We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty?
Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Brent, >> >> I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. >> >> >> On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, >>> Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, >>> Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, >>> Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, >>> Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, >>> Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, >>> Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, >>> Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, >>> Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, >>> Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, >>> Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, >>> Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, >>> Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, >>> Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, >>> Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, >>> Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, >>> Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, >>> Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, >>> Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, >>> Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, >>> Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, >>> Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, >>> Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, >>> Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, >>> Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, >>> Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, >>> Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I >>> see no reason to believe any of them exist. >> >> >> So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? > > I didn't say I "disbelieved", I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I > *fail* to believe in them. I think of "belief" as admitting degrees. I > disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't > exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods > makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; > it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how > you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? > > >> What if the list just missed the one that exists? >> >> As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is >> incompatible with comp. >> >> I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh >> made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it >> away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head >> quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant >> passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of >> the cuttlefish which I love even more). >> >> I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the >> brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with >> comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and >> addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. >> >> But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would >> need to study their stories to conclude. >> >> Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking >> some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or >> simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia >> (according to the Christian Mazatecs). >> >> There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not >> the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non >> machines, or gods and goddesses. >> >> And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is >>>>>> very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists >>>>>> agreed. >>>>> >>>>> It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'. >>>> >>>> But "theist" is not clear. >>> >>> My point exactly. >> >> >> But if you agree that "theist" is not clear, you agree that "atheist" is not >> clear either. > > But "theist" is only unclear because you suppose that you can cite some > ancient philosopher as *really* defining "theism". I accept the modern > theory of dictionaries that meanings are defined by usage; and the usage of > "God" is a superperson who created the world, wants to be worshipped, and > judges, rewards and punishes. > >> It creates an opposition where I see beliefs everywhere, and good willing >> people trying to understand each others, mixed with people who insult >> instead. >> >> I have many sympathy for many atheists, and I share with them important >> ideas, like no artificial magic, occam razor, rationalism, and the >> anticleralism, and the "anti-autoritarism" (of the first one), but they get >> trapped in* believing* they have solved the theological question, or trapped >> in the deny that there was even a question, leading to a form of "don't >> ask", which slow down the possible progresses, and becomes an autoritarist >> meme by itself. >> >> >> >>> >>>> Some identify "God" with the God of their own culture. In science, we try >>>> to get a concept as independent of human and culture as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth (the one that we can search >>>>>> about us, or hope or fear, in life and afterlife, whatever it is). >>>>> >>>>> Except nobody here is speaking Greek. And the Greeks had plenty of gods >>>>> that had nothing to do with truth; in fact they were given to deception. >>>> >>>> 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). >>> >>> Christianity, specifically Aquinas and Augustine, tried to merge Greek >>> philosophy into the Jewish Messianic religion of Christianity. But the >>> abrahamic religions owe far more to the Babylonian, Egyptian, and >>> Zoroastrian religions than to Greek. >> >> OK. But let us not confuse the terrestrial implementation of the religious >> process and the true relations that machines can have with truth. > > But you are exactly the person confusing them in your writing (if not your > thoughts) by using language of religions to express simple mathematical ideas. > > Brent > > >> As I said, thanks to Babbage, Turing, Post, Church, discoveries of the >> universal numbers, we get an interesting "simple" Number Theology, which can >> be used as an etalon in comparative theology. >> >> In the first match Plato 1 and Aristotle 0. >> >> It is not the last match in the comp soccer cup! >> >> Bruno >> >> >> 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 email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.