Hi Bruno Marchal I totally agree. Leibniz would say that God is the sufficient reason for the existence of the world and all in it.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 10:52:42 Subject: Re: God exists because 1p exists On 16 Jan 2013, at 12:56, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > I think that the critical question to ask is not "Does God exist ?", > but "Does God necessarily exist ?" ? God is what makes "existence" meaningful. In comp and neoplatonism the term "God" is a meta-pointer on the roots of existence. The mathematician Andr? Weyl said "God exists because arithmetic is consistent, and the Devil exists because we can't prove it (in arithmetic)". > > IMHO "God exists because 1p exists." God exists because something exist, 1p exist because some thing can develop relation with Truth, or just borrow true relation. > > together with "1p exists because 1p can think". Hmm... I would say 1p exist because 1p can think, *and* be sometimes correct (correct = in accordance with truth). Bruno > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/16/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-15, 11:47:07 > Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism. > > > > > On 15 Jan 2013, at 08:26, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since most of these people were theists, I found it easier to just > say, "I'm an atheist", because that succinctly conveys (to those who > respect the meaning of words) my lack of belief in their theist gods. > > > > Then I am atheist too. I am just out of that debate. The real > question is does God exist, and then we can measure if such or such > religion is closer to that God. But God is defined here by the > (unnameable) transcendental (independent of me) from which all > notion of existence emerge. Then we can ask if we can have personal > link, like with the notion of inner god. For a plotinian God is both > a universal soul attractor, and the reason why soul fall from it, in > some circumstances. > > > No, the real question is whether there is something fundamental from > which all that we experience can be derived and if so what is it? > > > Yes. > > > > > > > If you were German and called it "Urstoff" I'd go along with you. > > > I try to avoid "Aristotelian imagery". God = truth, not "stoff" and > even less "Ur". > You should perhaps read Plotinus. The being (No?), which is what > looks like stuff for the internal creature is enclosed between two > things outside "beings", God (by definition the truth frm which the > beings emanate) and matter, the unavoidable and uncontrollable (by > God) border of the observable. > > > > > > > > > But you insist on calling this hypothetical thing "God" thus > dragging in all kinds of connotations of personhood, judgement, > worship, dogma,... > > > > because I read many theologians of different culture. I realize that > 'even" Christianism is less wrong than atheism with respect of the > global rational picture that we can bet on with computationalism. > Let us call it the 'one' (but this change of name can be misleading > as It has no name, and changing name can be a symptom that we take > the name seriously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all Aristotelian > Gods are refuted, somehow. But they are usually not even aware of > the other conceptions of God and reality. > > > > > > > > > > Other physicists I know like Tegmark's idea or Wheeler's "It from > bit" and many work on information based physics. None that I know > hold primary matter as dogma that they "believe" even if they think > it's the best current model. > > > > Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather > exceptional. > > > > No, they are not. Of course most physicists don't worry about > 'what's fundamental, mathematics or matter'. But among those that > do think about it, I'd say more are close to Tegmark than to > Aristotle. > > > > Really? Note that Tegmark is still close to Aristotle too. he has > not embrace the comp reversal between physics and machine "theology/ > psychology/biology". There is still a notion of "physical universe", > even if he become perhaps more cautious, and get closer to comp. > > > Yes, but his "physical universe" is just mathematical. It is > "physical" like your fundamental stuff is "God" > > > It is not stuff. Is it a person? I don't know yet. > > > > > > > > > - it's just a use of an old word to mean something quite different. > Physicist are sometimes criticized (rightly) for the same thing, > using words like "color" and "free energy" in ways that are only > vaguely related to the common meaning. But they at least all agree > on the technical meaning - whereas every theologian redefines "God" > for himself. > > > > I follow Plato. I give the references, and despite 1500 years of > politics, even the conventional religion are less false than atheism > in this matter. It *is* a technical point. An important one, given > that the opposition to my work comes from fundamentalist atheists. > They don't like the realization that the belief in primary matter is > a religious belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret > and non transparent. I think you might never have met fundamentalist > atheists. > > > > I belong to the Ventura County Freethinkers, which has some fifty > members almost all of whom call themselves atheists. I'd say a only > two or three match your idea of believing in 'primary matter', but > most of them haven't thought of it that deeply anyway. > > > > Even the cat believe in primary matter by default. Milk is a sort of > independent substance for him/her. > > Our brains are constituted that way. Only people with frequent > realist dreams usually can doubt, by themselves, the basic nature of > reality. > > So people who does not think deep on this usually have never doubt > "primary matter". > > > You are putting thoughts into their head. Cats and people believe > in matter. They don't need to have any opinion about whether it is > primary. > > > > You might be right, but given our mammal brain, I think it is > reasonable to suppose it seems primary for them by default. Unless > when waking and remembering dream, which is the root of the > skepticism here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > They just know they don't believe in theism, the belief in a > personal