On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch
> Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that
definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the
universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate
every facet of that definition.
That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject
the idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a
silly and rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine
the word "God" to mean "a power greater than myself" then I am a
theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers
exist. But if by "God" you mean a being with super-human abilities
then God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a
agnostic about something like that actually existing somewhere in
> 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.
Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods
that humans have invented over the eons,
It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are
some you would do believe in, if you knew more about them. Even
one who has spent years studying all known human religions lacks
knowledge about religions unknown to history, or any of the
individually developed privately known religions, or religions of
other species or civilizations on other planets. How can anyone
presume to know enough to know that they are all false?
but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or
against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and
thus worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic.
I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are
worthy of serious consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to
reject all theories when one has no evidence for or against them.
Why not remain neutral until you have a reason otherwise? Also, if
you don't think 50% is a valid starting point, what do you suggest
is a good prior probability to use in Bayesian inference when one
lacks any evidence for or against a proposition?
> 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
I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the
universe and I think you do.
No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have
the power to forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent.
However, if you limit those words to refer to something else, like
a universe (rather than to itself, where the contradiction is
created), then it may be possible to be both omniscient and
omnipotent in reference to that other thing.
Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not
ruled out by its definition exists. So you should agree there are
instances in the plentitude where beings create vast simulations of
entire universes. We humans have already played this role in
creating relatively simple GoL universes. In the context of the
simulation, a being can know everything about it and simultaneously
exercise complete control over it, even changing the laws or
altering its natural progression of the simulation.
As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know
everything about them and the reason I create them is to find out
something I don't know. Of course you may say that I could find it
out, after the simulation has run - but that does seem to be what
the religious mean by omniscient since they include knowing things
before they happen.
If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then
there exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being
who knows everything that happens in it and has complete control to
alter it in any way that being sees fit. There is nothing
inconsistent or impossible about this. So you have a choice:
either abandon platonism or abandon atheism. The two are
If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we
don't. So I don't see the incompatibility.
If we live in a simulation, we live in an infinity of simulation (and
this is testable below our c-substitution level). It makes the
physical reality non simulable, at least in all details.
If 3-we live in a simulation, the 1-we can't, literally speaking.
This is more easily demonstrable when you use other definitions of
God, such as when you identify the platonic plenitude with the
Hindu's Brahman. You and Brent seem hell-bent on using a
definition where God is an omniscient and omnipotent person,
And beneficent and answers prayers. Other gods who may have created
the universe for amusement and who are not beneficent are possible.
Gods who created this universe as a simulation to see how it turns
out and who therefore never meddle in it, deist gods are possible.
Can you recall the definition of deism? I am not sure mine is the same
as yours. If you have a reference ..?
But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just
because they are possible. A-theism doesn't mean believing there
are no gods, it just means failing to believe there are gods (at
least theist ones).
That is the quite opposite of most European atheism. They specifically
attack me on this, and very violently. European atheist really believe
that there is no God, and consider that agnostic are either nuts, or
that they are coward atheist just wanting to be polite.
so I offer the above example of the simulation hypothesis as an
example more fitting to your definition.
While on this subject, I have another question for you and Brent:
Do you believe in an afterlife or immortality?
I think the evidence is against it.
QM and comp provides variate evidence for variate form of after-life.
Of course it is usually rather different than in the fairy tales.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
That's a liberal theologians question: There's a word "soul" I'd
like to use. Please think of something it applies to so we can
agree that it exists.
I'd be happy to agree with any definition that captures common usage
and is definite. I think common usage equates soul with the basic
character and expressed values of a person or other agent.
I'm OK with this. Of course this is an open problem in arithmetic
where the soul is define by the knower (Bp & p) recovered by
Theaetetus's method. This fits quite well with Platonism and
neoplatonism. Note that here the christians follows Plato: the soul is
immortal, where for Aristotle this is untrue, unless for its
intellectual part, as even for Aristotle, ideas are "eternal".
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at