On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > > In Plato-like theology > [blah blah blah] > Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. > > It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological > assumption of the Materialist. > Theology has no field of study. > > you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in selecting some > computation(s) among all computations. I have no idea what " God-Matter " means, I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to perform calculations, I need only observe that is can. But you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing without the help of physics. And please don't don't tell me about some textbook unless for the first time in the history of the world you've found as book that can calculate 2+2 or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> >> You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a horse >> has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the nature of >> reality or about horses. The only reason you'd make such a redefinition >> would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and the only reason you're >> redefining "God" the way you have is you enjoy saying "I believe in God". > > > > > Yes. > Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists , and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is absolutely no doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now there are 2 openings in the English language, one for a appendage that supports an animal's weight and provides it with locomotion, and the other for an omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. What new words do you suggest should stand for the old meanings of the words "leg" and "God"? > > > > That's what we do in science > > Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, > So you're saying the sense of the meaning of the word "God" should be changed to whatever it takes so that someone can say "I believe in God" without sounding like an idiot. that is just what I'd expect from somebody who likes the way "I believe God exists" sounds but don't care what the words represent. And no, that's not what we do in science. > > > It is your theology, apparently. > The field of theology is just like the study of zoology, except that it's not about animals and its not a study. > > The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist, > No not at all, computationalists firmly think that invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob s exist, and I am resolute in my belief that " God " is Real, unless declared a n Integer. > > > You will understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from > > Greek theology, > I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two thousand years. And *NOTHING* comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter. > > > and to rigor in theology. > Rigor? You must be kidding, there is more substance to the study of a toy balloon after its skin has been removed than the study of God. Theologians produce a lot of hot air but unlike good thermodynamicist s they do not examine those aforesaid gasses. 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.
