On 1/19/2015 7:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having an idea of,
what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
unlikely and don't find that it contributes anything to discussions such as "why is
there something rather than nothing?" So I am agnostic, as I am about all the other
gods, not to mention Santa, who I recently saw on "Doctor Who".
(Of courseI do believe in Daleks
<https://mayaofauckland.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/rub-vigorously-with-nuns-preparation/>...)
If you believe in Daleks, you believe enough to believe in the God of the machine. We
need it, to use the theory of machine's dream as an explanation why we see physical
universes and sometimes pink elephants, despite nothing like that really exists.
I give the math to see if we get right the number of pink elephants in the many-dreams
(by number) interpretation of elementary arithmetic (0 I guess, and hope).
Keep in mind that God is defined by being the object of the theory of everything, or,
by definition, the answer we look for with the question "why is there something
instead of nothing?".
The question is not if God exists or not. But if
But that's silly. You presume God exists, but with no description,
With no name or description in the sense of the logicians. But I gave an informal and
general meaning for the term: it is what we search, the origin of reality, or the
explanation of reality, or the better explanation that we can find for reality, etc.
so the only task is to find a description to go with the word "God". If you're going
to ask whether something exists that cannot be defined ostensively, then you need to
define it by description. Otherwise it's just wordplay. Compare:
The question isn't whether Paul Bunyan exists or not. But if
Paul Bunyan = the physical universe?
Paul Bunyan = a mathematical structure? Which one?
Paul Bunyan = a dream by a universal machine?
Paul Bunyan = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
Paul Bunyan = the one who lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams?
Paul Bunyan = the one who plays hide and seek with Itself?
Paul Bunyan = the universal person?
Paul Bunyan = the universal person completions? (if that exists)
Paul Bunyan = Allah?
Paul Bunyan = Jesus?
Paul Bunyan = Krishna?
Paul Bunyan = my tax collector?
Paul Bunyan = the one who made the cat in its own image, and then made the humans to
gives the vat the modern comfort, with TV nad bag of catnip?
etc.
Except that with God, people understand the questions, but with Paul Bunyan, it looks
like funny, unless you have a reason to think that Paul Bunyan is at the origin of
reality. But then you must provide some supplementary explanations. In that case Paul
Bunyan would be another name of God,in the general sense, but it looks too much like a
precise name, which does not fit with most axioms accepted for God.
I'm afraid you continue playing with words.
On the contrary, you are playing with words. /*God*/ is too much like a precise name. It
is the name theist pray to and expect miracles from and capitalize as a proper noun and
kill for. Yet you use it instead of nous or aperion or other less loaded terms.
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.
