On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them.
That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be
worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish
them.
Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should
listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by
arguing against a scientific approach to "God, souls, afterlife,
meaning, etc." you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in
theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power.
I don't credit such things.
So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy
tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them.
But the idea is important because so many people believe it
And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so
why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian
are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of
God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That.
Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep
the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition.
I let God counts the genuine believers :)
- and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is
really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded
man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something
completely different.
Only the "fairy tale" aspect is different, but if you read the
theologians, you might revise that opinion.
So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale.
Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as
used in "don't ask" by the demagogs.
If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different
picture. Probably different of what those using religion to control
people want you to not see at all.
For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is
more a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and
it did not end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic
religion, and then looks close to what the self-referentially correct
told us about the possible truth about themselves.
The scientific approach to "Gods" is to say they are a failed
hypothesis - not to redefine the word.
Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain
the facts, as God is usually considered as what we can understand the
less. To refute creationism is like to answer to a spam.
Like consciousness, god is not useful as a starting hypothesis.
The god = matter failed to. You might define God by the reality beyond
or behind matter. Then it is interesting that when you do the math in
the comp theory we understand that the overlap is big with the talk of
theologians, even if the fairy tales disappear completely (the same
with salvia, despite it has its own fairy tales).
I realize that science redefines common words too, like "energy",
but those new definitions subsume the common terms.
Which means almost abstract from the popular misconceptions.
Your "God" has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in
the sky.
I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the
points of view of comparative theology.
Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if
that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a
person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person.
The common points are, that God is a X such that
- X has no name, no description,
- X is responsible for your life and lives, the biology, the
psychology, the physics,
- If X get a name, Lies happen and its name multiplies,
- X is not computable,
- X is not arithmetical,
- X attracts or repulse Souls,
- etc.
Then we can look in arithmetic, and around, if something match and try
questioning the (Löbian) machine, like "is God competent (like in
Plotinus, and most religion) or is God incompetent (like with the
Gnostics)?". And many other questions.
Cantor took the pain to explain to the Pope that, if he did indeed
give name to infinities, he was still unable to name the infinity of
infinities, and that he was not naming God. I don't think he meant a
"big Daddy in the sky".
Scientist modesty in machine theology forces us into agnosticism and
cautious, about the relation between Truth and Machines.
A TOE is necessary a theology, as it must let open or decide if there
is 0, or 1, or 2, ... gods, with this or that definition of gods.
You can call it theonomy (by the assocation theonomy/theology being
"astronomy/astrology"). But that would be a sort of error similar to
lifting the theology of the correct machine on ourself, like if we
could know publicly that we are correct.
Changing the vocabulary would be like taking the words too much
seriously.
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.
