On 14 Jan 2015, at 18:10, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> Bruno has a specific definition of God,
>> He says he does, but when you probe a little deeper you find that
he does not. In fact he has specifically said and I quote " This is
useful to realize that the question "is god a person or a thing" is
an open problem.". So when Bruno talks about "God" he quite
literately and by his own admission doesn't know what he's talking
about.
> So I take it number theorists have no idea what they're talking
about either, because the Goldbach conjecture is still an open
problem in their field.
If mathematicians were as stupid as theologians (they're not) the
correct analogy would be if they were trying hard to prove or
disprove "The Goldbach Conjecture" but nobody could agree what the
hell "The Goldbach Conjecture" was. Perhaps an even better analogy
would be lots of people trying to prove that we have free will with
not one of them having the slightest idea of what in the world "free
will" is supposed to mean.
> What does "atheist" mean to you?
A atheist isn't someone who claims that he can prove God doesn't
exist, it's someone who says God is redundant.
> That you reject the God of every religion
That's me.
> or only that you reject the Abrahamic conception of God?
That's me too.
> Do you think there can be more than one possible definition for god?
Yes and that's exactly the problem. Some people like Bruno and
millions of others are so desperate to stick some meaning to the 3
ASCII characters G and O and D so they can say "I believe in God"
without being ridiculous that they find some fuzzy flabby useless
concept that they can attach to it like, something more powerful
than myself (a bulldozer?) or, a higher force (gravity?). So
with a definition that broad and weak any rational person would have
to say "I believe in God", but that seems like a very silly game to
me.
I think that if you're talking about something with zero
intentionality, zero intelligence, zero consciousness and has
nothing to do with morality you should give it a name other than
"God"; and a refusal to do so can only mean that you are more in
love with the English word G-O-D than you are with the meaning
behind it.
I think that atheists are more in love with the word God, and even
with some definition, than the theologian, who are used to compare
different conception of God.
In many religion, God has no name, and it is explained that "God" is
just a pointer on something undefinable by any finite creature.
Once you say that you are again all religion, what you do is imposing
your religion on other. all machine looking inward is bound to the
discovery of something very plausibly more powerful than itself, like
machine can intuit, but not define, the notion of truth (arithmetical
truth).
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.
