On 15 Jan 2015, at 20:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Not at all. We are in a context where a science (theology) has been
perverted by politics. So I was alluding to the rtaional theologian à-
la-greek.
I could have said "no true genetician believes that a gene is only an
invention of capitalist bourgeois",
Or no true astronomers believe mars is related to ire.
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).
I'd say MOST theologians are not serious by your measure of "serious".
Since 1500 years. OK. But even this is not true. Some are serious, and
try to help the churches they belong too to be more serious. In
euroopean universities most confessional theologians are serious, and
very often excommunicated for that, or having less grave problems of
that type.
For example almost all theologians assume God is a person.
Yes. It is an open question with computationalism. But even if the
outer-god is not a person, it is not a big error to identify the set
of all true sentences in arithmetic with a knower of those true
sentences. Also, the first person is a sort of intersection of God
(arithmetical truth) and the beliefs, and this gives to a restricted
God a person aspect (indeed the machine first person with the
classical theory of knowledge and belief).
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.
As a serious theologian, you should ask yourself why 'fake' theology
gives power?
Yes, and I do that. I have already explain why lies can be an
advantage in the short run.
As a serious human, we should ask ourself why 'fake' "medical science
gives power.
Same answer. Lies give local advantage.
Isn't it because theology is assumed to provide specific moral and
ethical norms: Don't eat pork. Pray five times a day. Give ten
percent of your income to the church....
That concerns private relations, not the field of inquiry. As long as
there is coercion nor harming of people, people do what they feel
compel to do. Even the ethical science have no ethical norms to
suggest. Jurist can still use ethical science to make sense or put
away sense for some laws. But science is not moral, even if it is the
best moral without saying, imo.
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?
If you mean the God whose existence St Anselm thought he had proven,
no. I don't think his proof is even consistent with "God" being a
person.
So that gives you an example of serious confessional theologian who
does not believe that God is a person.
(I doubt this, but I have not study St-Anselmus, nor try to compare
Gödel's God with the God "Truth". basically the question is does that
Gödel's proof of the existence of God, using S5, be translated in
S4Grz1 or another hypostases. Open problem.
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 a problem with it because it supports what you call "fake
theology" and everybody else just calls theology.
But we never change the name of a science when we think it is wrong.
It is your wanting to keep "theology" for the fake one which
prolongate the life of the fake one. You forbid theology to grow up.
You assume that your very abstract idea of "God"
Please read a bit of Plato. It is the original definition. It is an
notoriously vague notion, related to the "All", the Many and the One.
It has just happened that politicians have installed into power the
ultra-simplifying popular account, and made it into a dogma.
will displace the bearded tyrant in the sky;
I hope just we will get the more correct view which might be something
between the bearded tyrant and the all is material universe, which is
sometimes presented as an alternative God in the book by atheist, but
this without saying it is also metaphysical assumption, and without
even explaining the problems it leads to (like consciousness
elimination).
but historically that has never happened.
It has happened for a period of 1000 years (-500 -> +500). It happens
all the time somehow. Strong-atheist makes harder for it to happen.
Abstract theologians like Godel, Tillich, and Anselm are absorbed
into the popular religion and proclaimed to proven God exists, with
no further explication of what kind of god they proved.
?
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.
I don't think you will learn anything useful from this until you can
also model within arithmetic the evolutionary process - which
accounts for most of how people think.
To understand evolution I need to first understand 1+1=2. So I can't
use it for machine's belief. You assume metaphysical naturalism, we
know already it won't work.
And that means you need to go from arithmetic through physics and
biology to get to people. That's why, while I find your project
very interesting, I don't think it has any revolutionary consequences.
It is just that if we want to explain consciousness in terms of number
and program relations, we have to explain physics in term of infinite
sums on number and program relations. UDA gives a reduction of the
mind-body problem into a problem of justifying physics from self-
reference, and AUDA illustrates that computationalism + belief =
provability + classical theory of knowledge works, until now. (It is
more a result, leading to a problem than a project).
The isolated TOE might not work, but it illustrates we can be 100%
rational and have a conception of reality where physics is not the
fundamental reality. It is explained entirely (perhaps falsely, that
is why give the way to test it) consciousness (up to the little gap
which must remain for consistency reason) *and* the appearance of
lawful matter.
It is not revolutionary. As such view was hold conceivable by the
scientists from -500 to +500 (in occident), and perhaps "lived" at
different degrees by mystics and laymen.
Who ever said that it was revolutionary?
It is only revolutionary for an Aristotelian believer.
Platonists know this since eternity (grin).
Bruno
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.
