Bruno, You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" and that other one: our "subconscious". At least you say so about "HER". Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer' to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has no meaning).
We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the BEYOND. I agree ith your 'natural' world-image. JM On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > > > On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote: > > I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more > than one reason: > 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. > > > *You just have to ask God what she is. Then she will answer. But it may > take two years to get the full answer.* > > 1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?) > > > *Yes, God is a person. In the same way as your own personality is build > up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build up by > billions of human beeings.* > > > > The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions of > human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition God is the > primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that the physical > universe's primary cause is the human brain cells. > > Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain > construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a "Turing > machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in arithmetic, as > all logicians know since 1931. > > > > > > 1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How > was God originated?) > > > *No, she did not originate the world. She is a result of the natural > selection.* > > > > Well, you are not talking about God as the reason of the Universe and all > realities, but on the human conception of the universe. We could say > likewise that the human theory of natural selection is also only a > successful meme of the human brain. The physical universe can be explained > away in the same manner. > > Natural selection need Mechanism to work, but with mechanism, the physical > universe cease to exist in any primitive way. So your explanation becomes > circular or wrong. > > > > > > > > > 3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you > ever M E T > yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only > a bit. > Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea > about our 'conscious'? > > > *I have talked with my subconscious. I do it every time I pray. And > sometimes my subconscious answer me. And sometimes my subconscious talks > directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.* > > > > The subconscious can take the form of person in dreams, but I would not > consider it as a person in the waking life, it is part of your own > personhood, I would say. > > > > > > > > 4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung. > > > *No, God is not immortal. But God will live much longer than a human > being. God will *live *as long as the mankind exists.* > > 5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond > our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical" explanations? > > > *No, God have no supernatural powers. God can only do what a human being > can do.* > > > With a non-standard definition of God, as this contradict the general > definition of the notion. In this list people have used the word "God" as > the cause or reason (not necessary physical, perhaps physical, it will > depend on the theory) of reality and realities. > > We can reject a definition as being too much precise (like God = the > christian God), but we have to keep the basic of the definition: the reason > of everything, including consciousness and matter (real or appearances). > > You do seem have some faith in the second God of Aristotle: a physical > universe. But with mechanism, both God of Aristotle (the Creator and the > Creation) stop making sense. Only Plato abstract notion continue to make > sense, and indeed, Plato took it to Pythagoras, mainly, and we are driven > again toward it after the discovery of the universal number/machine. > > Mechanism is incompatible with both supernatural powers and ... natural > powers. Those who use the mind-brain identity link attribute without saying > some supernatural power to nature, by making nature able to select > computation(s) in arithmetic, and make all other computations into zombie. > > Bruno > > > > > > > John M > > > -- > Torgny > > -- > 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 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://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]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
