On 06 Aug 2012, at 12:22, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/6/2012 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,

On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/5/2012 3:50 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 <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.
Dear Bruno,

    It is hard to explain transcendence.

That is why I approximate it by p & ~Bp, or G* minus G (and intensional variant of this like Z1* minus Z1).

Dear Bruno,

Forgive me that I am slow on this or even dumb... p is true (or false) and not belief that p .... Is that right? I am still learning the jargon.

> 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.

    I agree. They are anti-christians.

Yes. That are the same modulo the absolute value, so to speak.

    HA HA! :-) Nice!

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.

Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement (anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of such.

For me, and comp, it is an open problem.

? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least, nameable. A person has always has a name.


Say that it is X. There is something that is not that person and that something must therefore have a different name: not-X. What is God's name? ... It cannot be named because there is nothing that it is not! Therefore God cannot be a person. Transcendence eliminates nameability. The Abrahamist think that Satan is the anti-God, but that would be a denial of God's transcendence. There are reasons why Abrahamists do not tolerate logic, this is one of them.

With comp if God exists it has no name, but I don't see why it would make it a non person. God is unique, it does not need a name.

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! You are falling into the same trap with this verbiage! Taking the anti-thesis of a thesis still requires that the thesis is possibly true.

? (where did I say the contrary? I insist that if comp is true, then it has to be possible, from the machine povs that comp is false). Like <>t, it entails the consistency of its negation: <>t - > <>(~ <>t). If a machine is consistent, then it is consistent that the machine is inconsistent. If comp is true, then it is consistent that comp (and its consequences) is (are) false.


    A "material god" would be nameable and thus not transcendent.

Why? In which theory?



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to