On 2/3/13, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all
>> correct machines
>> believes in God, and in some theories question like "is God a person" can
>> be an open
>> But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut
>> with your
>> education which has impose to you only one notion of God.
> Why should there be more than one notion designated by "God".
Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to
designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's
God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is
favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God
the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists,
or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? You say it
is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism
isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. You would have to
be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every
person's) notion of God.
> The Abrahamic
> religions use
> the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent,
> benevolent creator
> person who wants us to worship him.
Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities.
> Together their adherents constitute 54%
> of those who
> believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and
> agnostics use the
> same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some
> other notion,
> why not call it something else.
The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics.
Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? Why then,
should there be only one meaning of God?
This is not to say the word is meaningless. There are commonalities
between different religions and belief systems. In nearly all, it can
be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation. Whether
it is the Platonic God, the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic
God, this property is almost universal. In this respect, it is
perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief
system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth. Under
Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops
there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism.
Would we be better off had we abandoned the word "Earth" or "World"
merely because we discovered it is round instead of flat, instead of
amending our notion of what the "Earth" or "World" really is?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.