On 11/29/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Nov 2013, at 00:58, LizR wrote:

On 29 November 2013 03:29, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com <mailto:samiyaill...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They 
did
    invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly 
deformed,
    notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative 
arguments,
    by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some 
extent).

    It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, 
that
    Earth has disappeared.  We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't 
we do
    that with the notion of God?'

Atheists think that's exactly what we have done, just as we correct our notions of Santa Claus as we grow up.





I don't know why you think you are qualified to put words in the mouths of atheists, Bruno. If you want to criticize their position you could at least directly quote them.


Liz, I disagree. The atheists say "the definition of Earth ("God") in the sacred text is an infinite plane (fairy tale).

That was never anyone's *definition* of Earth. "Earth" was defined ostensively. "God" is not. "God" is continually redefined to mean whatever the person defining it wants you to accept as creating and controlling your life. The trick is chose something the person already accepts, like "reality", and then calling it God and then using the implication that God is a person and the person wants certain things (which coincidentally correspond to what the the God-believer wants). It is a dishonest trick.

We know there is no infinite plane below us, (we disbelief fairy tales) thus we correct our theory of Earth (God): Earth (God) doesn't exist.

That this, the atheists credit some text for the definition of God, and abandon the whole idea, or possible reality, because they find some theory wrong. And by doing so, they continue to credit the authoritative arguments. And in passing they impose implicitly their own theology (Matter).

That's right. Atheists credit theists for using the word God to describe what they believe in - a person who creates the world and wants to be obeyed and worshipped and rewards an punishes accordingly.


God, in the original platonist theoretical conception

God in the *really oringial* Thog theoretical conception was an angry old man who lived the volcano and would rain hot rocks on the tribe if not supplied with a virginal sacrifice from time-to-time. So if we're going to abide by orginal meanings, let's be consistent.

is basically the reason/cause of the everything which exists in some or other senses. Atheists says it is Matter.

Atheists have no dogma and have no unified opinion. Some atheists think it is information, some think it is mathematics. Mostly they just don't know. But they don't believe it's a person who cares about us - that's what makes them atheists.


Many atheists believes that there is a material universe, and that it is all there is. Their God, in the platonist sense, is Matter, and they might be true.

But you don't need to believe in any fairy tale to doubt Matter, and so the physical universe might have a deeper cause or reason, and indeed with computationalism the cause is "just" the arithmetical truth, which makes the universal number sharing deep computations, with a measure we can compare with the facts (using Theaetetus' definition of knowledge).

If we don't put the theological in perspective, it will be hard to even compare the atheist aristotelian theology (Nature, Mater, is the God) and Platonism: (Nature and Matter emerge from, or emanate from, or is created by, or is the shadow of, or (in comp): is the global FPI first person plural projection, from *something else* (with comp: arithmetical truth).

The problem of some atheists and materialist is that they confuse physics and theology. They forget that they *assume* a physical reality. They too commit an act of faith, by making the object of physics the explanation of everything.

It's not an act of faith. It's an hypothesis which has been very successful (unlike the guy in the volcano) and that success is evidence for it.

They reason correctly in the frame of that assumption, but to do theology scientifically, you need to remind that it is an assumption, just to see other rational conception of reality possible.

Rational is weakest standard of true.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to