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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
