So John,
Some years ago, Michael Shermer, noted atheist and publicist came out with a humorous, but serious, writing that he called "Shermer's Last Law." This was a take off on writer Arthur C. Clarke's "Clarke's First Law which stated: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Shemer wrote "Any sufficiently advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable from God." Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super intelligent fellow, who occasionally peaks in on what goes round, occasionally even our minor bit of rock and water. Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume? I have wondered whether the "Lord of Hosts" was indeed a Boltzmann Brain who emerged from space time. Maybe, fiddled a bit converting the true vacuum into a false one? Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find evidence, maybe? Most astronomers and physicists are keen on grav wave telescopes and neutrino interceptors, why not attach this as a sidebar task? -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 6:11 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever. That's exactly the problem. Y ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that saying "I believe God exists" is equivalent to "I believe stuff exists" ; and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the best known words in the English language and changed its definition so it means everything and anything. Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless. That's just what would be expected to happen from somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but still likes the ASCII sequence G-O-D and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means anything. > I am a scientist, Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in empirical results, and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us. Pure mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an armchair and thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find out new things in science. > the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle Aristotle was an imbecile, and theologians are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts in a field of study that doesn't exist. With theology there is no there there. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
