Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 26-déc.-06, à 19:54, Tom Caylor a écrit :

On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit :

The "crux" is that he is not symbolic...

I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no
 evidences for the idea that "Jesus" is "truth", nor can I be
sure of any clear meaning such an assertion could have, or how
such an assertion could be made scientific, even dropping Popper
falsification criteria. I must say I have evidences on the
contrary, if only the fact that humans succumb often to wishful
thinking, and still more often to their parents wishful thinking.

If you are not sure of any clear meaning of the personal God being
the source of everything, including of course truth, this entails
not knowing the other things too.

Is that not an authoritative argument? What if I ask to my student an
exam question like give me an argument why the square root of 3 is
irrationnal. Suppose he gives me the correct and convincing usual
(mathematical) proof. I could give him a bad note for not adding:
"and I know that is the truth because truth is a gift by God". Cute,
I can directly give bad notes to all my students, and this will give
me more time to find a falsity in your way to reason ...

For a personal God, taking on our form (incarnation), especially if
we were made in the image of God in the first place, and showing
through miracles, and rising from the dead..., his dual nature
(God&man, celestial&terrestial, G*&G) seems to make a lot more
sense than something like a cross in earth orbit.  For example,
giving a hug is a more personal (and thus a more appropriate) way
of expressing love, than giving a card, even though a card is more verifiable in a third person sense, especially after the hug is finished. But we do have the "card" too: God's written Word, even though this is not sufficient, the incarnate hug was the primary
proof, the "card" was just the historical record of it.

The card records facts. To judge them historical is already beyond my
 competence. Why the bible? Why not "the question of king Milinda" ?

There can be no upward emanation unless/until a sufficient
downward emanation is provided.
Christianity, the downward emanation is "God loves us", and
then the upward emanation is "We love God".

Plotinus insists a lot on the two ways: downward emanation and
upward emanation. The lobian machine theology is coherent with
this, even if negatively. It is coherent with Jef idea that pure
"theological imperatives" can only be addressed by adapted "story
telling" and examples, like jurisprudence in the application of
laws. But then there is a proviso: none of the stories should be
taken literally.

I agree with the use of stories.  Jesus used stories almost
exclusively to communicate.  Either the hearers "got it" or not.
But this does not imply that stories are the only form of downward

Of course not. Real stories and personal experiences,  and collective
 experiences and experiments ... All this can help the downward

The incarnation was the primary means.  Otherwise, who would have
been the story-teller?  What good are stories if the story is not
teaching you truth?

Look, I cannot take for granted even most mathematical theories
although their relation with a notion of truth is much more easy than
any text in natural language. Stories can be good in giving example
of behavior in some situation, or they can help anxious children to
sleep. Stories are not written with the idea of "truth". The bibles
contains many contradiction. And, if really you want take a sacred
text as a theory of everything, there is a definite lack of

How do we know that the ultimate source of stories is a good source. Jef and Brent and others seem to be basing their truth on really nothing more than pragmatism.

Jef perhaps. I am not sure for Brent which seems to admit some form
of realism (even physical realism).

I do infer from experience that there is some reality. Sometime ago, Bruno wrote:
"Hence a Reality, yes. But not necessarily a physical reality. Here is the 
logical dependence:

Maybe my interpretation of this is different than Bruno's, but I take it to mean our 
explanations can start anywhere in this loop and work all the way around.  So numbers can 
be explained in terms of physics (c.f. William S. Cooper) and physical reality can be 
explained in terms of numbers (c.f. Bruno Marchal?).  These explanations are all models, 
representations we create.  They are tested against experience, so they are not 
arbitrary. They must be logical since otherwise self-contradiction will render them 
ambiguous.  Whether any these, or which one, is "really real" is, I think, a 
meaningless question.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to