From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 12:05 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:43, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote: On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing god doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does exist. But it is still ambiguous because it assumes that "God(s)" is definite. I don't believe that personal agent type gods exist; but I'm on the fence about some creative principle or unnamable truths that some people would like to call "God". I believe that theist (e.g. Abrahamic) gods do not exist. I comment Brent first, here. OK. fair enough, but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he might still have important relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or even with the notion of arithmetical truth as pointed too by a machine. But doesn't "God" imply an Identity, which cannot by its very nature be all things, I am not sure what makes you think I defined God by "all thing". It is more the truth about all things. This can be shown to be non definable, and as such might not have an identity in the sense you are using that term here. The point I was trying to make was about the common conception of God as of some all-powerful, all-knowing deity. Even in faiths that prohibit, any explicit depiction of God this external identifiable conceptualized being exists - at least in so far as the believers are concerned. If we speak of some formless ineffable truth or force perhaps existing in all things, then I agree with your sense of it (and seek to experience moments of flow of as well), but often, the word symbol God - at least for me perhaps - conjures up a theist god of one brand or another - doesn't really matter. because Identity always is - and must be - defined in terms of a larger set; i.e. good is defined in terms of evil both within some larger set that encompasses both. The ineffable, indescribable essence is without Identity. You might elaborate, as I am not even sure "identity" applies here. I would say it is not without identity, nor with identity. I suspect a category error. Words are symbols, and symbolic meaning can only exist within a context. When we give something Identity - even a supreme being we are implicitly conceptualizing this supreme being within some even larger context. Being needs context in order to be. Definition requires contrast. It is a very hard habit to escape and set aside. our minds are always defining things for us and we naturally tend to hang some kind of identity on our various deities. I would say outside of the identifiable. Bruno Chris In all texts, I take what is convincing, and let what I don't understand for further reflexion. And here I comment Liz: OK. Although string theory almost certainly predicts that they exist somewhere (but not in our corner of the multiverse). Really? I doubt this. Daemon capable of imitating God might be prove to exist, in both some QM-GR theory, and in arithmetic, but for God itself, I am afraid it is more transcendent than any seemingly being in any realm. In the terrestrial (effective) realm, you can't distinguish God from the Devil. The most which can make (G*- non communicable) sense is that you eventually remember who you are, being God, or the Devil. It is the only way you might be able to differentiate them. Bruno -- 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/d/optout. 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 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. 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 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
RE: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List Sat, 05 Jul 2014 01:01:26 -0700
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... LizR
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... meekerdb
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... LizR
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... meekerdb
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... LizR
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... meekerdb
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... LizR
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- RE: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- RE: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- RE: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... meekerdb
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... John Clark
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Kim Jones
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: ... Bruno Marchal