2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote: > > We exist, >> > > OK. > > > > then why should we reject the idea of having been created, >> > > > Or of having a non physical origin. "creation" involves the idea of > someone doing something with something, and so that idea take some > "something" for granted, and so miss by construction the goal of explaining > why we exist. Like Quentin said, "God created the universe" leads to the > problem of what is God, why and how has It created the universe, etc. > > Also, in some culture, the universe can be the result of God sneezing, or > the result of God being unable to control the consequence of his creation > of something else. the danger of saying that we are created by God is > apparent in the doctrine that God has made the humans into his own image. > This leads to the idea that humans are somehow single out from all > creatures, when the truth might be that all creature are equal and > interconnected (as we see ecologically). We cannot pretend that we are the > favorite of God. You know the theory that God created the cat in his own > image, and then created the humans to be the servants of the cats ... > > > > > just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? >> > > OK. But then God is only a pointer to our ignorance. If we cannot > comprehend God, we cannot use It as an explanation. > Here computationalism put some light by explaining that something (may be > just the arithmetical truth) is intrinsically ignored by all finite > creature. So if we are machine, there is something which transcend us, and > I think this is closer to the rational conception of the mystical > experience and of the God of the greeks and the mystics. > > > > > Is that not intellectual dishonesty? >> > > It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and > presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. > Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace > it without saying by another (impersonal) God,
That's not true.... > without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a > theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. > I don't believe in a primitive physical universe and I don't believe in god, I see no contradiction with that... it's because you redefine what god means you're able to say such things, but that is dishonest. Quentin > > Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their > dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. > But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more > plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is > provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to > disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is "atheist" with > respect to the God of the atheists. > > My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, > as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being > serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and > keep in mind that those are assumptions. > > From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians > and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: > as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence > of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in > arithmetic) and he is confronted to a "ONE", the arithmetical truth which > cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys > laws). > > It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in > arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain > everything from it. > > Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are "generated" by > arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key > "Mandelbrot set" which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation > (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and > rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the > rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal > dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its > infinitely complex border. > > The "god" of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so > we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex > than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul > attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic > complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. > > > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.