There is a good obituary of Hawking by Roger Penrose
at:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/stephen-hawking-obituary
and one by
Sean Carroll at:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/stephen-hawking-sean-carroll-physics-airport/555764/
John K Clark
--
You
https://www.nytimes.com/?campaignId=6WKH8
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To
On 15 Oct 2012, at 18:25, John Mikes wrote:
Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post.
It did not convince me.
#1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with.
I don't. (once you agree).
That contradicts what is meant usually by a postulate. You put too
much in the term
Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post.
It did not convince me.
#1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with.
I don't. (once you agree).
#2: Sorry for 'the inside': I meant 'of the change', - while you meant -
of myself.
#3: Arithmetical reality is a figment, just like
On 09 Aug 2012, at 23:48, John Mikes wrote:
Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to
reflect to. Sorry if it causes hardship - JM
-
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
On Wed,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no
random oracle is available?
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30,
On 17 Aug 2012, at 01:43, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:06:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Russell Standish wrote:
Why would this be any different with random number generators? A
coin
flips, and I do something based on the outcome. It is
On 8/17/2012 12:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't follow this. Can you explain how?
If super intelligent aliens secretly came to earth and predicted your actions, how has
that diminished the freedom you had before their arrival?
Someone asked why this concept is important. It isn't
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/17/2012 12:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't follow this. Can you explain how?
If super intelligent aliens secretly came to earth and predicted your
actions, how has that diminished the freedom you had before
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the generator being part of you make it
your
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body?
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the
On 16 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine
if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping
On 8/16/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:06:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Russell Standish wrote:
Why would this be any different with random number generators? A coin
flips, and I do something based on the outcome. It is not my choice
(except insofar as I chose to follow an
On 14 Aug 2012, at 18:19, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
But he[me] agrees and even proposes a compatibilist definition [of
free will]
I'll let him speak to that, but its not the impression I get.
All I said was that
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body? Why would that
be considered non-free?
In what sense would the choice be mine if it is random?
It is mine if the
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body? Why would
that
be considered non-free?
In what sense would the
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the generator being part of you make it your choice? You
might define me and part of me before. It
On 14 Aug 2012, at 00:44, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no
random oracle is available?
I would have thought so.
OK.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:51:54AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote are you really claiming that roulette wheels
are conscious?
I can't prove it or the opposite proposition but personally I feel that
it's unlikely
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body? Why would that
be considered non-free?
In what sense would the choice be mine if it is random? It is like
letting someone else take the decision for you. I really don't see how
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
But he[me] agrees and even proposes a compatibilist definition [of free
will]
I'll let him speak to that, but its not the impression I get.
All I said was that the only definition of free will that is not
Dear Stephen,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/12/2012 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip
Is it possible to say that compatibilism is equivalent to Leibniz'
pre-established harmony?
Thiscan be *one* interpretation
On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
If you look at what I actually say [about free will] (page 167 of ToN),
It is the ability for a conscious entity to do somthing irrational. [...]
Clearly the concept of rationality is also a can of worms
Yes indeed
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no
random oracle is available?
I would have thought so.
I don't see why this would entail comp is
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid.
Well OK, but there sure as hell is a lot of free will going
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is false? I mean comp can only defend a compatibilist (or
mechanist, deterministic) theory of free-will,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is false? I mean comp can only defend a compatibilist (or
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is
On 12 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless,
On 8/12/2012 10:29 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness
On 8/12/2012 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid.
Well OK, but there sure as hell is a lot of free will going around these
days, even a pair of dice can be
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
In both your examples, (dice and roulette wheels), they always do
something stupid (generate a random number).
But you said free will is the ability to do something stupid so both dice
and roulette wheels have free
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:10:04PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
In both your examples, (dice and roulette wheels), they always do
something stupid (generate a random number).
