Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/4/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 23:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/3/2017 1:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: Depends on what you mean by comp. You seem to engage in the same equivocation as Bruno. On the one hand it means saying "yes" to the

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/4/2017 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 17:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2017, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your answer seems to be that physics can be an illusion of

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 3 mai 2017 11:23 PM, "Brent Meeker"

Re: ​Movie argument

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Doesn't the fact that even *AFTER* "I"​ >> ​ ​ >> push the button "I" *STILL* don't know what *ONE* city "I" ended up in >> make you suspect that maybe just maybe the way personal pronouns are used >> needs to

Re: ​Movie argument

On 04 May 2017, at 01:17, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​You just evade the question. I said, in Helsinki, I know (assuming mechanism of course) ​What does mechanism have to do with it?​ Without assuming mechanism, we

Re: What are atheists for?

On 03 May 2017, at 23:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/3/2017 1:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: Depends on what you mean by comp. You seem to engage in the same equivocation as Bruno. On the one hand it means saying "yes" to the doctor. On the other hand it means accepting his whole argument

Re: What are atheists for?

On 03 May 2017, at 18:47, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/2/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 9:57 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:09 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017

Re: What are atheists for?

On 03 May 2017, at 17:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2017, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your answer seems to be that physics can be an illusion of digital thought, therefore primary physics is

Re: What are atheists for?

On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 3 mai 2017 11:23 PM, "Brent Meeker" a écrit : On 5/3/2017 1:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This an extreme reductionist view, i.e. if X is the