On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:52, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
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 21 Oct 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
On 22 Oct 2014, at 00:06, LizR wrote:
On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 10/20/2014 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from
Bertrand
Russell if I remember, become
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 pasta
On 20 Oct 2014, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 21 Oct 2014, at 02:29, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to
exist,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 20 October 2014 12:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2014 4:32 PM, LizR wrote:
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
: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
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 theONE). I am OK
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
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
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
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 Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
of the room due to random thermal vibrations also irrational?
John K Clark
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 20, 2014 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On Sun, Oct 19
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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 around
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
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 johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist
Let me sprinkle some cheese on that
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
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 Everything List
:* 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 wrote:
--
*From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Okay I was trying to follow that one up, but everything I come up with is lesser
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
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
*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 Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Let me sprinkle some
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 lizj...@gmail.com
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 yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Likewise, the most interesting aspects of string theory are outside the
purview of explanations that
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
On 18 Oct 2014, at 16:36, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
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
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
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 19 Oct 2014, at 02:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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 one clear
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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 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 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.
On 20 October 2014 05:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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
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
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 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.
If the
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
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
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
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
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
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:36 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:35 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
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 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 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
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 there
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 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 15 Oct 2014, at 18:20, John Clark wrote:
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
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
On 16 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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
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
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/it is
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
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
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
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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
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 there is
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 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
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 9:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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
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, but
On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 11 Oct 2014, at 19:34, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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
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
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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 unconventional meanings of
the word theology? Because he likes to throw the word back in the
On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:53, LizR wrote:
But it's pejorative to refer to it as god. Nobody worships
matter. Physics textbooks don't have moral prescriptions derived
from QED. To call it god is to give into Bruno's desire to make
all fundamental science theology.
I think you have to
On 07 Oct 2014, at 00:02, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: thank you so much for formulating some of my potential (and
not yet formulated) replies in a much better format than I could
ever do. Chris seems to be in reverse - describing SOME natural
observations do not mean Nature being created to
But it's pejorative to refer to it as god. Nobody worships matter.
Physics textbooks don't have moral prescriptions derived from QED. To call
it god is to give into Bruno's desire to make all fundamental science
theology.
I think you have to distinguish Bruno's use of theology here from
I worship nature. Is it not made of matter?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But it's pejorative to refer to it as god. Nobody worships matter.
Physics textbooks don't have moral prescriptions derived from QED. To call
it god is to give into Bruno's desire to
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
