Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 20-mars-07, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
>     On 3/20/07, *Bruno Marchal* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>         Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> 
>          > Brent Meeker quoted:
>          > "Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."
>          >       --- George Carlin
> 
> 
> 
>         Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism.
> 
>         An atheist has indeed a rich belief system:
>         1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who
>         does not
>         believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference)
>         2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe
>         (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some
>         physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument
>         beyond
>         the Aristotelian Matter reification.)
> 
> 
> 
>     1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and
>     the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these
>     entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of
>     God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a
>     huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and
>     agnosticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course (cf Brent's comment) we are on the verge of a purely 
> vocabulary discussion. If you define God by a big white male sitting on 
> a cloud, there is a case of comparing "God" and "Santa Klaus". If you 
> define "god" by "ultimate meaning or ultimate theory of everything 
> including persons and feeling, quanta and qualia, ...", or even more 
> generally by "god" = "truth" about "us", then it is different. Now most 
> religions accept or even define God by its transcendance and 
> unnameability, 

A god defined solely by that would not be accepted by any of the major 
religions, except perhaps Bhuddism which doesn't include gods.  The Abrahamic 
religions add that God is a person, is beneficient, is demanding, and answers 
prayers.  These are defining characteristics of theism.  Which is why I was 
careful to specify a theist God.  The etymology of "atheist" implies that it is 
this religion of theism that is not believed.

>making "truth" an elementary lobian machine/entity's God, 
> and this is enough for coming back to serious theology. 

Serious theology for Bruno seems to be that of Paul Tillich: God is whatever 
you consider fundamental.  To me that seems like an attempt at theological 
jujitsu to convert atheists by redefining words.

>The gap between 
> truth about a machine and provability by that machine already 
> illustrates the necessity of distinguishing the scientific and religious 
> discourse of machines. Pure theology can be (re)defined by "truth minus 
> science". Then, lobian theology is controlled by the G/G* mathematical 
> gap, and their intensional (modal) variants.
> Talking or acting or doing anything in the name of God leads to 
> inconsistency and most probably suffering. 

What difference does "in the name of make"?  That seems to attribute magic 
power to phrases.

>In the scientific (= 
> doubting) discourse, we can use use the term "God" like we can use the 
> term "first person", but we cannot talk *in* those names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     2) I don't know that atheists are much more likely to believe in a
>     material universe than other people.
> 
> 
> I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. 
> Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception.
> Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly 
> believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he 
> certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian 
> machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be 
> unnameable and god-like, even if it is "just" a pagan notion of god.

I can appreciate that the fundamental thing (if there is one) must be unameable 
and god-like (omnipresent)...but not God-like (person, answer prayers, 
beneficient) and not God.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to