Bruno, what of a super modern theology that removes God as someone who can be reached by
prayer, but an actual intelligence in the universe? I got the idea from Dawkins, actually.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Held <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Jan 15, 2015 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Digest for [email protected] - 4 updates in 1 topic
Yes
On Jan 15, 2015 12:55 PM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
[email protected]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/everything-list/topics>
Google Groups
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
Topic digest
View all topics
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/everything-list/topics>
* Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
<#14aeebc4ae562e69_group_thread_0> - 4 Updates
Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/51af9e36dfef7411?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: Jan 15
05:40PM +0100
On 14 Jan 2015, at 20:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
> Sure, why not, for you it works, but many also have their own
> definitions and doctrines… and there is the rub. Everyone is talking
> about god, but the word means different things to different people.
Really? I know only atheists to refuse the definition given by Samiya.
> If we want to rigorously define the conceptual meaning of god then I
> believe it should be possible to use the language of math and logic
> to make a more compelling argument for science.
With Samiya definition, you can already prove that a machine cannot
distinguish God from Arithmetical Truth.
(Actually, a machine cannot even distinguish God, or arithmetical
truth, with sufficiently big part of arithmetical truth).
> seek to find a way to speak of this mystery that uses rigorous
> symbolic language of math and logic. Otherwise it is just a bloody
> (not so) merry go round…. And round, and round.
I disagree. I think it is a good start. Then we can add assumption(s)
(like computationalism, or materialism, etc) and see what could look
like that God in those theories. We have less problem today, because
mathematical logic shows how to talk about non nameable thing, and
God, as a substantive used as a fuzzy name, is only a pointer. If we
drop the word ---, tomorrow, we might go round and round on "---".
Theology *is* by definition the search for a theory of everything.
Today physics fails, as it cannot unify the quantum facts and the
gravitational facts, and actually does not address many other problem
like consciousness, afterlife, souls, etc.
Bruno
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: Jan 15
05:47PM +0100
On 14 Jan 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote:
> 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"
Not at all. When we say "God is money" we do a metaphor. No one would
defend the idea that money is the origin of the universe/consciousness.
When we say God is the unknown reason of the universe/consciousness,
we provide a definition.
>> 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.
Good. But you don't always talk like that. Sometimes it looks like you
do believe that our origin is physical.
Bruno
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: Jan 15
06:23PM +0100
On 14 Jan 2015, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
>> 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
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: Jan 15
06:38PM +0100
On 15 Jan 2015, at 00:45, meekerdb wrote:
>> Having no beliefs is agnostic.
> No, an agnostic not only doesn't know, but thinks it's impossible to
> know, per #5 below.
Those are "or", and that meaning of agnostic is technical, and put out
of its context. That is because atheists want to include the
agnostics. I comply and distinguish the strong atheist (non agnostic)
from the weak atheism (can be agnostic). But I point that the
difference between string and weak atheism is far bigger tha between
string atheism and christianism (which for a mathematician is just
about the same main belief in Aristotle conception of reality).
By allowing agnostic to be a form of atheism leads to trivializing the
term, and is very misleading on the meaning of strong atheism.
Better to accept that science = agnosticism in all direction, be it
matter, god, equality between matter and god, or difference between
matter and god. We start from scratch using some general assumptions.
The interesting question is not god exists or not. the interesting
question is "is the physical universe the reality, or is it an aspect
or mode of a deeper/simpler reality".
Bruno
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
Back to top <#14aeebc4ae562e69_digest_top>
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this
group. You
can change your settings on the group membership page
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/everything-list/join>.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an
email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
