Re: God

meekerdb wrote: I think you place far to much importance on Goedelian incompleteness. The existence of unprovable but true theorems like,"This sentence is unprovable." is neither interesting nor significant. This hardly gives any deep insight to consciousness. Well said. Physicists, at lea

Re: God

LizR wrote: "More light!" Indeed. I was always of the opinion that dark energy /might/ be a figment, or it might not be as advertised, because it's possible that supernovae operated differently in the early universe in a manner that systematically skews the results (e.g. as the proportion of

Re: God

On 4/23/2015 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You ask me a definition of God. There are none. God is a term like consciousness, which does not admit direct definition. I use the more general one, on which most people agree: the term "God" designates the ONE on which we bet as being the c

Re: God

"More light!" Indeed. I was always of the opinion that dark energy *might* be a figment, or it might not be as advertised, because it's possible that supernovae operated differently in the early universe in a manner that systematically skews the results (e.g. as the proportion of heavier elements

Re: God

: Dennis Ochei To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: God yes, B(Bp --> p) will tie you in knots. Conceit breeds inaccuracy. The battleground of ideas should always be the mind, not the streets. If you require force to convince, you've already admit

Re: God

said: "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." > You ask me a definition of God. There are none. Then unless you have a example of God the word is j

Re: God

quot;, that >>> is, thae ones that claim knowledge without conscience that what they have >>> is some kind of faith based on a particular metaphysics. are the most >>> dangerous ones. >>> >>> These people like you are the ones that the world must fear &g

Re: God

pm Subject: Re: God On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > Please do not ignore the mass murders of Atheist Stalin, Atheist Mao, and Atheist Pol Pot. Yes all 3 were atheists and murderers, but they did

Re: God

--Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 9:28 pm Subject: Re: God On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went

Re: God

ough he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." > > You ask me a definition of God. There are none. > Then unless you have a example of God the word is just noise shaped air. > > God is a term like conscio

Re: God

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Please do not ignore the mass murders of Atheist Stalin, Atheist Mao, and > Atheist Pol Pot. Yes all 3 were atheists and murderers, but they did not murder in the name of atheism; and all

Re: God

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > In Short : either you know that you believe or you believe that you > know In any case you can not avoid belief > I believe you believe that and I believe I believe that too. I also believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with belief and nobo

Re: God

Just seems to be more and more computational. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 9:11 pm Subject: Re: God On 23 April 2015 at 12:54, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I have noted this before regarding Lord

Re: God

me to argue over definitions so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as long as it's clear and you use it consistently. > God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth which explains why you are here and now, and conscious,. T

Re: God

On 23 Apr 2015, at 04:04, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR wrote: > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why we're conscious. Bruno also says that mathematics begat

Re: God

On 23 Apr 2015, at 03:04, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions so I'll accept any meaning of the wor

Re: God

> is religious. Mao's' Great Leap Forward is the largest killing in human > history. Having said this, it appears that the Islamists are trying to beat > this enviable record. > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Ochei > To: everything-list > Sent: W

Re: God

trying to beat this enviable record. -Original Message- From: Dennis Ochei To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 6:42 pm Subject: God Yes, ignorance and fanaticism under any banner, including that of science and reason, will leave a trail of bodies in their wake. But unless y

Re: God

Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 5:43 pm Subject: Re: God On 23 April 2015 at 08:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who

Re: God

you are the ones that the world must fear >> >> 2015-04-22 22:50 GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei : >> >>> I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My >>> point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their >>>

Re: God

On 4/22/2015 7:32 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very controversial: conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics The last 6 items are fa

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 14:04, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR wrote: > > >> > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that >> God is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* >> conscious.

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb wrote: > Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very > controversial: > > conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics > The last 6 items are fairly uncontroversial, although I'm not 100% sure about the languag

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR wrote: > > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God > is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* conscious. > Bruno also says that mathematics begat our physical world and he might

Re: God

range non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as long as it's clear and you use it consistently. > God is by definition the

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. > I've been on the Extropian lost longer than you and I don't recall a purge by Natasha or by anybody else. And I know who Ray Kurzw

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 13:04, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange >>> non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions >>> so I'

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 12:54, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I have noted this before regarding Lord Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter. > For the last 40 years or so we have had the science to orbit a teapot, as > well as two probes around Jupiter--this sh

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange >> non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions >> so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as lon

Re: God

ll. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 05:40 PM Subject: Re: God On 23 April 2015 at 08:06, John Mikes <mailto:jami...@gmail.com";>jami...@gmail.com> wrote:

