2013/2/5 Jason Resch <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On 2/3/13, meekerdb<[email protected]> 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? > > >> >> >> 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%. > > >> >> >> 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? > > >> >> >> >>> 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. >
Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas (hey dogma is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of christianity, why would you call yourself a christian ?? > > >> 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? > I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I could call an existential force, a reality "maker"... Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense. But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable "answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it is just "shut up and believe". Regards, Quentin > > >> 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. 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). 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. > > >> >> 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? > > Jason > > -- > 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. > > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
