On 29 Nov 2013, at 23:38, meekerdb wrote:

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> 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.

You are not quoting me. But Liz.





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.

It is, by many people. I am OK that it proves nothing, neither for Earth, nor for God.



"God" is continually redefined to mean whatever the person defining it wants you to accept as creating and controlling your life.

It is because God, is by definition, the utimate truth, that we search, despite we feel it as transcending us, ineffable, etc.




The trick is chose something the person already accepts, like "reality", and then calling it God

it helps to not take "reality" for granted. To help to understand that the notion of "reality" is already theological.





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.

It would be dishonest if someone pretend to know what reality is. That is what some atheists does. They mock theists but behave like the diso- honest theist, pretending they know that the theory of reality made by others is wrong, and making pass their own conception as more serious. That is the dishonest trick. It makes the aristotle theology (naturalism) into a dogma. Then the atheists I know (my "opponents" behave worse than the christian during inquisition).





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.

But that is a too big generalization. Atheists gives credits only to one kind of God, and mock the whole theological enterprise from that.





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.

I was referring to Plato.



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.

Agnostic have no dogma. Atheists have terrible dogma. "terrible" because they decide that someone is mad when that someone dare to express doubt about their dogma. Keep in mind that in Europa, some atheist are worst than creationist in the matter of dogma.




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.

They actively believe it is not a person. They call you mad when you confess it is an open problem. For them that is solved.
Some can say "I don't know", but then they are agnostics, not 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.

I agree with David Deutsch. A success is only an absence of refutation. Not a reason for being positive on the assertion. And physics has been successful, but the physicalist or materialist religion is not. It is incoherent, as it used often both mechanism and weak materialism. It leads to elimination of persons and ideas. And like the fundamentalists, it behaves as to preserve theology in the hands of the churches and other political authorities, instead of coming back to seriousness on the questions. It also implicitly makes some science as fundamental, and forbid the doubt about that.




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.

?

Bruno




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.

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 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