2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > > On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > >> >> On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can >>>>>> exist. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how >>>>> you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever >>>>> anyone >>>>> conceives of or else provide a disproof? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, >>>> >>> >>> No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. >>> >> >> That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g >> (& ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. >> >> >> >> >> You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve >>> in God. >>> >> >> Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical >> universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. "God" points on >> an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy >> tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is >> the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a >> conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the >> Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say >>> you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are >>> denying. >>> >> >> That's my exact point. >> >> >> >> >> >>> so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the >>>> name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. >>>> >>> >>> Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone >>> did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able >>> to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - >>> otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make >>> it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. >>> >> >> We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we >> have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, >> which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical >> reason. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not >>>> ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the >>>> very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). >>>> >>>> People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by "free-thinkers" and >>>> "atheists", because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I >>>> would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and >>>> probably run away from them. >>>> >>>> Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same >>>> Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. >>>> Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific >>>> attitude in the theological field. >>>> >>> >>> I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. >>> >> >> That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's >> theology (G* minus G). >> >> >> >> >> And it is characteristic of science that it does not confirm theories, >>> but sometimes refutes or makes theories very improbable. The theory that >>> the world was created by a superperson who cares about humans and judges >>> them and will reward or punish them and answer prayers, the theory known as >>> "theism", has been tested and found false. >>> >> >> If that is true, we abandon that notion of God, and then we can come back >> to the original scientific conception of God: the Unknown origin of the >> Universe. > > > I'm ok with that, why calling that "god" ? > > > Contemporary philosophers call it God. I use the most common term. If I > could really choose I would use a more feminine name, as "God" as a > masculine connotation which annoy me a lot. The greek "Theos" means > panorama, and is the etymology of "theorem": a result which gives a > panoramic view summing the main things. > > > > > You want to be followed and *misunderstood* by all > christians/muslims/jewish on earth ? > > > I want to be understood by all agnostic scientists. In science we use the > common vocabulary, and we provide technical simplification. When I use the > term "biology" instead of "theology", not only this dismissed the G*/G > distinction, but I was attacked by people saying that is was theology, and > they were right. Using "theology" prevents the work to be labeled > "theology" with the negative connotation. I follow both Cantor and Gödel on > theology. I have also remark that good willing believer have far less > problem with my reasoning, including the fact that I reason on that > subject, than with self-labeled atheists. I certainly feel closer to > believer than disbeliever (who still believes in a transcendental reality, > but take it for granted, and are unaware that physics is not the same field > as metaphysics and theology). > Then you you read the Muslim, Jewish and Christian theologian (instead of > the "sacred texts"), you can discover that they are very often quite > rational and serious on the matter, and I have been inspired by many of > them. > > > > When you write "god", they don't follow what you have in mind, > > > My talk is addressed to all Löbian machine. The vocabulary appears to be a > problem only the atheists believers, and of course by any fundamentalist, > that are the people who are opposed to come back to accepting our > "scientific" ignorance in the matter. > > > > > as such, using god your way is totally misleading because most of the > people who read you won't have your meaning in mind. > > > > That is true for all terms. What term should I use? I cannot use "reality" > or "truth", because that would be the same error than the atheists with the > term "universe". > Physics studies the universe, > but physicalist metaphysics study the consequence that God = the Universe > (the universe is the explanation of everything) > likewise comp conclude that God = Truth, but that is a consequence, not an > assumption. > In all case those are different things. > > > > As such, you should restrain from using that word, it's useless. > > > What term would you suggest? >
What about "ultimate reality" ? Because that's what you say it means... It's neutral, does not have all the connotations linked with the word god... and eventually, that's what you want to convey. Quentin > People on this list have already provide terms, but it did not work as > well as "God", which is used easily to denote the ultimate unknown > transcendental reality in all culture, where terms like 'universe', > 'reality', 'truth' would beg the question. > > Aurobindo uses sometimes the term "existence", (see the quote below(*)), > but I have explained to Stephen King why this would be disastrous given the > precise modern use of "existence" in logic and metaphysics. > > Another advantage of using "theology" is to remind that comp is a > religion, meaning that although comp is science, the *practice* of comp > needs a special non provable belief in a form of reincarnation, and that > nobody can impose to you that belief, i.e. an artificial brain. It helps to > understand the comp ethics which is the right to say "no" to the doctor. > > Many religious tradition agrees with most features of the comp "God" or > "Goddess": > > - That it is the incomprehensible "reason" of all things. > - that is has no name, no description, no images, etc. > - that it can't be use in science as an explanation (that follow from the > first point above), > - that all creatures are confronted with It (again like consciousness), > - that it can't be invoked explicitly in terrestrial public decision (like > politics), > - etc. > > Is it a sort of person? perhaps, with some large sense of "sort". It has a > personal aspect in the manifestation of soul (the inner God that we can all > awaken, or simply the first person when not too much sleepy). > > Bruno > > (*) > *"What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?* > > *And it is this ...* > *Existence that multiplied itself* > *For sheer delight of being* > *And plunged into numberless trillions of forms* > *So that it might* > *Find * > *Itself* > *Innumerably" (Aurobindo)* > > > > > Quentin > > >> It is discussed in many books, including many treatise written by >> theologian, in most traditions. Of course such theologians have problems >> with the religious institutions. But that is a point in their favor, as >> most institutions perpetuates authoritative arguments. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> But the ONE is not anyone of those, as it has no name. >>>>>> >>>>>> A god, with a name, that might be a comp reason to disbelieve in it, >>>>>> or to try to look who is hiding beyond the name. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly! And "God" is a name. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is a NickName, pointing on the one without name, and in theology, it >>>> is the most common term used. To change its name would be to give an >>>> importance of the name. It is the axiom one about God, "It has no name", a >>>> bit like the tao, which once named is no more the tao. >>>> >>> >>> No it's not a nickname, that's why it is capitalized. >>> >> >> It is capitalized because it is unique, and a name of something very >> often conceive as a person. With comp, the "person" character of the outer >> God is an open problem. But the inner God *is* a person. >> >> >> >> You just like to use it because some atheists gave you a hard time. >>> Otherwise you could call it "reality" or "the tao" or something else not >>> implying theism (see definition above). >>> >> >> Not at all. I use it because all the theologians I read use it, and this >> in many variate cultures. If I was using TAO, most people would believe >> that I defend specifically Taoism, but what I defend is more general than >> that, and closer to the Greek notion explained in Plato and Neoplatonism. >> The problem I got with atheists came before I use any term from theology, >> as they were oppose the word "mind", "consciousness", AI, and even >> "computer" for many. I still don't know if the problem was ideological at >> the start, but apparently it has become ideological. >> >> 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. > > > 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.
