerning God theory can explain absolutely positively NOTHING, zero
zilch nada goose egg. it could mean that somebody could believe
The point that Krauss fails to address is precisely that - why there is
something rather than nothing. Going from almost nothing (the quantum
vacuum, say) to something is, simply, starting from something. That's fine
from the viewpoint of the continuing saga of physics, which doesn't attempt
to
On 17 October 2014 18:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget omniscient, if Cosmologists are even close to being correct God,
the reason there is something rather than nothing, is not even as
intelligent as a worm and has less memory than one; and I would maintain
that virtually
On 17 October 2014 03:54, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.
Yes but without doublethink how could we have
On the subject of atheists and whether they have a definite concept of god,
etc etc --- well, atheists are (in my experience) dogmatic that they are
sure there is nothing to the universe(s) except something like matter,
energy, space and time (or a quantum field, vectors in Hilbert space
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
other word)
Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you
On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:39, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.
Right. If I remember correctly, peculiar machine is
:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
otherwise are some kind of divine intervention that saved my life.
Could there be an explanation that is completely secular?
Could it be explained
On Monday, October 6, 2014 7:15:44 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the
question of
whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this list, is
that God is
implicitly the god of theism, and is not one's reason
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:39, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on
do believe in Santa Claus. A curious
inference for a logician.
Brent, are you trying to compete with John Clark, in attributing me
things I have never said.
All what I said is that Atheists and Christian defend the same
conception of God. The atheists defend that conception so
that proved to me that there
exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
otherwise are some kind of divine intervention that saved my life.
Could
there be an explanation that is completely secular?
Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a
large
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If Russell is to be believed, why is there something rather than
nothing? is a badly posed question,
I don't think so, it may or may not have a answer, nobody knows, but it's a
perfectly clear unambiguous question. And if not from
to believe in anything implies that you do believe in it.
Precisely: atheists does not fail to believe in God: they believe
that the notion of God has no sense, but they use only the
christian God to make their point.
And to believe that something does not exist, you need a precise
version
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
other word)
Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you did
not reply.
If the ONE is supposed to mean the reason
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
other word)
Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE
On 10/17/2014 2:01 AM, LizR wrote:
On the subject of atheists and whether they have a definite concept of god, etc etc ---
well, atheists are (in my experience) dogmatic that they are sure there is nothing to
the universe(s) except something like matter, energy, space and time (or a quantum
On 10/17/2014 8:01 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 6, 2014 7:15:44 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the
question of
whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that
God
On 18 October 2014 05:36, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If Russell is to be believed, why is there something rather than
nothing? is a badly posed question,
I don't think so, it may or may not have a answer, nobody
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
enough,
Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be more murcan, in fact some of
my best friends are reoflactacly murcan; and things
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
enough,
Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be
On 10/16/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2014, at 13:23, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Aha! Now what of Boltzmann Brains and how this topic is undervalued by the intellects
here.
The UD is more general than the Boltzman brain. It contains the web of all Boltzmann
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.
On 16 October 2014 18:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:28 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I works with house and Brent
On 14 Oct 2014, at 17:15, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
John,
Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the
awful suffering you have accurately, cited? Marx said that religion
is an opiate for the people, so what do you offer as a pain reliever?
Aspirin
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence
of God anymore?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what
is at the origin of the physical universe,
Then if modern
On 15 Oct 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what
is at the origin of the physical universe,
Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being
, as I know it, is a slight
variant of christianism.
Then why do you defend the idea that christians have the genuine
notion of god. I know why. So you can utter how the notion of god is
stupid, etc. But you would be a non-christian, you would not care
about their definition, and open to quite
to compete with John Clark, in attributing me
things I have never said.
All what I said is that Atheists and Christian defend the same
conception of God. The atheists defend that conception so that they
can announce proudly to the world that there is NO god.
And doing so, they share
to believe in God: they believe that
the notion of God has no sense, but they use only the christian God to
make their point.
And to believe that something does not exist, you need a precise
version of it. So atheits, like christian (the fundamentalist one)
believe that they have the right
On 16 Oct 2014, at 05:32, LizR wrote:
Is this a fair comment, Bruno?
No. See my answer to Brent. Tell me if you see the point. I have never
said that atheists believe in God, only that they share the same
concept of God than the (fundamentalist) christians. I only say that
atheists
On 16 Oct 2014, at 05:40, LizR wrote:
I don't believe that's what Bruno means
Thanks God!
Bruno
(which if I'm wrong means I DO believe that's what he
means.cleardot[1].gif..)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group
with MWI (and therefore comp) for if you believe something in one
world, you will fail to believe in it in some other world.
Not in the normal (Gaussian) worlds. There is no world in which I
believe in the christian God, or in 2+2=5, except in the world I am
not bruno, or in the worlds I have
The key point is that atheist don't believe in God, but believe that
God deos not exist. But to have such a belief you need to believe that
you have the right notion of God, and this is what they share with the
christian: the same conception of God, even if it is to assert its non
it before I was 12.
Then explain me why you defend the idea that God means only what the
Christians or Muslims mean by it.
explains me why you never look at theologies different from the
christians and the muslims, despite there are many, as Jason made
clear in a long post to you.