God

he world must fear > > 2015-04-22 22:50 GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei : > >> I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My >> point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their >> definition of God as soon as you start tightening the sc

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 08:50, Dennis Ochei wrote: > I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My > point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their > definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut > off

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 08:19, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was > almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who > did the booting back in the day. I usually w

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 08:06, John Mikes wrote: > Dennis: > > *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the > gaps of understanding ..."* > > I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at >

Re: God

way than I intended. My > point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their > definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut > off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious > belief. People say science cannot kill

Re: God

I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious

Re: God

tianity. > They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of creation. And they have the same belief in creation. Yep Bruce was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary. > Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato&#

Re: God

, stuff, not arguments. Kind of like here, except now if I fear that people will ally themselves with the elites, who now lean into some sort of neocommunism, that I do bitch back. Of God, it is less important to me if He functions as promised, more, I am concerned is how we sapiens are doing? When

Re: God

Dennis: *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps of understanding ..."* I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for

Re: God

On 22 Apr 2015, at 18:30, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of God >> And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist aristotelian is somebody who t

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion >> of God > > >> And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist >> aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was

Re: God

on. And they have the same belief in creation. And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous impersonal blob You attribute me things that I have never said. that doesn't answer prayers and in fact doesn't do much of anything at all, nevertheless acc

Re: God

notion of the creator, and the same notion of creation. > And they have the same belief in creation. > > > > And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous > impersonal blob > > > You attribute me things that I have never said. > > >

Re: God

was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty- Dumpty dictionary. > Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of God And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the

Re: God

Awesome! Thanks! On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Dennis Ochei > wrote: > > > What are the other forums that people on everything list go to? How deep >> does the rabbit hole go? > > > I've been posting to the Extropian List since the mid 1990s, at one time >

Re: God

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Dennis Ochei wrote: > What are the other forums that people on everything list go to? How deep > does the rabbit hole go? I've been posting to the Extropian List since the mid 1990s, at one time it was more active than this list, it's not as active as it once was but it's s

Re: God

On 22 April 2015 at 14:35, Dennis Ochei wrote: > Lol, don't make me write a webcrawler that looks for LizR > > I wouldn't dream of making you do anything (although my ninja assassins remain on standby at all timesbut, no pressure) But if you do, you may get some surprising results. -- You

Re: God

mp). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And even here they are not used with any rational consistency. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I disagree, at least concerning the ones I mentioned. And I have no >>>>> problem with

Re: God

pers on the subject of comp). >>>> >>>> >>>>> And even here they are not used with any rational consistency. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I disagree, at least concerning the ones I mentioned. And I have no >>>> problem with

Re: God

gt; problem with personal pronouns - this seems to me to be a side issue. That >>> is to say, the issue of pronouns WOULD cut to the heart of the argument, >>> except that Bruno has already tackled the matter of personal identity in >>> the "yes doctor" assumption (a

Re: God

problem with personal pronouns - this seems to me to be a side issue. That >> is to say, the issue of pronouns WOULD cut to the heart of the argument, >> except that Bruno has already tackled the matter of personal identity in >> the "yes doctor" assumption (and yes, &quo

Re: God

to be a side issue. That > is to say, the issue of pronouns WOULD cut to the heart of the argument, > except that Bruno has already tackled the matter of personal identity in > the "yes doctor" assumption (and yes, "yes doctor" is indeed convenient > shorthand for

Re: God

al identity in the "yes doctor" assumption (and yes, "yes doctor" is indeed convenient shorthand for a specific well defined concept that is only used on this list and a few other places). I'm not so sure about "God" but I'm willing to let that one slide, a

Re: God

Bruno's written correspondence is hard to follow, but esotericism is par for the course in philosophy anyway... God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps of understanding On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 , LizR >

Re: God

used with any rational consistency. And then Bruno uses common words in very uncommon ways; I still don't know what the word "God" means in Brunospeak. And don't get me started on personal pronouns! > For example "Aristotelian" just means anyone who assumes primary &

Re: God

In order to participate in a forum like this you need to accept that certain shorthands are commonly used. For example "Aristotelian" just means anyone who assumes primary materialism, not someone who thinks everything Aristotle said was true - similarly a "Platonist" is someone who thinks the worl

Re: God

; Yep Bruce was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary. > Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of > God And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by f

God

"Christian" mean almost the same thing with atheism being just a very minor variation of Christianity. They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of creation. And they have the same belief in creation. And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscio

