On 02 Feb 2013, at 09:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't
believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some
mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it
was the only one.
That's not accurate. I am happy to consider other notions of gods,
but they are all persons and I don't believe any of them exist. The
meaning you want to assign to "God" is the ultimate foundation of
the world, which I would call "urstuff" or something similar.
I disagree.
I use God to avoid stuff, as we already know it is not "stuffy". Read
the greeks. read the taoists, read many idealist school of buddhism.
The theory you have put forward that the world is emergent from the
computations of a UD doesn't make the fundamental a person
It is an open problem.
and so I can't see any reason to call it "a god" of "God" of even
"ONE" (since it is very numerous).
? Arithmetical truth is unique. The standard model of arithmetic is
unique. And we can't really define it, without using more intuitions,
on sets and infinities.
I did provide a definition of God: what is responsible for everything,
and can't be named by its creatures. See the arithmetical
interpretation of Plotinus for more. Even Plotinus was cautious about
the "personhood of the ONE, and about its possible will".
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
