On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I have nothing but contempt for the idea that my time could be better
>> spent reading Plotinus than reading a modern book about cosmology.
>>
>
>
> But cosmology does not address the problem of consciousness,
>
And neither does Plotinus!
Liz: I should object to the subject. How can Islm be GENERALIZED with their
differences among their own shades?
IS happily chops off Islamic heads if their sentiments diverge. Shia-s
Sunnis are warring for 15 centuries and I would not
volunteer counting the diverse shade-differences ('shady'?)
JM
On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:52, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale
notion of god,
There are 2 choices, you can have:
1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining but silly.
2) A notion
On 10/20/2014 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from
Bertrand
Russell if I remember, become a empty comparison, when we live
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale notion of
> god,
>
There are 2 choices, you can have:
1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining but silly.
2) A notion for God that lets you preserve the word "God" bu
On 22 Oct 2014, at 00:06, LizR wrote:
On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear
On 21 Oct 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>> It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational.
>> So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet
Uranus does not exist is not rational.
> I think you allud
On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
>
> On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard
>>
>> I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be
>> positing th
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> if you are happy, it might not be completely irrational to believe, of
> put some credence in the belief of your parents
>
As I said, for many the most important thing about a belief is NOT its
truth. And you're certainly correct that peopl
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational.
>>>
>>
>> >> So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
>> does not exist is not rational.
>>
>
>
> I think you allude to the fairy tale notion of God,
On 21 Oct 2014, at 02:29, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:
>> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
> it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to
exist, but since it's physically possible, i
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
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,
On 20 Oct 2014, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You can believe that God exist, just because it is an old friend
of yours.
Yes, and the reason for that is that for many the most important
thing about a belief is not its truth.
That is possible,
For myself, it all depends on the sauce J
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
Never mind, I'm
t; *From:* LizR
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 5:42 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
>
> OK, that would be even grater.
>
>
>
> On 21 October 2014 13:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Ever
Okay I was trying to follow that one up, but everything I come up with is lesser
From: LizR
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
OK, that would be even grater.
On 21 October 2014 13:40
oglegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 5:32 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
>
> That's a saucy comment!
>
>
>
> On 21 October 2014 13:31, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> w
Let me sprinkle some cheese on that
From: LizR
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
That's a saucy comment!
On 21 October 2014 13:31, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everythi
ctober 20, 2014 5:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
>
> On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> >> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
>
>
> > it's rationa
From: LizR
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:
>> a china teapot in orbit around the
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> >> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
>
>
>> > it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist,
>> but since it's physically possible, it's irrational to believe tha
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:
>> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
> > it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist, but
> since it's physically possible, it's irrational to believe that it
> definitely doesn't exist (though not as irration
On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from
> Bertrand Russell if I remember, become a empty comparison, when we live in
> a time when setting a teapot in orbit aroun
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
>
> 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,
>
room due to random thermal vibrations also irrational?
John K Clark
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, Oct 20, 2014 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You can believe t
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > You can believe that God exist, just because it is an old friend of
> yours.
>
Yes, and the reason for that is that for many the most important thing
about a belief is not its truth. All else being equal people would prefer
to be correct but all e
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
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,
OK.
which obtains its importance from being logically
On 20 Oct 2014, at 06:57, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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
qua
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
On 20 October 2014 03:33, Bruno Marchal 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 my
Treat God as the ultimate space alien (not my idea!) and then interview him if
you get a chance. Might be quite interesting.
-Original Message-
From: LizR
To: everything-list
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 7:06 pm
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On 20 October 2014 03
On 20 October 2014 12:58, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/19/2014 4:32 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 20 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb 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 wou
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
On 10/19/2014 4:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 20 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb 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 any true Scotsman.
Do
On 20 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb 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.
--
You receiv
On 20 October 2014 05:59, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> > The point that Krauss fails to address is precisely that - why there is
>> something rather than nothing.
>>
>
> Have you actually read the book? It sure doesn't sound like you did.
>
No I don't ha
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. With
On 20 October 2014 03:33, Bruno Marchal 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 theolo
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
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 bafflegab.
> > You confu
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 fr
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:26 PM, John Clark 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 explain.
>>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Read Plotinus.
>
No.
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 everything-li
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR wrote:
> The point that Krauss fails to address is precisely that - why there is
> something rather than nothing.
>
Have you actually read the book? It sure doesn't sound like you did.
> Going from "almost nothing" (the quantum vacuum, say) to something is
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 explain.
