On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb 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.

But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic.




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 have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it.





I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something 
undefined.

That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe.



Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does 
not exist?


I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the "hard problem of consciousness" to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent).






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.

The "modern" definition is done in a obscurantist period where science and theology have been artificially separated by people for reason of power.

Because theology taught that knowledge came from revelation an was to be believe by an act of faith. Science separated from that and eventually gained some power through being useful. There's nothing obscurantist about keeping those two epistemologies distinct.

I take the definition of those who invented science, and which included all from of fundamental reflexions, including the reflexion on the origin of "reality".

Then you need to write in Greek, and note that the Greeks didn't capitalize 
"theos".





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.


because since Gödel we have discovered that arithmetical truth transcend all machines. before we were thinking that eventually we might identify provable and true, but today, as the greek intuited, we know that truth (even in the apparently limited domain of the numbers) escape *all* theories and all *machine*. So with comp, the simple "truth" get a necessarily transcendental character, and this explain that Plato was right on this: truth is a transcendental (theological) notion.

Have you lost sight of the fact that what Godel proved was that arithmetic can express the proposition, "This sentence cannot be proven within arithmetic."? Hardly a transcendental truth.


I cannot meta-identify truth and God, because those notion are a priori different. It just happens that IF we assume comp, THEN truth behaves like Plato's notion of God.



Only the day the vast majority practice or believe in comp, we might use "truth" in the place of God. Before that it would be dishonest. Likewise, if comp is refuted, and some solid argument is given that the material reality is fundamental, we can use "physical universe" instead of "God", but doing that before would again be preposterous.

You seem to have assumed the task is to find something label with the word "God". I say let us be modest and use words for what we know.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to