On 25 Dec 2016, at 03:07, John Clark wrote:
First I want to say Merry Newton's birthday!
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> usage says that "God" means an immortal person with
supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.
> That's the Christian use . Why do atheists insist so
much we use the christian notion,
Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use
the word.
But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve. We
could say that Earth do not exist, if we decide to use the first
definition of it.
It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural
power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.
Really?
Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't
know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".
We use the greek notion. Whatever is at the origin of consciousness
and apparent realities/reality. is a thing or a mind? At the start, we
use only the axiomatic method. If God happens to be a physical
universe, let it be. But we don't know that yet, so we do research.
Plato got right a key aspect of theology: some of its content go over
reason, like all (löbian) machine can understand rationally that there
must be something which extend reason (and is axiomatized by G* minus
G, or Tarski minus Gödel, or True minus Provable-by-us).
As near as I can tell to them the word "God" means an invisible
fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and thinks
about nothing that we can not effect and that does not effect our
lives. Why even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?
Indeed.
> god is just the big things at the origin of everything.
And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to
call that God? Of course you're not!
?
And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something
that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as
mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.
?
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine
is Arithmetical Truth. You can represent it, conditionally with the
mechanist assumption, with the set of the Gödel numbers of the
sentences true in the standard (N, 0,+, *) structures. of course,
after Gödel, we know that this is a non computable highly complex set.
But we do have an intuition, which can be mathematically apprehend
with second order logic, or set theory.
> read serious theologian or philosophers.
And speaking of a sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the
difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?
The first one personified God metaphorically.
The second one take such personification literally.
The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when
it does not conform to facts.
The second one use insult and other violent means.
> My use of God is close to Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-
Anselme, Gödel, Huxley,
I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better
understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of
argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not
exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What could "God"
bring to the table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy
mindless blob could not?
God exist by definition. It is the reality we live and search, and
that we have to postulated to even just go out of our bed in the
morning. the term "God", or "One" is used to keep in mind that it is
not necessarily a "physical universe". So, if God did not exist, we
would not have this conversation.
Of course the arithmetical truth is not a fuzzy blob. It is a crisp
set, even if its crispness is beyond the computable. Such a god is
close to the very first notion of God provided by the Pythagoreans (cf
"all is number"). That is even more so with the neopythagoreans, who
found the "five main hypostases (truth, proof, knowledge, observation,
sensation).
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
