On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:31, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't think we can live more than one second without some belief in some God.

I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and material bodies and people (including ourselves). That is what we all bet on and evolution has built into us. We may hypothesize different fundamental ontologies, but it's not necessary and it's certainly not necessary to *believe in* them.

We have a problem of vocabulary. I define "belief" by assumptions and/ or derivation from assumption.

I say that all self-observing machine has to be theological for they are confronted to truth which are not at the level of the basic assumption, but that they can still, or have to, assume to be true at some meta-level, with some faith. Like when saying yes to a computationalist doctor, or just praying/hoping for our own sanity. The trick is probably in the "including yourself", which is richer than a basic local assumption like space and the moon.

And the question is not about believing this or that, but in making a theory coherent with the facts and our currently favorite theory, comp :). Once you agree that physicalism is problematic, God is a good name for whatever is the reason of our conscious existence. You can call it the ONE, or the Tao, you can call it how you like, because by definition, it has no name, no definite pointer, nor definitions (like the physical universe, btw).

Only Atheists and Christians define GOD by the Christian or Abramanic GOD, but the notion is much older than that, and has always been discussed by reasonable people, even if they needs to hide, or to be cautious, for cannabis-like reasons (i.e. the exploitation by some others of lies and the fear selling).

And the Atheists and Christians take for granted the "creation", which is not a rational nor justifiable scientific attitude (just a good methodological simplification). No problem if atheists could agree that they are doing theology or metaphysics, in case they reify the object of that methodology, when situating the creation in the primitive realm. The problem is only for those who seem to ignore that fact. They confuse truth and opinion.



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