On 2/4/2013 7:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

        On 2/3/13, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto: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
                problem.

                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?


    Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism.


So are you also an a-deist?  What about an a-Brahmanist, or 
a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist?

Probably - although I'm not informed on the latter.



        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.


    Not at all.  All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely 
to exist
    than a theist god.


They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%.

No doubt. Dawkins only places himself at 9 on a 1-to-10 scale of disbelief in the god of theism.



        You would have to
        be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every
        person's) notion of God.


    I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put 
any
    credence in them.


How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any 
credence in them?

Agnostic may mean giving equal roughly equal credence to every position. Agnostic may also mean the position that nothing can be known about the existence of god(s).




            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.


Not all what do?

Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him.

So what makes the Christians?

     I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as
    Christian, Muslim, and Jew.  The major remaining portions are non-believers 
and Hindus.



              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,


That is not my view. I am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? Are there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about?

You seem to be confounding "disbelieve in" and "failing to believe in". To "believe in zero gods" is ambiguous since it might mean asserting "There are no gods" or "There are no gods that I believe in." Compare "There are no aliens on other planets" and "There are no aliens on another planet that I believe in."

            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?


    That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different 
notions
    because there is more than one king.


They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)?



        Why then,
        should there be only one meaning of God?


    Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant.  Of course like many words 
it may
    refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations.  
"Automobile" refers
    to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and 
carry
    people over surfaces.  That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier 
and
    automobile.


So then what are the universal properties of God? You seem to shy away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self-inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most comfortably admit you disbelieve in.

And you seem to cling to an almost infinitely flexible non-specific and amorphous application which can hardly even be called a definition (i.e. that which makes definite).

This is trivial though and I think we can do better. It is like a mathematician proving there are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives up deciding to advance the field by proving anything else.

In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God cannot exist, you end up doing science and advancing the field of theology. You could prove logically some possible properties of God are mutually inconsistent (e.g., God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient, or both omnipotent and omnibenevolent).

You can only prove it of God because it holds Fluberlast as well - it holds of anything because the attributes are mutually inconsistent. So it's not specifically about "God".

And with that advancement in understanding you gain new insight into what God can be and can alter the notion of it, just as the notion of Earth as a flat plane has changed.




        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,

    Can you cite Plato referring to such a being?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge



        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.


    Except that all those gods are persons.  Arithmetical truth is (a) ill 
defined


It cannot be defined.

    and (b) not a person.


Bruno says this is not settled.

Then he shouldn't use a word that implies that it is.


    Brent



        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?


    The Earth is defined ostensively.  If we could define god(s) ostensively 
then it
    would make sense to say we discovered it's properties were different than 
we had
    supposed.



Which we would if theology were treated with a scientific attitude. Do you have any objection to a scientific treatment of theology?

Not at all. I'm happy to have Mt. Olympus explored for signs of Zeus. Also I'm happy to pursue knowledge of things more fundamental that may give a more comprehensive theory of the world - but I don't call that 'theology' because that word has been defined by common and academic usage to refer to the study of gods that are persons and religions that worship them.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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.


Reply via email to