On 1/14/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 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 the universe.
> 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 doesn't.
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 incompatible.
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
Are you claiming that as a logical inference, or what? Can you derive a contradiction
from the negation?
(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 ..?
http://www.theopedia.com/Deism
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.
Of course I think it is very unlikely that some gods exist, e.g. Yaweh of the bible or
Allah of the Quran, and I don't base any of my decisions on their existence. "Agnostic"
has two very different meanings: One is just to think that there is no good evidence for
or against the existence of the god under consideration. The other is that it is
impossible to have such evidence. But whenever you use a term like theist, atheist,
agnostic,... it is relative to some god(s) and to be precise you need to say what god(s).
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.
I see only speculation that QM and comp might allow some kind of after-life where
'after-life' is given different meanings.
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".
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
