On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrot
>> >> >> *> 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and >> ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme >> being. 2 (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit >> worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a moon >> god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu. • an image, idol, animal, or other >> object worshiped as divine* > > > > *But maybe you don't like Google, let's see how the Merriam-Webster >> dictionary defines the English word "God": * > > >> * 1: the supreme or ultimate reality: the Being perfect in power, >> wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe >> : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : >> infinite Mind* > > > > > Very good definition. > I agree. > > Then with the computationalist hypothesis, this role is well played by the > notion of "arithmetical truth", > No it is not. A rithmetical truth is not a being (superhuman or otherwise), arithmetical truth is not wise, arithmetical truth is not the source of all moral authority , arithmetical truth is not good (or bad), arithmetical truth is not a spirit, and above all arithmetical truth is not a mind . Oh and anyone who thinks arithmetical truth is deserving of worship is just a bit nuts. > > All notions can be made mathematically precise in term of set of numbers. > By "notions" I presume you mean physical notions, because otherwise all you'd be saying in the above is numbers need numbers. And it works both ways, numbers can be made physically precise in terms of physics; for example the meaning of the number 2 can be made precise by illustrating it with the rock hear and that other rock over there. You have no evidence that mathematics is more fundamental than physics. None, > > God is the thing by which all other things proceed. > That may be a necessary attribute for God to have but it is not sufficient. What is indispensable is that anything that deserves the label "God" must be a intelligent conscious omniscient omnipotent *BEING *who created the universe ; and I'm sorry to say the multiplication table, useful as it is, just doesn't fit the bill. > > > I don't remember any people in this list defining God has a blob, > Hmm, I'm pretty sure somebody on the list did, I 'll see if I can find a example of somebody equating God with a vague amorphous non-specific non-person. > > > > God is the Reality we hope exists. > Wow, that didn't take long! 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.
