From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 2:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,
non-digital, computer architecture
On 5 July 2014 05:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/4/2014 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing
god doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does exist.
On 05 Jul 2014, at 10:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 12:05 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tyson is not
On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/4/2014 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I define theology by the study of the truth about you and not-you,
if you want. Science is the subpart concerned with what is 3p
communicable, or relatively communicable, and the proper theology
On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:43, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote:
On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This
On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/4/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he might
still have important relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or even
with the notion of arithmetical truth as pointed too by a machine.
Which
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 12:05 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,
non-digital, computer architecture
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
tell me if you believe in a primitively existing physical reality, or
if you are open to the possibility that the fundamental reality is
arithmetic
If I were religious I'd give you an answer to that question because
On 7/3/2014 7:53 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, that isn't the definition of atheist I have come across but if you are only using it
in the weak sense of I don't positively believe in any god or gods then that's fine.
Here for comparison purposes are the definitions from Wiktionary. I generally assume
On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing
god doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does exist. But it is
still ambiguous because it assumes that God(s) is definite. I don't
believe that
On 03 Jul 2014, at 20:05, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible.
But I can't be sure.
I don't believe that for one second, I think you are sure there is
not a china
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
god is not quite the same thing than a tea-pot.
Very true, a teapot may not exist in orbit around the planet Uranus but at
least teapots do exist in other places, but God doesn't exist anywhere.
In science we very often
On 04 Jul 2014, at 04:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2014 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to
reasonably fail
On 7/4/2014 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing god
doesn't
exist from failing to believe that god does exist. But it is still
ambiguous
On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote:
On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing
believing god doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does
exist. But it is still ambiguous because it assumes that God(s)
On 7/4/2014 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I define theology by the study of the truth about you and not-you, if you want. Science
is the subpart concerned with what is 3p communicable, or relatively communicable, and
the proper theology contains also the true statements, but that you cannot
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote:
On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing
On 7/4/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he might still have important
relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or even with the notion of arithmetical truth as
pointed too by a machine.
Which agrees with my point that the truth of
On 3 Jul 2014, at 10:49 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
So I think having convenient shorthands for various stances on these matters
is a handy convention, which I would hope everyone who contributes to the
forum recognises. (Although personally I'm still not sure who Plotinus was or
I also like Baker, who stared in a couple of fantasy flicks like Sinbad, and
whatever, Pertwee was always a serious guy, and it was great, as a yank, to
watch UNIFIL (Uk soldiers) fight with FN_FAL rifles, Sterling sten guns, and
such. I remember reading that the writers were going for a sort
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I
can't be sure.
I don't believe that for one second, I think you are sure there is not a
china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus; although please
On 7/3/2014 11:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never
stop a good
theologian
Lol. Good humor.
I wish it were a joke, just last month in a HBO documentary Pastor Peter LaRuffa
educated the world with these words
I am waiting to read in the bible that the sum of positive integers from
one to infinity is a negative fraction of the first integer.
In other words, the bible is more believable than mathematics.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/3/2014 11:05
On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail
to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot
On 3 July 2014 23:32, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I also like Baker,
Tom I assume rather than Colin (who played Dr Who number 6 - and is a very
nice guy, by the way).
who starred in a couple of fantasy flicks like Sinbad, and whatever,
Pertwee
On 7/3/2014 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to
OK, that isn't the definition of atheist I have come across but if you are
only using it in the weak sense of I don't positively believe in any god
or gods then that's fine. Here for comparison purposes are the definitions
from Wiktionary. I generally assume that definitions 1 or 3 are the most
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
statements must be true:
1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
2) Bruno Marchal is
2014-07-02 17:08 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
statements must be true:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like Plotinus
and the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle?
Likewise why mention Galileo or Newton or Maxwell, when they've been
shown to be wrong?
Because unlike
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably
fail to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no
teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make me epitemologically
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
two statements must be true:
1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
2) Bruno
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John
On 01 Jul 2014, at 19:56, John Clark wrote:
omnipotence is self-contradictory.
I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never
stop a good theologian.
Lol. Good humor.
Or we have a big vocabulary problem.