Why
On 15 Oct 2014, at 21:42, John Mikes wrote:
I read Bruno's ID about theology some times - never really
comprehended it.
I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a
'startup of the World'
no matter on what theory.
About the GOD concept did ANYBODY EVER communicated
that Bruno did not invent the term, nor did he
imbue it with some special interpretation.
He mostly uses it in the common sense of rational study of concept
of god/nature of truth, which btw is implied by the word Theology
and its etymology itself.
I got the notion that he sorts under
:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
otherwise are some kind of divine intervention that saved my life. Could
there be an explanation that is completely secular?
Could
to old articles that indicate personality, and
consciousness.
Mitch
div
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 02:04 AM
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God
...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
otherwise are some kind of divine
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.
Right. If I remember correctly, peculiar machine is inaccurate but not
necessarily inconsistent.
So you have to
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
explain me why you defend the idea that God means only what the
Christians or Muslims mean by it.
I don't care what Christians and Muslims mean by it but I ask myself who
would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
Stephen,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
otherwise are some kind of divine intervention that saved
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.
Yes but without doublethink how could we have religion? And how could a
logician say Atheism, as I know it, is a slight
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
For example, say you state after some mystical experience, that you met
a god that told you to write down his message. If your god insists in the
text that he/she
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Educate yourself by reading the excellent book by Lawrence M Krauss A
Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing.
It assumes still enough physicalism so that he put still some magic in
the brain.
Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
otherwise
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Lol, why is somebody, that prides themselves spamming, in the driver's
seat of posing questions now?
You should have put a on before spamming and put a be rather than a
comma between spamming and in the
inference for a logician.
Brent, are you trying to compete with John Clark, in attributing me things I have never
said.
All what I said is that Atheists and Christian defend the same conception of God. The
atheists defend that conception so that they can announce proudly to the world
implies that you do believe in it.
Precisely: atheists does not fail to believe in God: they believe that the notion of God
has no sense, but they use only the christian God to make their point.
And to believe that something does not exist, you need a precise version of it.
No, you just need
On 10/16/2014 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The key point is that atheist don't believe in God, but believe that God deos not exist.
But to have such a belief you need to believe that you have the right notion of God, and
this is what they share with the christian: the same conception of God
On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:44, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
explain me why you defend the idea that God means only what the
Christians or Muslims mean by it.
I don't care what Christians and Muslims mean by it but I ask myself
On 16 Oct 2014, at 17:20, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Educate yourself by reading the excellent book by Lawrence M
Krauss A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than
Nothing.
It assumes still enough
On 16 October 2014 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that believing and not believing in anything is consistent with
MWI (and therefore comp) for if you believe something in one world, you
will fail to believe in it in some other world.
That's equivalent to extending
2014, at 21:42, John Mikes wrote:
I read Bruno's ID about* theology* some times - never really comprehended
it.
I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a 'startup of
the World'
no matter on what theory.
About the GOD concept did *ANYBODY EVER *communicated about
Jesus, and the many
forms in many universes that this figure can take, is no easy task. No
worries: I'm here to help, on topic with generalizations of Jesus- God and
Matter, an example of which can be beheld at the very end of this short
sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZR58d77a4A
Valid
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
other word)
Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you did not
reply.
If the ONE is supposed to mean the reason
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists
something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are
some kind of divine intervention
about the existence of God
anymore?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what is at the
origin of the physical universe,
Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God
On 14 Oct 2014, at 03:00, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
John has never had a decent reply to the proposition, that by
entertaining negation of Christian dogma, he is in fact enforcing it.
Wow, calling a guy known for
On 15 Oct 2014, at 01:30, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what
is at the origin of the physical universe,
Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct
:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi Brent,
I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists
something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are
some kind of divine intervention that saved my life. Could
.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:30 pm
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God
anymore?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
your dislike of religions hides a defense of a religion.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
John K Clark
--
You received
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what is at
the origin of the physical universe,
Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
omniscient, God isn't even very smart
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
which again confirm my point (you know the one which trigger your
bot-like answer).
If you don't like my bot-like answer then stop making the exact same
bot-like accusation; I give the stupidity prize to Atheism,
article on ARXIV I'd
Rather See One Than Be One.).
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 11:30 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God
anymore
I read Bruno's ID about* theology* some times - never really comprehended
it.
I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a 'startup of
the World'
no matter on what theory.
About the GOD concept did *ANYBODY EVER *communicated about it on a
basis NOT hearsay, NOT dreaming
it with
some special interpretation.
He mostly uses it in the common sense of rational study of concept of
god/nature of truth, which btw is implied by the word Theology and its
etymology itself.
I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a 'startup of
the World'
no matter on what
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
For example, say you state after some mystical experience, that you met
a god that told you to write down his message. If your god insists in the
text that he/she/it is infallible, in the literal sense of the term, in
all possible universes
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
The stupidity prize you made up is clearly yours to claim,
Oh I've said plenty of stupid thinks in my time, but I don't think I can
compete with Bruno's Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of
christianism.
401 - 500 of 1261 matches
Mail list logo
