On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Define "theology"
The study of something that does not exist.
Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can be defined by something
which is supposed to be responsible, willingly or not, for my existence, and which I
cannot prove to exist. I remeber having already some times ago provided this definition.
Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level, by G* minus G. (if you
have read my posts on those modal logics and Solovay theorem). For example <> t
(consistency, ~[]f) belongs to G* minus G. Consistency is true for the machine, but it
cannot prove it. Yet the machine can guess it, hope it, find it or produce it as true
with some interrogation mark.
Theology is the study of the transcendent truth, which can be defined, in a first
approximation, by the non provable (by the machine) truth.
> Define "God"
The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who created the universe.
If you define God, as so many fans of the word but not the idea do,
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception of God.
I'm astonished that you think accepting the definition of a being by those who claim to
believe in it is 'defending' it. I accept the definition of Fascism by those who claim it
is the best form of government, but that doesn't mean I defend Fascism.
This confirms what I have already explained. Atheism is a variant of christianism. They
defend the same conception of God than the Christians, as you do all the time.
Note that philosophers use often the term "God" in the general and original sense of
theology: as being, by definition, the transcendental cause of everything.
as "a force greater than myself" then I am a devout believer because I believe in
gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. I believe in bulldozers too.
But I have already told you that God is supposed to be responsible for our
existence;
Doesn't that responsibility require 'free will'?
Brent
which is not the case for the bulldozer. But gravity and physical force/matter could
have been a more serious answer, as it describe the perhaps primary physical world, and
that can obey the definition of God I gave, for a physicalist, and is indeed again a
common belief of christians and atheists. I am agnostic, and correct computationalist
are "atheists" with respect to such material God.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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.
