On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:26, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

If a machine equates God with "ultimate reality",

I do not... I don't equate god with anything.

Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God.

No I don't....

If you defend a consistent theory of God, then you agree that it *might* exist or make sense, so that the field of theology, and theological question make sense. In particular we can study the universal machine experience and believe in the matter, which of course needs to agree on some definition and axiom.

As I said, I cannot define "God" by "Ultimate reality", but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality.

God is nothing else than a human invention... God as understood by billions people on earth...

I am not sure. When I discuss with Muslims or with Christians they agree that God, very typically, does not belong to the thing you can understand.

You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you...

I don't think so. They are adult and can tell me so, or take distance with the talk of the universal machine, or abandon comp, or whatever. With comp, *after UDA*, working in arithmetic, things like Souls, Arithmetical Truth, Consciousness, God, etc. are NOT assumed. To interrogate the machine we have to agree on some definition, and they have to be large.

I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing "belief" to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist.

Call it "ultimate reality". It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty.

There is no problem to call it "ultimate reality", as long as you are open it might have "personal" aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that "ultimate reality" can be (with this or that hypothesis).

Even if the Outer God might not be exactly a person, it can make sense only through our personal relation with It, and they can depend to what you identify yourself with.

I have no problem with atheists, but some fundamentalist atheists seem to have a problem with comp and their consequences, a bit like Bill Taylor and John Clark apparently. It is normal because those atheists *are* believer:

- They believe that the notion of God is ultimate crackpot, and so are annoyed when presented with an arithmetical transparent and clear interpretation of Plotinus in elementary arithmetic (which shows, at the least, the relative consistency of Plotinus in arithmetic). - They believe that the brain is a machine, and are annoyed when I insist that it is a "belief", that is an hypothesis, an assumption, a postulate, a theory. - They believe in a primitive material universe, and that physics is the fundamental science. Some confuse physical universe and primitive or "in-need-to-be-assumed" physical universe, which is easy to make me, or comp, looking mad.

I know that there are atheists who know better. I describe only the atheists who have a problem with computationalism and its consequences. I have never met them, as they have declined the desire to meet me, which makes me think they are not scientists at all.

My feeling is that you have a prejudice on religion, perhaps for some reasons. Did you have a religious education? If you ask the people in the street on physics, 99% of them are wrong. We don't mislead them by teaching them physics. It is normal a bigger proportion of people might be wrong in theology, given that we forbidden the interrogative inquiries and experiences in the field since about 1500 years in West and 1000 year in Middle-East. You must read the book of theologians, not those who repeat "sacred texts" like parrots, and who have been programmed by those who stolen the field, for obvious purpose, degrading the issue with varied degrees.

By mocking those who search the truth in the matter, you make yourself de facto an ally of those who pretend they found it. By refusing to discuss those matter rationally, in the axiomatic way, you make yourself de facto an ally of those who want to keep it as dogma, and who evacuate the modesty needed for progressing.



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