On 14 Jan 2015, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/14/2015 12:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 1/14/2015 6:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
In Buddhism: Samantabhadra Buddha declares of itself:
"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that
exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all
that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root
of existence. I am "the core" because I contain all phenomena. I
am "the seed" because I give birth to everything. I am "the cause"
because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" because the
ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the foundation"
because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am
everything."
Various thinkers over time have, apparently through reason, come
to a similar conclusion:
"Geometry existed before the creation, it is co-eternal with the
mind of God, Geometry provided god with a model for creation,
Geometry is God himself." -- Kepler
"To all of us who hold the Christian belief that God is truth,
anything that is true is a fact about God, and mathematics is a
branch of theology." -- Hilda Phoebe Hudson
"I would say with those who say ‘God is Love’, God is Love. But
deep down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is
Truth above all. If it is possible for the human tongue to give
the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that
God is Truth. Two years ago I went a step further and said that
Truth is God. You will see the fine distinction between the two
statements, ‘God is Truth’ and ‘Truth is God’. I came to that
conclusion after a continuous and relentless search after truth
which began fifty years ago." -- Gandhi
And how are all your examples different than "God is money" or "God
is power" or "God is a bearded dude in the clouds" They are just
instances of a simple formula: "I think X is really important and
deserving of your adulation. So God is X"
No, they provide (potentially verifiable) answers to the question
of what exists beyond the physical reality and why it
exists at all (assuming it does and is not an illusion of
consciousness), particularly those God definitions which you cut
from your reply.
Some people say "God is love", Bruno says "God is unprovable
truths.", Paul Tillich said "God is whatever you value most." But
just because somebody says "Unicorns are rhinocereses" doesn't
mean I have to start believing unicorns exist, or that that when I
say unicorns don't exist I'm denying the existence of rhinocereses.
Do you believe in a source of reality beyond the apparent physical
reality we find ourselves in now?
No. I don't "believe IN" anything. I entertain hypotheses.
So then you're merely entertaining the hypothesis that no theistic
God exists, rather than being a true atheist who would "believe IN"
"no theistic god exists"
I don't believe any theistic God exists - and so I'm an a-theist.
Usually atheists believe that there is no theistic God. If you are
agnostic, then let us continue the research, and let us not decide in
advance the degree of theistic-ness of god. BTW, how would you define
"theistic". If it means "santa Klaus", I am atheist too, but consider
that trivial and uninteresting. No serious theologian believes in
Santa Klaus. And yes, many theologian are not serious, but this is due
to the contingent fact that people blasphemize all the time (i.e. use
God for personal power purpose (the most irreligious thing to do
according to *many* theologian and normally all scientist).
Theology gives power. Fake theology gives fake power. The problem is
that fake power works better, in the short term, and needs much less
effort, because it needs only gullibility/lack of education and
training in logic, where the non fake theology asks for serious effort
and work.
I have a question, thinking about you being an a-theist. Is the God of
Anselmus theistic? Does Gödel's formalization of Anselmus formalize a
theistic God?
In fact, if you are "only" an agnostic atheist, then it seems even
more weird to me why you have vocabulary problems in the field of
theology.
I have no problem using "toy theology" for what ideally arithmetically
sound finite creatures (machines, numbers) can eventually believe, and
intuit, and observe, about themselves and their possibilities. It is
then obviously interesting to compare this with what humans believes
about themselves.
Bruno
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.
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.
