On 16 Jan 2017, at 00:10, John Clark wrote:
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. You 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";
Yes, but only for a materialist, which is just what is questioned here.
You can sum up roughly, using God in the general sense (nutral on hard
difficult metaphysical choice) by:
Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else from which matter appearances is or will be
explained.
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.
You have take a general scientific definition, and you confuse it with
a very special theory no-one serious in science ever considered.
Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've
rendered the word to be utterly useless.
Not at all. With computationalism, I show that the Tarski notion of
truth (well defined) plays the role of God in the machine's theology.
It works until now, so we have empirical confirmation, and we cannot
hope for more than that, except for a refutation.
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,
OK. That's my point, to show that some hypotheses in theology can be
refuted empirically.
and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us.
?
On the contrary. This means you have not read the papers.
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.
Sure.
> the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle
Aristotle was an imbecile,
You exaggerate a lot ... (to say the least).
and theologians are even dumber because they have devoted
their life to becoming experts in a field of study that doesn't exist.
People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle
theology for granted.
But when you come back to the science, the first thing you see, is
that we want to not start from a solution (God = Matter), but start
from evidence, clear hypotheses and reason.
With theology there is no there there.
Making here = there, but that is the point which has been refuted.
You claim not having a religion, and that Aristotle is an imbecile,
but take its theology for granted.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