God. > > > > Do they believe in the non existence of a theist God. if not, that > is agnosticism. I know that for some american, agnosticism is part > of atheism, but this is quite confusing. > > > No, agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know of any > god whether or not that god exists. > > > > I use the term in the layman european sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For many of them the reasons more moral and ethical than > epistemological or philosophical. > > > > I have no problem with the anticlerical. > > > > > > > > > > I think you are inventing secret opposition. > > > > I don't want to talk about that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those that are atheists, and that's almost all of them, assume there > is no personal agency controlling the world, as a working hypothesis > - but they would give up that if there were good evidence. All this > is in strong contrast to Christianity and the other theisms, which > require dogmatic belief in a personal superbeing. You are just > slandering straw men. > > > > You oppose atheism and christianism. > > > > Sure, because Christianity is a theism, as is Islam and Judaism and > Zoroastrianism. > > > > OK, but they might be wrong on some point and correct on others. > > > But they claim infallible revelations - > > > Which of course makes no sense in the public discourse. They just > fall in the theological trap (that comp explains). > > > > > > > so if they are wrong on some point their whole system if refuted. > > > > > > Why? People can get correct conclusion with wrong premises. > > > > > > > > > > > The vindicating atheists are just more wrong on some point and less > on others. > > > So point on where they are wrong. So long as they are right not to > believe in the theist god, they are still atheists. > > > > I define machine's theology by the discourse of the machine about > what is true for them, but not rationally justifiable, and then I > show it gives a simple arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus. > Forget the religion used for political purpose, please. > Vindicating atheists does believe in primary matter, naturalism, > physicalism. > > > > > > > > > > > The division Plato/Aristotle is more interesting, and more scientific. > > > Sure, the question of what is fundamental, or whether anything is, > is more interesting. > > > > OK. Nice. > > > > > > > > > > > I oppose Aristotle and Plato theologies. From that points of view, > European Atheists are more fundamentalist than European Christian, > because they pretend that science is on their side, and they mock > (to say the least) and hide any argument which might generate a > doubt on this. > > > > I don't know what 'their side' means. If it means Christianity is > wrong, I think science is on their side. > > > > Science is not on any side. It asks only for interesting hypothesis. > God is an interesting hypothesis, > > > Only if you *don't* mean the god of Christianity or Islam or > Zoroaster or... > > > > Forget the human religion, unless you find one coherent with your > hypothesis about everything. > > > > > > > > > > > but this is hidden in the fable and superstition encouraged by the > manipulators. > > Personally, I am already not sure that christianism, before 500, has > anything to do with Christianism after 500. > > > Or that either has anything to do with the events of 0 to 30CE. > Saul of Taursus invented the dogmatic religion of Christianity based > on what he heard of a mystic cult leader. > > > > Which is the first mistake. > > > I have just no interest in the mistaken (if only relatively to > computationalism) theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In science, in case of big ignorance, we often extend the terms to > make easy the reasoning. So define God by whatever is responsible of > our existence. > > > "Responsible" is an ethical concept. > > > > > Really? OK. In french responsible is more general. It can be "reason > that". We can say something like the bad weather was responsible for > the car crashes, or the low tempretaure was responsible for the > icing of the pond. > > > My mistake. > > > > > > > Why should there be anything that has ethical responsibility for our > existence. Why not simple cause of our existence? > > > Then I see that some theories (like weak materialist theories) are > incompatible with other theories (like computationalist theories). > > > Maybe. I don't think they are as incompatible as you do. I think > that even if computation is fundamental, we (that is consciousness) > can only exist within the context of material existence. > > > > Then we are back to UDA, as it proves that if "matter" play a role, > it cannot be computational. You light confuse "human consciousness", > which needs material existence, and the consciousness of the L?ian > machine, from which human and matter emerge. > > > > > > > > Brent > "My Atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the > universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own > image, to be servants of their human interest." > --- George Santayana > > > > That's my religion too, but to say that Spinoza is an atheists will > not make sense for many. To be continued ... > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They don't allow the doubt and the scientific attitude on the > fundamental question. They already "know". > > > > It's quite possible to know answers are wrong without knowing the > right answer. > > > > They know that the fable are incorrect, but some believer knows that > too. Atheism evacuates the question and often present science as the > answer, when science is only a tool to formulate the questions and > test some answers. > > > > Well, I will not insist as my opinion on atheists comes mainly from > my personal experience with some of them, and it is hard to > communicate about that. > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > Bruno > > > > 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@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 > . > > > > > > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 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 > . > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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 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.