2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> 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.... >> >> > > But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that > transcends what we can prove or understand? >
Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. > > But you're not o.k. with when "God" is used, in a standard > non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? > No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... > > Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. > I just did. > Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming > transcendental is more misleading > It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. > than stating that there is transcendental. > Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. > This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who > hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the > table. > > >> >>> 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... >> > > If I took the other side for fun: "Well human is invention of God!" and > you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and "agree > to disagree". That position of "is a human invention" is as fundamentalist > It is not, revelation is BS... all religions on earth with "book" from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... Quentin > as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with > you as god of validity instead of them. > > >> God as understood by billions people on earth... >> > > Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. > > >> 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 beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of > Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of > meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard > across many religions and forms of spirituality. > > 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)... >> > > Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's > theology is what that is. > > >> 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. >> > > Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus > weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more > to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but > misleading as I've laid out above. PGC > > > >> >> Quentin >> >> >> >> >>> I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth >>> and provable. >>> >>> It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own >>> consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new >>> different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. >>> >>> Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same >>> machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. >>> >>> This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies >>> can easily become inconsistent. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> or "ultimate truth", or "arithmetical truth", despite she is "correct", >>>> she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on >>>> herself, in the inconsistent way. >>>> >>> >>> No, he/she just use non contreversial word. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> God as no description and "ultimate reality" looks already too much to >>>> a description. >>>> >>> >>> That's what you say but see below... >>> >>> >>>> You will tell me that "arithmetical truth" is also a description. I >>>> will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, >>>> machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more >>>> than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). >>>> >>>> All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality >>>> >>> >>> You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more >>> than utlimate reality... >>> >>> >>> Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you >>> need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that "God" needs an >>> act of faith. >>> Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our >>> Aristotelian paradigm) that "the ultimate reality" asks for an act of >>> faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's >>> also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like >>> theology. >>> >>> The reason I use and insist on "theology", "God" etc. is that I fear >>> people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in >>> science which use expression like "science has proved", or worst "we know >>> that ...". >>> >>> By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy >>> tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more >>> serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific >>> manner. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> is arithmetical truth, >>>> >>> >>> So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can call >>> it ultimate reality without refering to it as god... >>> >>> >>> I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand >>> that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our >>> consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit. >>> >>> The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that >>> the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that such >>> beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G. >>> >>> It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a machine >>> simpler than us "scientifically" (indeed it is mainly given by G*). But we >>> cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not even assuming) >>> for comp and our relative correctness. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality >>>> >>> >>> once again, it seems you can... >>> >>> >>> ? (the sentence is not finished) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> is arithmetical truth, or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent. >>>> >>> >>> Ok, if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god* >>> you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight. >>> >>> >>> No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name, no >>> description, should be invoked in argument, etc. >>> And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy >>> tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem. >>> You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by honest >>> researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people who use the >>> idea to install there power. >>> >>> Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God? >>> Both have got a lot of names, and are essentially mind-blowing things, >>> but for Cannabis, we got 75 years of brainwashing, for God we got 1500 >>> years of brainwashing. >>> >>> Do you think that by changing the name of Cannabis, it would become >>> legal? Well, it is a way to avoid locally problem and that why it has so >>> many names, and the same appeared with "God", but really, to abandon God >>> and theology, is still a way to credit the bandits who lied about cannabis >>> and God. >>> >>> God is not more that unpleasant all loving entity sending your friends >>> to hell, than cannabis is a terrible drug which makes you rape and kill >>> people. >>> >>> Religion is not a problem, it is a natural thing fro all finite creature >>> looking inward, and around. the problem is when a religion, or a science, >>> is stolen by bandits, as a tool for getting power. >>> >>> I appreciate the anticlericalism of the atheists, but they throw out the >>> baby with the bath water, and by doing so, they make the whole of theology >>> into pseudo-science and, worst, the whole of science into a pseudo-theology. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> That explains the hotness of the subject. >>>> >>>> G* minus G is meta-theology, it says what can be true but not >>>> rationally believed or asserted as such by machine. >>>> >>> >>> It is a theory about what is reality ultimately, it is about the >>> primitive nature of reality, it's not about *god*. >>> >>> >>> There is a thin hair difference between the two notions as explained >>> above. That there is a ultimate reality is basically trivial, or looks >>> trivial. "God" is less trivial, and as far as I know, comp confirms a large >>> part of the existing theology, if you care to abstract from the myths and >>> legends overused by professional liars. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> What can be rationally asserted, is that: IF comp is true then >>>> arithmetical truth plays the role of God >>>> >>> >>> I disagree, it plays the role of ultimate reality noy *god* for the >>> currently shared accepted meaning. >>> >>> >>>> for the machine, but no machine can consistently believes that God is >>>> arithmetical truth, >>>> >>> >>> I don't believe in any currently human written god, as such god is not >>> an adequate word to describe what I believe. >>> >>> >>> >>> You are right, but if you take the time to read them, you would see that >>> the theologian agree with you, and that is why the first axiom of God or >>> Tao is that once he has a written name, you are already inconsistent. So we >>> need to go at the meta-level, and use a term for the pointer on It, with >>> all the danger of seeing the term stolen by unscrupulous (and inconsistent) >>> bandits. >>> If you don't do that, you keep the term in the hands of the bandits. >>> That's why the catholics hierarchy loves the atheists: as the atheists do a >>> free advertising of the churches by crediting them or allowing only them >>> for talking on God, and this hides the fact that they (the atheists) used >>> an act of faith when pretending that there is a (primitive) physical >>> universe (that seems obvious, but scientifically that is an *extraordinary >>> claim* asking for an extraordinary proof or evidence (which has not been >>> found, nor even searched). >>> >>> I think it is the only way to fight the pseudo-religions and >>> pseudo-sciences: to allow us to use the scientific method in the >>> fundamental field. Only this makes it possible to doubt *all* gods, ... >>> from the one with a beard to Primitive Matter. >>> >>> I got problem with atheists well before I used the term theology or God. >>> They understood the point, and their opposition is completely independent >>> of the use of vocabulary. In the Lille thesis I was asked to replace >>> "theology" by "psychology", and that made the "silent" opposition even >>> worse, and the difference between G and G* get confused with the difference >>> between conscious and unconscious by psychologists, leading to new kind of >>> misunderstandings. >>> >>> 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. >> > > -- > 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.
