On 16 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read Bruno's ID about theology some times - never really
comprehended it.
Then I suggest a standard dictionary or to google/wiki the term,
where you'll find that Bruno did not invent the term, nor did he
imbue it with some special interpretation.
He mostly uses it in the common sense of "rational study of concept
of god/nature of truth", which btw is implied by the word "Theology"
and its etymology itself.
I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a
'startup of the World'
no matter on what theory.
Startup of the World?
I guess John M means "origin of reality".
About the "GOD" concept???? did ANYBODY EVER communicated about it
on a basis NOT hearsay, NOT dreaming, or 'postulate for otherwise
ununderstandables'?
(Meaning: within our momentary capabilities of human mental level?)
That is the object of the line of scientific inquiry implied by the
term "theology".
For example, say you state after some mystical experience, that you
met a god that told you to write down his message. If your god
insists in the text that "he/she/it is infallible", in the literal
sense of the term, in all possible universes, but then follows up
that sentence asserting that "4+4 = 5 is true", then theology does
its job by telling us that is not rational, with our usual
understanding of "rational", and that we might have to find
different ways of approaching the rational study of your text.
If we agree on the scientific framework, we can thus argue about
possible gods, what they say, implications in front of this or that
theoretical/mathematical background, and analyze religious,
spiritual statements, sentences, and propositions; even those
concerning some inconceivable supreme principle.
Is there anything known pointing to the "GOD" concept besides our
ignorance?
Your question and written text would be "something known to us" :-)
There are of course, numerous other ones.
I discount "God said so to me" because the noun is unsecured.
I don't discount much because I am greedy, so instead I ask for the
pitch and ask questions. My average time is about 10 minutes until
most give up on trying to sell. The exception are of course great
musicians and their kind of proposition, to which I can listen to
for hours and can wish for that the preaching may never stop.
Furthermore: I refuse Bruno's hint to the unoiform background to a
"Christian God concept" in this thread, initiated indeed on Muslim
ideas.
If I understand correctly, indeed there are nuances in different
interpretation of Christian God, but I'm not sure these become
relevant here, where we can't even agree on the status or legitimacy
of theology itself.
My position: a so called atheist requires a 'god' to deny.
In my agnostic thoughts I accept lotsof 'things' we cannot?/do not?
know so far.
But how can you know that?
I don't make up my mind to substitute for such unknowable domains
using our so-far acknowledged (poorly understood??) knowledge-base
as explanatory.
Well theology just asks things we can debate: How can you know how
far you do not know? And by what yardstick?
Including math (arithmetics) - a firm staple of our human logic and
mentality.
I do not go for arguments EXPLAINING phenomena by (human) math.
Explanation is not procreation. Procreation - in most domains so far
- is beyond us, so I accept it as unknowable.
Maybe, but most parents of teenagers would disagree and might prefer
their offspring to better explain themselves than to procreate,
which they seem quite eager to do.
Let us 'see' some "God-related facts" (if there are facts to see at
all) without 3p testimony or 1p dreaming/conclusions. So far I did
not.
If you're so certain of your agnosticism, to take a theological
stance on what I can parse from your posts, how would you know if
you positively had 'seen such fact'? PGC
Good questions.
Many people seems to believe that the bible, or the Mahabarata, is
either 100% correct, or 0% correct.
It is weird that so few people are open to the idea that may be n% is
correct, with n between 1 and 99.
(and the, according to this or that interpretation of the texts).
Truth is everything but black and white, that is why there are
hypostases, different points of view, already for ideally sound
machines.
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.