>
Then give bafflegab a rest for just one second and provide o
On 19 Oct 2014, at 02:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> "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
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2014, at 13:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> 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 determ
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 theologian, it is not completely false
to believe that there mig
On 18 Oct 2014, at 16:36, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy >
On 18 Oct 2014, at 13:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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
Thanks, I shall attempt to read it. (Interesting if String theory is the
basis of the MUH rather than the other way around!)
On 19 October 2014 20:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Likewise, the most interesting aspects of string theory are "outside the
> purview of explanations that can be tested i
Likewise, the most interesting aspects of string theory are "outside the
purview of explanations that can be tested in any even vaguely obvious
direct, empirical manner." and they may form the basis of MUH.
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR wrote:
> The point
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 a
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> 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 th
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
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 about?
John K Clark
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> >>> "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 u
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>> "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 nothing
> science can at lea
everything-list
Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On 10/17/2014 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's close to Plotinus "outer God" (that the called theONE). I am OK.
But t
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 etique
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 conscio
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Of cours
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 wor
On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote:
> Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't
murcan enough,
Yeah, I've always said the
On 17 Oct 2014, at 22:18, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy > 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"
On 17 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR 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 u
On 17 Oct 2014, at 07:46, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal
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 supp
On 17 Oct 2014, at 00:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno ended his post with:
You did not answer my argument that you are not that much agnostic
when it comes to "is there anything more than (human, if you want)
numbers?
By using the expression "human math", it means you do believe in
some non
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark 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 more mur
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 thi
On 18 October 2014 05:36, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR 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 perfectl
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> 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 Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy
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 r
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR 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 nothing scie
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 October 2014 18:46, John Clark 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 nobody means that
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 there is something
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
> 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" befor
Bruno ended his post with:
*You did not answer my argument that you are not that much agnostic when it
comes to "is there anything more than (human, if you want) numbers?*
*By using the expression "human math", it means you do believe in some non
human math. What is it, and why do you believe in t
On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:44, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal
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 o
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
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, John Clark 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/it is infallible",
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 other word) fo
On 16 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I read Bruno's ID about theology some times - never really
comprehended it.
Then I suggest a standard dictionary or to google/wiki the term,
where you'll find that Bruno did not
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 a
On 15 Oct 2014, at 18:20, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal
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.
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 univers
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> I read Bruno's ID about* theology* some times - never really comprehended
> it.
>
Then I suggest a standard dictionary or to google/wiki the term, where
you'll find that Bruno did not invent the term, nor did he imbue it with
some special inte
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, or
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 this message be
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 di
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> By insisting that God does not exist, you insist that the
> Christians/Muslims/Jews have the correct notion of God.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
J
On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> You confirm all the time the theory that atheists are the best
defenders of the christians dogma.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before
On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:48, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> what a things is and what a thing does: is basically the same
things.
So you think there is no difference between nouns verbs and
adjectives.
Wrong inference, which is clear in what
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 disliking religion religious, never heard that
one b
It's a bit like Satanists "backing up Christian dogma" by opposing it. They
may believe they're against what Christ is supposed to have stood for, but
they've clearly bought into the religion. Otherwise they would oppose it -
and all religions - by ignoring them equally.
Similarly if you insist th
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM, John Clark wrote:
> Not exactly. I prefer that my beliefs be true, or at least as true as I
> can get them, but others have a different preference. For the religious the
> most important part of a belief isn't it's truth but how good it makes you
> feel or how wel
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > You confirm all the time the theory that atheists are the best defenders
>> of the christians dogma.
>>
>
> Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
> t
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You confirm all the time the theory that atheists are the best defenders
> of the christians dogma.
>
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
Joh
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > what a things is and what a thing does: is basically the same things.
>
So you think there is no difference between nouns verbs and adjectives. I
think there are.
> That follows from determinacy.
>
There is no logical reason to belie
On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:51, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>> physics does not even address the problem of qualia
>> And neither does religion.
> But the greek theology did,
Baloney.
> by addressing the mind-body problem,
So the ancient Greeks s
On 11 Oct 2014, at 19:34, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR wrote:
> I think you have to distinguish Bruno's use of "theology" here
from more conventional uses,
And why does Bruno like to use such very very
You exaggerate, and I guess you do so because you don't bel
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>> physics does not even address the problem of qualia
>>>
>>
> >> And neither does religion.
>>
>
> > But the greek theology did,
>
Baloney.
> by addressing the mind-body problem,
>
So the ancient Greeks said that what a thing is and
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
