On 12 Jan 2013, at 17:36, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jasonre...@gmail.com writes:
1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which
2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but
almost no
one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one
religion that
all ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific
4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so
enlightened
Jason
Ok, so in Darwinian fashion you sort through hundreds of faiths,
so what
happens when you cannot dissprove a religion? You sort them down
till you
hit a toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it
the
intellectual limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering
many
non-believers, even. Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins.
Believers, Jason,
I suppose will merely, pray for your soul (poor lad!).
Perhaps if you decided to create your own religion, that couldn't
be
disproved, based on physics, or math, you would be coming up with
the best
faith? Then we could all be converted to being Jasonites. Or
Reschers-whichever you prefer?
I'm nor sure I understand your point. My point was only that John's
adherence to atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less
rational than someone following his 4-step program to become a
liberal
theologian.
In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious
ideas as
false without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is
especially problematic. John is perhaps being prescient in
turning a blind
eye to these other ideas, as otherwise we might have the specter
of a
self-proclaimed atheist who finds scientific justification for
after lives,
reincarnation, karma, beings who exercise complete control over
worlds of
their design and creation, as well as a self-existent changeless
infinite
object responsible for the existence of all reality.
He would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in
denying
specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
But your parody fails as a serious argument because the ideas put
forward
by *almost all theists* include a very powerful, beneficent, all
knowing
superbeing who will judge and reward and punish souls in an after
life and
who answers prayers.
Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that
definition
of God. I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate
every facet
of that definition. Even between various sects of Christianity and
Islam,
views differ regarding whether or not God is all knowing. An all-
knowing
God implies predestination, which is contested between various
groups.
An MWI block universe in which the past and future are computed once
and for all would be something like an all-knowing god.
But such a universe lacks consciousness and the need for a god as
well.
Perhaps that is why many physicists like MWI
And I disagree with them, but you are right.
If I remember well Belinfante wrote a book concluding that with QM the
choice is between a GOD or MWI. The idea is simple, as it would be
the consciousness of a God selecting one universe among the multiverse.
The MWI is like the comp "Noùs", the "infinite intellect or
intelligible realm": Simply the collection of all provable (by the
universal machine) (arithmetical) truth. (The UD, the sigma_1 truth).
If the machine is universal, this contains all computations, and by
comp, all subjective experiences, even if the consciousness is not
really attached to any computations in particular, but to all of them,
enough similar (with respect to the comp subst level) simultaneously.
But this does not make disappearing the outer God (arithmetical truth,
beyond the computable, the union of all the sigma_i), nor the Inner
God associated to the machine, due to the undoubtable yet accessible
truth (Bp & p) when the machine looks inward. Actually you need those
notions before defining what is an observable for a machine.
The problem of the comp "God", and apparently of the Plotinian God, is
that it acts like an attractor to the souls, but also as a repulser.
A picture might go like this: God, perhaps by some excess of love, let
the complete creation or emanation to deploy, but then God lost
control on the bottom or the border, and lost itself there in
multiplying into many souls, lost on that bottom. Yet the souls can
only come back to God by using that bottom as a sort of springboard.
They have to be careful because the bottom, matter, is really where
God loses control and can't help. This can be related with the fact
that matter is the result of your 1-indeterminacy, which is an
indeterminacy for both the inner God ("you"), and the outer God (with
comp: arithmetical truth). God attracts the souls, but by his
inability to control matter, it can't attract a soul too much lost in
matter, in particular, the wanting of the coming back as to come from
the soul, and from nothing else publicly communicable.
Bruno
Richard
Now some, far from powerful, humans with far from complete
information,
eliminated smallpox from the world. God therefore must have had
that power
and simply chose not to do it. So if any very powerful, very
knowledgeable
superbeing exists, it is not beneficent and not an acceptable
judge of good
and evil. These are not just a peripheral idea of theisms and it's
falsehood is not a minor point because all theism insist that
these ideas
are definitive of their religion.
It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with;
it only
takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I
think it is
an untenable and illogical position.
John didn't say that all religions are false or unscientific. His
point
was that you can avoid those attributes by becoming a *liberal
theologian* -
and incidentally that nothing follows from liberal theology.
It was in another thread that John said that he "just believes in
one less
god" than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I
believed
in but he doesn't.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@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
.
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.