But you said free will is the
On 09 Aug 2012, at 22:38, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The mind-body comes from the fact that we don't grasp the relation
between organized matter and the qualia-consciousness lived by the
person experiencing it.
We don't
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:48, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:33:47PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I do claim to know what I mean by free will,
Well maybe you do know what free will means but the trouble is
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid.
Well OK, but there sure as hell is a lot of free will going around these
days, even a pair of dice can be pretty stupid, the smart thing for it to
do would be to come up with a
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have even never met a christian in Europa who is a literalist theist.
I'm not surprised that a European feels that way, if you don't count
Antarctica it is the least religious spot on the surface of the Earth; but
if a
On 08 Aug 2012, at 19:38, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
With this thing you call comp if matter is organized in certain
ways then the adjective conscious can be used to describe it and
that's all that can be said about
On 08 Aug 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Aug 2012, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, I find that normal. Atheism needs a precise notion of God to
make, but all serious theologian
On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
your reply is appreciable (I donot use the pun: remarkable and write
'remarks' to it);
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
congrats to yur
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So, according to you, we're always wrong to deny the existence of
anything because to do so brings it into existence. We can't even have a
clear conception of it
On 8/9/2012 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
a omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. It follows logically,
and using a convention of the English language that putting a a before a word can
negate it, a atheist is someone who does not believe in that notion.
It means
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The mind-body comes from the fact that we don't grasp the relation
between organized matter and the qualia-consciousness lived by the person
experiencing it.
We don't understand the details of that relationship but we do
Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to reflect to.
Sorry if it causes hardship - JM
-
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 04:38:27PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
There is another problem, to define free will you have to introduce the
concept of awareness and to define awareness you have to introduce free
will; and regardless of what a being may or may not be aware of, that is
to say
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:33:47PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I do claim to know what I mean by free will,
Well maybe you do know what free will means but the trouble is you are
unable to communicate that understanding
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:24:59AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Yes I agree that is certainly needed, and yet I see on this very list
endless debates about if people have free will or not or if God exists or
not and there is not the slightest agreement about what free will or
God means. People
On 07 Aug 2012, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I would be very interested if a theory of everything exists, but
there is no reason ti think it must.
That is why we need a bit of faith in fundamental research.
The theory either
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I do claim to know what I mean by free will,
Well maybe you do know what free will means but the trouble is you are
unable to communicate that understanding to any of your fellow human beings
and certainly not to me. That's
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't
think we can live more than one second without some belief in some God.
I disagree. We live very well just
On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
congrats to yur interjected question: What does not exist then?
It is cute.
If I really HAVE to reply: The R e s t of the world. And if you
insist to spell it out, you just 'create' it. G
G
I appreciate your mostly agreeing
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With this thing you call comp if matter is organized in certain ways
then the adjective conscious can be used to describe it and that's all
that can be said about consciousness;
?
I have no answer because I don't
On 8/8/2012 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Aug 2012, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, I find that normal. Atheism needs a precise notion of God to make, but all serious
theologian and mystics tend to
On 8/8/2012 10:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't
think we
Bruno,
your reply is appreciable (I donot use the pun: remarkable and write
'remarks' to it);
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
congrats to yur interjected question: *What does not exist then?*
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/8/2012 10:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some
On 8/8/2012 2:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So, according to you, we're always wrong to deny the existence of anything
because
to do so brings it into existence. We can't even have a clear conception
of it
without affirming its existence. I suppose that will find
On 06 Aug 2012, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You might also tell me what is your theory of everything
If I had one I'd be the greatest and most famous scientist who ever
lived. I'm not.
or if you are even
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I would be very interested if a theory of everything exists, but there
is no reason ti think it must.
That is why we need a bit of faith in fundamental research.
The theory either exists or it does not and in either case faith
Dear Bruno,
congrats to yur interjected question: *What does not exist then?*
It is cute.
