On 28 Feb 2017, at 00:50, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> You describe the word when used in everyday life natural
language. Once we write scientific paper,
You are not writing a scientific paper when you're posting to this
list.
> we use more technical definition.
There is no technical definition of the word "God", and the
natural language one certainly isn't a amorphous gray blob that
can't think isn't a person and doesn't do anything.
>> This has NOTHING to do with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Plato,
rationalists, materialists, theology or atheists; this has to do
with vocabulary and the fact that words mean what the majority
of people say they mean. And what the majority of people say a word
means always changes; as of 2017 the English word "G-O-D" means a
omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who created the
universe.
> Not at all. Not for the expert in the field, even when christian.
Just open a book on theology, even a modern one, or look at a
dictionary. You confuse a concept, and a particular theory.
Confuse my ass! let's see how Google defines the English word "God":
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator
and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the
supreme being.
2 (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit
worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a
moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.
• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine
But maybe you don't like Google, let's see how the Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines the English word "God":
1: the supreme or ultimate reality: the Being perfect in power,
wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the
universe : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as
eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
Very good definition.
Then with the computationalist hypothesis, this role is well played by
the notion of "arithmetical truth", and even "sigma_1 arithmetical
truth" (i. the universal dovetailing) although this is not supposed to
be justified by the creature (the identity belongs to G* minus G,
somehow).
Indeed, the arithmetical truth defines and realizes all computations,
and things like "physical universe", and many other god-like notion,
are realized by the transfinitely many non computable relations, which
can, or not, play the role of Oracle (in Turing sense).
All notions can be made mathematically precise in term of set of
numbers. The machine can be identified by their sigma_1 set of
beliefs, and the gods/oracles by more complex sets of propositions (or
of their Gödel numbers).
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes
and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one
controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
Unfortunately for your argument I can't find anybody who defines the
English word "God" as a blob that is nothing and can do nothing,
Of course!
God is the thing by which all other things proceed. I don't remember
any people in this list defining God has a blob, still less a nothing
doing nothing. God is the Reality we hope exists. It is hardly nothing
for any consistent or sound machine, and certainly not a blob.
Bruno
and I can't find anyone who uses that meaning except for those who
are too cowardly to say in a loud clear voice "I don't believe in
God".
> I don't see the point of forgetting a millenium of honest inquiry
in the field of theology,
And what has that honest millennium long inquiry in the field of
theology discovered? After a thousand years it has produced exactly
nothing, zero, zilch, goose egg.
> to use a definition known as the one which has kill the science to
make it into a tool to prevent, and persecute the free research.
I don't know what that means.
> The result is that you are accomplice with those who keep theology
out of science
Thank you, that's one on the nicest things anybody ever said to me.
And by "nice" I don't mean "silly", although Shakespeare would have
thought I did. But language and the meaning of words always changes.
> In the machine theology
I don't know what that means.
> like in the platonician theology, the question of seeing God as a
person is an open, and well debated, problem.
No it is not. If you can really see God then God exists, if God
exists then you are looking at a intelligent conscious person and
the one who created the universe. That is not deep, it is not
philosophy or even theology, it's just a tautology. The only
question worth asking is "did a intelligent conscious person really
create the universe?". I say no but I'll debate that if you wish,
but debating if "God" is a intelligent conscious person who created
the universe is just silly. And I don't mean "blessed.
> Again, you confuse the concept of God with some particular theory.
Confuse my ass! I'm the only one talking about the concept of God,
you're talking about the English word "God". A logician should know
about the use-mention distinction.
Use: cheese is derived from milk.
Mention: cheese is derived from the Old English word ċēse.
I am using God, you are just mentioning God.
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.
