Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.

My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a - more?)
god(s) to deny. - "god" is a word still looking to be identified. As we
read most 'denyers' assign the ultimate origin to such concept. Me, too:
the infinite complexity (beyond our capability to comprehend). Does it have
'free will'? or 'conscious mind'? logical concluding capability? I am not
sure 'it'(?) *"has"* anything. Not in our terms at least. The *'infinite'
complexity* is a mere 'everything' in relation to everything beyond our
concepts.
Bruno had a 'cute' definition for theology (I could not repeat it now) and
called 'us' gods. Nobody can deny his right to do so.
Denigrating faith is a pastime for the mental elite, yet without faith (and
the rules ensured for the 'believers') humanity would not have survived so
far in it's wickedness, brutality, or simply by selfishness.
It was a small price paid for the priests and prophets to help humanity
survive. Did it slip out? you bet. Always.

Please remember: I take 'existing' in terms of anything, having occurred in
somebodies mind as a (rationale, or weird?) idea. Impossibilities included.
(And so far nobody answered my question satisfactorily (for me) to show a
justification for the (religious?) god-concept from *outside the box* (not
induced by some hint to any faith-related momenta, dream, etc.).  So 'god'
exists IMO, because it is set into many minds (even if not identically).)

It is a long winded topic, not likely to close with agreement.

John M




On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.
> 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; 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/
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to