If I really HAVE to reply: *The R e s t of the world.* And if you insist
to spell it out, you just 'create' it. G
I appreciate your mostly agreeing words, one question though:
how can a machine (Loebian?) be
Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The
On 05 Aug 2012, at 19:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The study of
Hi John,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 22:33, John Mikes wrote:
Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a -
more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be
identified. As we read most 'denyers' assign
On 8/6/2012 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal
On 06 Aug 2012, at 12:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception of God.
And I remain astonished that so many people think the idea of God is
idiotic but still have such a strong emotional attachment to the ASCII
characters
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a -
more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be identified.
I disagree. Except for those who fall in love with a word but don't like
what the word
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't think we can
live more than one second without some belief in some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and material bodies and
people (including
On 8/6/2012 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least, nameable. A person has
always has a name.
Why?
Otherwise he is identifiable only by description and then there is no uncertainty about
Bruno-in-Helsinki becoming Bruno-in-Washington or
On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I
don't think we can live more than one second without some belief in
some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and
On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
Why?
Otherwise he is identifiable only by description and then there is
no uncertainty about
On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:10, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception
of God.
And I remain astonished that so many people think the idea of God is
idiotic but still have such a
On 8/6/2012 10:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs
(a - more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be
identified.
I
On 8/6/2012 10:31 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I
don't think we can live more than one second without some belief in
some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and
On 8/6/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, Christians and I do have one thing in common, we both think that it might be good
if words mean something.
Only an obtuse Christian can believe that only the christian God gives the right meaning
of the word God.
In the English speaking world
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You might also tell me what is your theory of everything
If I had one I'd be the greatest and most famous scientist who ever lived.
I'm not.
or if you are even interested in that notion.
I would be very interested if a
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The study of something that does not exist.
Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine theology can be
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The study of something that does not
On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The study of something that does not
On 8/5/2012 1:26 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a - more?)
god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be identified. As we
read most 'denyers' assign the ultimate origin to such concept. Me, too:
the infinite
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Brent,
Your statement is a nonsequitur. In your acceptance of the definition of
fascism (as given by fascism promoters) is a tacit acceptance of the
existence of fascism as an actual matter of fact. The
Hi R AM,
What exactly did you wish to communicate in your post?
On 8/5/2012 4:40 PM, R AM wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Brent,
Your statement is a nonsequitur. In your acceptance of the definition of
fascism (as given by
On 8/5/2012 4:33 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a -
more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be
identified. As we read most 'denyers' assign the ultimate origin
On 02 Aug 2012, at 21:55, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The problem is I have no conception of free will and neither do
you nor does anybody else, at least not a consistent coherent one
that has any depth.
This contradicts your own
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define God
The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who created the
universe. If you define God, as so many fans of the word but not the idea
do, as a force greater than myself then I am a devout believer
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define God
The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who
created the universe. If you define God, as so many fans of the
word but not the idea do, as a force
On 02 Aug 2012, at 00:27, RMahoney wrote:
Bruno wrote:
And my (older) definition asks for one more thing: it is that the
subject know (is aware or is conscious) about that inability and
that he can still make the decision. There is a reflexion on the
possibilities. If not, all non
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The problem is I have no conception of free will and neither do you nor
does anybody else, at least not a consistent coherent one that has any
depth.
This contradicts your own definition of free will that you already find
much
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free will is the ability to make a willing choice
Are you saying WILLING choices is the great definition you keep claiming
I'm ignoring, this is the famous it ? Willing? So free will is will that
is free. Well, at least that's not
On 01 Aug 2012, at 18:05, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free will is the ability to make a willing choice
Are you saying WILLING choices is the great definition you keep
claiming I'm ignoring, this is the famous it ? Willing? So free
will
Bruno wrote:
And my (older) definition asks for one more thing: it is that the subject
know (is aware or is conscious) about that inability and that he can still
make the decision. There is a reflexion on the possibilities. If not, all
non sentient beings have trivially free will.
This is
1 - 100 of 302 matches
Mail list logo
