Re: [Fwd: Apparently not a spoof...]

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:03:49 +0200


I think it is preferable to introduce a few math in a theology course
(which can be done by making some precise hypotheses like comp or
lobianity) than to introduce theology in math. They are naming and
invoking the unnameable! I know it is not always easy to motivate
people for math, but here they take the risk of making a bit ridiculous
both math and theology, imo.
Also, if we are machine (or just lobian), we can indeed contemplate the
consistency of *little part* of math, but certainly not the consistency
of the whole of math, still less the consistency of the whole of
creation. About that it is better to hope, guess or pray, in some
personal way, without making too much fuss about it (before it gets
institutionalized and thus automatically betrayed).


Le 08-août-07, à 21:06, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> Here's a school that's ahead of Bruno in taking consistency to be part
> of theology. :-)
> Brent Meeker
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Aug 09 2007 - 05:03:58 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST