On 19 Jan 2015, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
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 course I do believe in Daleks...)
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.
Since 523. In our region of the world. When the subject has been made
into dogma, and used to control people, so tehere is no point in even
mentioning such theories, except that we don't have to infer from this
that they are completely wrong on all aspects.
I use God in the precise vague mening of the Parmenides, plotinus. At
the start, we are neutral if that god is "just" the physical universe,
or a mathematical reality, or a cuttlefish.
It is the name theist pray to and expect miracles from and
capitalize as a proper noun and kill for.
That is the current theory, but it is certainly defectuous at many
level, if only for its lack of clarity, contradictions, etc.
Yet you use it instead of nous or aperion or other less loaded terms.
Because the term god describes often the three platonic god= the One,
the Nous, and the Universal Soul; or the aristotelian two gods: the
creator and the creation.
Scientific attitude invites to use the terms in the most general
sense. Then we can add precision, revised our notions with the facts,
etc.
I use a definition of God which is understandable by everyone. The
reason, or the cause (in a large sense) of the observable and
"feelable" in both its conscious and material aspects. For example, in
that case, materialism can be described by the equation God =
Primitive Matter. Idealism by God = primitive consciousness. Neutral
monism by God is neither matter, nor ideas or consciousness, but
something else, etc. The term "reality" would be OK, except it has
already a more refined meaning in the literature, which could lead to
misleading.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
