On 17 Jan 2017, at 00:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else
People who say that theology does not exist are just taking
Aristotle theology for granted.
I have a dream that one day you will write an entire post
without referring to the idiot ancient Greeks, I might not live long
enough to see it but I have a dream.
See my early papers, or my theses. But I am a scientist, so I cite my
sources, that's all.
You criticize them, but admit (as it is clear) not having studied
them, and you stick on the theology of one of them which you
depreciate a lot without seeming to realize that you adopted it, and
made it into a dogma.
>>Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so
you've rendered the word to be utterly useless.
> Not at all.
You believe that a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob exists,
I believe in a truth that we can search. You say "invisible fuzzy
amoral mindness blob", but I never say this. It is almost one open
problem per words.
if you can't explain exactly how things would be different if a
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob did not exist then your use
of the word "God" contains no information.
God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.
Without God, we would not even discuss here, by definition of God.
You just seems to think that God is the universe, that *you* seems to
see as a fuzzy amoral blob, actually. But with computationalism, I
shown that you need to ad irrational magic in your God/Universe to
make it select the computation(s) which support you. But we know you
stop at the step 3 or the main argument, so ...
> I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays
the role of God
Now you've gone even further and twisted the meaning of the word
"God" to such a extant that for a atheist to be consistent he'd have
to say "I don't believe truth exists".
Yes, that is sometimes called nihilism, and the first modern atheist
were close to this, like LaMettrie, Sade, etc.
So now everybody must believe in this thing you call "G-O-D" and you
join the long list of people who are in love with the English word
"God" but are uninterested in the concept behind the word; they just
want to be able to say "I believe in God".
Yes, you prefer to defend the use of the term by those who made it
into a political instrument. I prefer to use it in the original sense
of fundamental transcendental truth, and with mechanism, arithmetical
truth plays that role for the machine/numbers.
You refuse to do theology because you want stick to the Aristotelian
theology. But that is like giving the solution before starting the
reflexion.
> This means you have not read the papers.
I read your papers until they started to get silly, and then I
stopped.
But when we asked you why you stop you provide contradictory
statements and insults only. That is hardly convincing except that you
are unwilling to ever change your mind on you religious conviction you
seem not even aware of.
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.
