On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:29:00 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > If I ever doubt that there is a God, > the regularity of Newton's physics or > the microscopic structure of a snowflake > dispels such doubt. > > These show design. > Design cannot be made randomly. > So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature. > I call that God. > > That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates > that there must be some superintelligence at work. >
Wouldn't the superintelligence also have to be highly structured ans lawful? Wouldn't those laws also suggest a meta-superintelligence, and so on? Why not just let the fact that we can make sense of a universe of sensible sensations be exactly that. > > > > > Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net <javascript:> > 9/11/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2012-09-10, 13:17:52 > *Subject:* Re: The poverty of computers > > Roger, > > I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than > atheist. > > A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and > universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but > his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious believer in > a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps. > > To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means "I > believe in x", and if g means (god exists) > > A believer is characterized by Bg > An atheist by B ~g > An agnostic by ~Bg & ~B~g > > But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with respect > of matter, etc. > > Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted > other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which is > irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which is just > another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly. > > I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making clear > the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg than to > Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a tiny > part of it. > > Bruno > > > > On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net <javascript:>>wrote: > > > If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, >> you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You >> haven't a leg to stand on. >> > > A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise > man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the > planet Uranus is silly, and so is God. > > John K Clark > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GJV6yFjTMoAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
