On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:44, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> explain me why you defend the idea that God means only what the
Christians or Muslims mean by it.
I don't care what Christians and Muslims mean by it but I ask myself
who would INSIST on using the word "God" (and not some other word)
Which one?
I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you did not reply.
Then I don't know the percentage of what is correct or consistent with
computationalism in most theologies, but it ease the comparison to use
the word god, which is used even in some translation of eastern
religious texts.
You are the only one here to have decided that the notion of god
necessitate this or that theologies.
"God" is a way to talk about the ultimate truth without biaising
ourselves into a choice between Matter, or Mind, or Number, or Set, or
whatever.
It is a tradition in philosophy to use God for the "origin" of things,
that we don't know, but can theorize about, in the physicalist way, or
more general.
for something that was not conscious, not omniscient, not nearly as
smart as we are and in fact isn't even a being?
That is the key things in most neoplatonist theologies: God is not
even a being. It does not exist as an object, nor a phenomenon. With
simple logic, it cannot be omniscient, nor, as some christian
theologians notice well, it cannot be omnipotent.
When cantor discovered the paradox of the set of all sets, or when
Russell discovered the paradoxe of all sets which don't belong to
themselves, they did not abandon the notion of set.
If a notion of god is inconsistent, or does not match with the facts,
we change our conception. That is what it means by doing theology with
the scientific attitude.
And the only answer I find is someone who is in love with the sound
of the English word G-O-D but not the idea behind it.
I have suggested "the ONE", but I fear to use it, because it might
look like advertizing from neoplatonism. But we start from zero, with
computationalism, and all notion will be defined in terms of set of
numbers, so the vocabulary is not important. but I think I would
insult people by using another word than "God", if you take a look on
the literature, not just around you and your time.
> explains me why you never look at theologies [...]
I have looked at theologies and found them to be as deep as Grimm's
Fairy Tales but not as entertaining.
What have your read, precisely?
bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