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 27 Oct 2014, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 28 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/27/2014 2:57 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the >> egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Hi Brent, I recall reading a few papers that discussed this question. I think that one can only obtain Hermiticity with complex valued amplitudes. Self-adjointness does not obtain very easily On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we need the probabilities. I don't recall you having s

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 10/27/2014 2:57 AM, LizR wrote: On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all the gods of Oly

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

antum mechanics > > and suggested that it might be consistent with Zurek's Quantum Darwinism > http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf > > > I will try to find the time to read that paper. > > Bruno > > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR wrote

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 27 Oct 2014, at 10:57, LizR wrote: On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb wrote: And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

t 5:57 AM, LizR wrote: On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb wrote: And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods... Is this tru

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Zurek's Quantum Darwinism http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR wrote: > On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the >> egomanical, despotic god

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb wrote: > > And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the > egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all > the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods... > > Is this

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of whether God exists. The intere

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I have nothing but contempt for the idea that my time could be better >> spent reading Plotinus than reading a modern book about cosmology. >> > > > But cosmology does not address the problem of consciousness, > And neither does Plotinus!

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

who is interested in the question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic".

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, an

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

Liz: I should object to the subject. How can Islm be GENERALIZED with their differences among their own shades? IS happily chops off Islamic heads if their sentiments diverge. Shia-s Sunnis are warring for 15 centuries and I would not volunteer counting the diverse shade-differences ('shady'?) JM

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:52, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale notion of god, There are 2 choices, you can have: 1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining but silly. 2

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 10/20/2014 3:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from Bertrand Russell if I remember, become a empty comparison, when we live

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale notion of > god, > There are 2 choices, you can have: 1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining but silly. 2) A notion for God that lets you preserve the

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 22 Oct 2014, at 00:06, LizR wrote: On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote: On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote: Hi Richard I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 21 Oct 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational. >> So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus does not exist is not rational.

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote: > > On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote: >> >> Hi Richard >> >> I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be >> positing th

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > if you are happy, it might not be completely irrational to believe, of > put some credence in the belief of your parents > As I said, for many the most important thing about a belief is NOT its truth. And you're certainly correct that peopl

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational. >>> >> >> >> So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus >> does not exist is not rational. >> > >

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

;s said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic religions use. Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by God, Yeah, they tend to be rational like that. and invariably they ch

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 21 Oct 2014, at 02:29, LizR wrote: On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote: >> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus > it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist, but since it's physically possible, i

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote: On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote: Hi Richard I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning. If so,

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 20 Oct 2014, at 19:37, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You can believe that God exist, just because it is an old friend of yours. Yes, and the reason for that is that for many the most important thing about a belief is not its truth. That is possi

RE: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

For myself, it all depends on the sauce J From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:22 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter Never mind, I'm

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

t; *From:* LizR > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 5:42 PM > > *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter > > OK, that would be even grater. > > > > On 21 October 2014 13:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Ever

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

Okay I was trying to follow that one up, but everything I come up with is lesser From: LizR To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:42 PM Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter OK, that would be even grater. On 21 October 2014 13:40

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

oglegroups.com > *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 5:32 PM > > *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter > > That's a saucy comment! > > > > On 21 October 2014 13:31, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> w

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

Let me sprinkle some cheese on that From: LizR To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter That's a saucy comment! On 21 October 2014 13:31, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everythi

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

ctober 20, 2014 5:29 PM > *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter > > On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote: > > >> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus > > > > it's rationa

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

From: LizR To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:29 PM Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote: >>  a china teapot in orbit  around the

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote: > > >> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus > > >> > it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist, >> but since it's physically possible, it's irrational to believe tha

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote: >> a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus > > it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist, but > since it's physically possible, it's irrational to believe that it > definitely doesn't exist (though not as irration

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from > Bertrand Russell if I remember, become a empty comparison, when we live in > a time when setting a teapot in orbit aroun

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote: > > Hi Richard > > I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be > positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning. > If so, this rather defangs the MUH, >

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

e the same idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic religions use. Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by God, Yeah, they tend to be rational like that. and invariably they choose some variant of an omniscient omnipotent

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

room due to random thermal vibrations also irrational? John K Clark -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Oct 20, 2014 1:37 pm Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You can believe t

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > You can believe that God exist, just because it is an old friend of > yours. > Yes, and the reason for that is that for many the most important thing about a belief is not its truth. All else being equal people would prefer to be

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 19 Oct 2014, at 22:13, meekerdb wrote: On 10/19/2014 8:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I don't recall Bruno ever csaying if you don't believe in something then you believe in it. What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same idea/conception of god that th

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >