On 15 Jan 2013, at 00:10, meekerdb wrote:
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]> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch
<[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?
Do you see that this happens by the first person indeterminacy on a
concrete robust universe running a UD? (that's UDA1-7)
Can you derive a contradiction from the negation?
That's what UDA-8 shows. We don't get a contradiction, but the notion
of primitive matter becomes a secondary emerging notion, as far as
that matter has something to do with first person observation.
(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
OK. Aristotle is close to deism, but of course not the 'aristotle of
the christians".
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).
I use "god" in the sense of those who define the theological science.
It is basically the 'transcendent source of everything", and with
comp, arithmetic is enough, because mathematicaml logic explains why
arithmetical truth, when inferred by machines, has many of the usual
meta-properties of God (responsible for everything, non nameable,
infinite, etc.).
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.
It is not speculation. It is arithmetical consequence of our
assumption. It is speculation in the large sense making all theories
speculative.
If you can explain me how to first person die in QM or in comp, then
you might try to explain this.
Bruno
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]
.
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - 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 everything-
[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
.
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 [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.
