On 2/5/2013 6:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:2013/2/5 Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdb<[email protected] <mailto:[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 ??So Thomas Aquinas was not a christian, because he understood the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.
He understood there could be a conflict and he proceeded to redefine 'omnipotence' to meand 'do anything not self-contradictory', then you could invoke the 'nature of God' to say that some things, e.g. sinning, would be contradictory.
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 [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.