Let me make something clear. By a good theologian, I mean
2014-07-02 19:23 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
two statements must
On 7/2/2014 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe
that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but
They're definitely trying to go for a Pertwee vibe, which is fine by me
(Pert is my 4th favourite Doctor from classic Who)
On 2 July 2014 11:17, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
What about the newest guy? Reminds me of Jon Pertwee, minus the fluff
On 3 July 2014 04:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
That is no excuse! The technology at the time was good enough to
demonstrate that a heavy rock does not fall faster than a slightly lighter
rock, and Aristotle was supposed to be a master of logic and should have
realized from pure
On 3 July 2014 05:51, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No I see that Bruno's point is valid if atheism is equated with
physicalism and the negation of the Abrahamic god (as he does here)... But
it is a narrow view... most atheist would agree that they are agnostic on
first cause and
On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the scientific
method, so we really
On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 30 Jun 2014, at 20:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Thinking that atheism could be bad, is like believing that red hair
is a sign of the devil.
The problem of atheism, is that it is
- either scientifically trivial (santa klaus does not exist),
- or a religion in disguise (a
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like Plotinus
and the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle?
Aristotle was a brilliant physicist.
WHAT?!
Indeed, his word initiates physics.
If
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe that
it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't
make me epitemologically irresponsible to assert I don't believe there is one.
On 7/1/2014 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark
What about the newest guy? Reminds me of Jon Pertwee, minus the fluff heads.
But anyone married to an actor from Doctor Who is good in my book (well,
apart from David Tennant...)
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list
Dear Bruno,
Hear Hear! Well said!
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On
On 6/29/2014 10:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM,
On 29 Jun 2014, at 12:22, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 June 2014 05:47, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
t's the materialist hat (I'm not sure which colour it is). Calling
bullshit! on comp and similar ideas without stopping to
understand them
seems to stem from a religious belief in materialism
On 29 Jun 2014, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I care about the notion behind. Call it the ONE
Let's call it the BULLSHIT.
Why not. But it can be confusing.
I don't see how THE BULLSHIT is more confusing than
On 28 Jun 2014, at 14:00, Kim Jones wrote:
On 28 Jun 2014, at 5:39 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that your average 6th grader knows far more about the
universe than he ever did why in hell should I read Plotinus??
Yes, kids have the ability to understand a lot more
On 29 Jun 2014, at 23:19, Kim Jones wrote:
On 29 Jun 2014, at 7:19 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think it is more related with ego-psychological issue than with
the matter subject.
Bruno
Precisely. Which is why you will understand that to respond any
further to the
--
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
On 29 Jun 2014, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:
Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like Plotinus and
the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle?
Likewise why mention Galileo or Newton or Maxwell, when they've been shown
to be wrong? Or Einstein or Heisenberg, since we
On 1 July 2014 06:53, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Thinking that atheism could be bad, is like believing that red hair is a
sign of the devil. Red hair, like atheism, is a difference without a
distinction. Not, on the other hand is it axiomatically,
On 29 June 2014 05:47, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
t's the materialist hat (I'm not sure which colour it is). Calling
bullshit! on comp and similar ideas without stopping to understand them
seems to stem from a religious belief in materialism (Bill Taylor on the
FOAR forum is another
On 29 Jun 2014, at 04:26, Kim Jones wrote:
On 29 Jun 2014, at 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As long as quasi-rationalists like you mock the theological field,
and prevent any seriousness there, it will remain in the province
of the bullshit vendors.
The trouble with
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the scientific
method, so we really need the concept in order to understand the status of
scientific theories.
I like what Isaac Asimov, a fellow who knew a thing or two about
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I care about the notion behind. Call it the ONE
Let's call it the BULLSHIT.
Why not. But it can be confusing.
I don't see how THE BULLSHIT is more confusing than THE ONE.
It looks like according to you we just
On 29 Jun 2014, at 7:19 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think it is more related with ego-psychological issue than with the matter
subject.
Bruno
Precisely. Which is why you will understand that to respond any further to the
belligerence of his posts is merely an
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the scientific
method, so we really need the concept in order to understand the status of
scientific theories.
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the scientific
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at
On 30 June 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM,
On 28 Jun 2014, John Clark wrote:
Most intelligent educated people long ago abandoned the notion of God,
That's truly funny. You really did go to bed and dreamt that one. Now you are
outdoing me in insulting Americans by calling most of the human race, including
the majority of people in
On 28 Jun 2014, at 5:39 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that your average 6th grader knows far more about the universe than he
ever did why in hell should I read Plotinus??
Yes, kids have the ability to understand a lot more than we give them credit
for, don't they? I
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/27/2014 3:29 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
But []~g in contrast... that's not even
On 27 Jun 2014, at 21:39, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I care about the notion behind. Call it the ONE
Let's call it the BULLSHIT.
Why not. But it can be confusing.
read Plotinus,
Given that your average 6th grader knows
On 29 Jun 2014, at 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As long as quasi-rationalists like you mock the theological field, and
prevent any seriousness there, it will remain in the province of the bullshit
vendors.
The trouble with thinkers like Clark is that they are really
On 29 June 2014 14:26, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 29 Jun 2014, at 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As long as quasi-rationalists like you mock the theological field, and
prevent any seriousness there, it will remain in the province of the
bullshit vendors.
Yes, indeed. Let me know next time one phones in, and I'll listen
in. Should be interesting.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:01:06PM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Indeed, Professor, like Hercules, but gods are a higher paygrade, and have
tenure. Still, it would be interesting to
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational
If you read it as In every possible world g is false and g=Some God,
it's irrational (unless g entails a
On 6/27/2014 3:29 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational
If you read it as In
On 25 Jun 2014, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction
to Conscience Mécanisme I make clear what I mean by agnostic
(~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[]
and
On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:51, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the
planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic?
Agnostic.
Is the possibility of such a orbiting
On 26 Jun 2014, at 22:19, John Mikes wrote:
PGC, Brent, et all (Liz? with Dawkins quoted) - the word is
GOD-LIKE
what I object to. Like WHAT god of the past 20,000 years? the one
imagined as the Big Baer, or the 'author' behind the Abrahamic
Scripture, or Bruno's Univ. Machine?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely Atheist means 100% sure, so 99.9% is still agnostic
The existence or nonexistence of God is just one fact about the world,
there are lots more, so I guess we need to invent hairsplitting
distinctions for them
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I care about the notion behind. Call it the ONE
Let's call it the BULLSHIT.
read Plotinus,
Given that your average 6th grader knows far more about the universe than
he ever did why in hell should I read Plotinus??
I
On 28 June 2014 07:25, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely Atheist means 100% sure, so 99.9% is still agnostic
The existence or nonexistence of God is just one fact about the world,
there are lots more,
On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow
academician, Clement Vidal? He's a philosopher at your University?
Do you ever get into the Evo-Devo view?
I don't know him. I don't know Evo-Devo view. You might
Its a good point. Dawkins was just suggesting a hypothesis. Humans look for
limits and somehow beat them, given enough time effort. Hypercomputing looks
plausible to me. Theres a fair amount of papers at ARXIV that write about this
kind of thing.
I don't know if god-like intelligences are
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:23, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but
this can only create a confusion.
Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet
Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic?
Agnostic.
Is the possibility of such a orbiting teapot large enough that it would
alter your
On 6/26/2014 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:23, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this
can only
create a
PGC, Brent, et all (Liz? with Dawkins quoted) - the word is
*GOD-LIKE *
what I object to. Like WHAT god of the past 20,000 years? the one imagined
as the Big Baer, or the 'author' behind the Abrahamic Scripture, or Bruno's
Univ. Machine? The Greek socials, or the Nordish brutes?
I missed Bruno's
On 27 June 2014 06:51, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet
Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic?
Agnostic.
Is the possibility of
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2014 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:23, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:51:51AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow
academician, Clement Vidal? He's a philosopher at your University?
Do you ever get into the Evo-Devo
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:05:55PM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
For me, your analogy (which has been heard before of course) is simple to
satisfy. The Peoples Republic of China, upon hearing John Clark's
philosophical challenge, and diverts its lunar rover to the planet
Indeed, Professor, like Hercules, but gods are a higher paygrade, and have
tenure. Still, it would be interesting to have a chat with the purported mind
that created or altered all this region. Advice would be nice, perhaps a tweet
now and then?
Technically, those are demigods, of course.
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational
If you read it as In every possible world g is false and g=Some God, it's irrational
(unless g entails a contradiction). But that isn't atheism. An atheist says g doesn't
exist and that's
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,
non-digital, computer architecture
On 27 May 2014, at 01:37, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent:
Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician,
Clement Vidal? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get into the
Evo-Devo view?
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to Conscience
Mécanisme I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural
language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that
For me, your analogy (which has been heard before of course) is simple to
satisfy. The Peoples Republic of China, upon hearing John Clark's philosophical
challenge, and diverts its lunar rover to the planet Uranus. All this to the
chagrin of Mr. Clark, who yell's Not fair! Never the less, the
On 26 June 2014 07:05, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Or to quote, Richard Dawkins, Yes, I can imagine there are god-like
intelligences in the universe. Atheist, Agnostic, Believer? Sure. All
three.
(Or in other universes, or branches of the level 1 or
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to
Conscience Mécanisme I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and
atheists ([]~g). Natural language
I think the term has broadened out since it was first introduced. Nowadays
it appears to mean believing there are no supernatural forces of any kind.
It also seems to (often implicitly) mean believing that the primitive
materialist view of the physical world is correct, too.
--
You received this
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
