What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html
Samiya On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:30 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10/8/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: >> >> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the >> question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this >> list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's >> reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic". >> >> >> How do you know that? How could you know that. >> >> >> I read the interview. For example >> >> *D.G.: I’m not a believer, so I’m not in a position to say. First of all, >> it’s worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don’t come >> from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case for >> believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a benevolent God >> could allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils like >> devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always been >> a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of >> responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like >> me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, >> figured out how to accommodate themselves to it.* >> >> It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism. If he were >> referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there >> would be no "problem of evil" for that god. >> >> >> >> On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and evil >> related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person perspective >> yet understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to justify and be >> confronted with that very problem. >> >> >> But under computationlism it's not a problem. The is no presumption >> that a computable world is morally good by human standards. >> > > Under computationalism, all possible worlds and all possible observers > exist and there's nothing God can do about it. God can no more make certain > observers or observations not exist than make 2 + 2 = 3. However, a > benevolent theistic god under computationalism (with access to unlimited > computing resources) could nonetheless "save" beings who existed in other > worlds by continuing the computation of their minds. > > > You say "could" as though he had a choice, meaning He's not part of the > computable world and is not one of the "all possible observers". Seems to > me that he will have to both save everyone and also torture everyone in > hell. > > 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 [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/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 [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/d/optout.
