2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > > 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 [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. > -- 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 [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.
