On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:26, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't
a very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where
did God come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from
the quest for knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.
That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my
point to Bruno. Philosophers may very well think about "why we are
here" or "the set of unprovable truths", but they respect common
usage of language enough not to call it "thinking about God", or
"theology", as Bruno would have them do.
I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's
alleged "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been
introduced to a few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier,
I've had a few discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not
considered non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable,
collection of all sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason
or foundation/reality, god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if
you're vain enough and want to distinguish yourself and your usage
from the common folk, if you need to. Same difference.
And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms
even to conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not
the more traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't
seem to be a problem.
Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard
should therefore point to some evidence instead of the constant
whining/sniping/policing without backup (which includes begging with
"popular use" justifications; since when is this equated with
serious evidence?). Catholic theologian are ahead of you + you guys
don't offer any alternative, therefore you bore chanting this
nonsense again and again, that not only exhibits consistency with
neo-platonist (or Brent's "old Greeks") but with confessional
Catholic theologians today, so get over it. PGC
Well said.
I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at
the origin of the physical universe, or what is at the origin of the
conscious belief in the physical universe".
With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible, and
we can proceed in trying to figure out the plausibility of more
detailed notion, maybe by adding theological axioms like
computationalism: the soul incarnation is invariant for a digital
substitution made at some level.
Making clear the assumptions, you can get theorems, and gives good or
bad notes to other religion, where "good" mean here "correct or
consistent with comp", and "bad means false or inconsistent with comp".
For example many atheists believes that their present incarnation is
unique, when arguing that there is no afterlife. But comp is closer to
Hinduism and buddhism, here, where incarnation implies reincarnation,
in your usual most probable Turing universal environment, or in others.
At no point we need to assert that we are true or false. But we can
better analyse the consistencies and plausibilities of the ideas.
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 [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.
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/d/optout.
