On 01 Apr 2017, at 17:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/1/2017 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2017, at 21:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/31/2017 6:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2017, at 01:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/30/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Mar 2017, at 21:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/29/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that many atheists exploit a confusion between
failing to believe in x, ~[]x, and believing in the
inexistence or falsity of x, []~x.
On the contrary; it is religionists who exploit this confusion
to falsely criticize atheism as "just another faith".
Then, how do you call those who believe that there is no God?
Strong atheists or those who think belief there is a God is a
moral fault, "anti-theists".
OK. So we agree.
The problem is that the strong atheists called themselves just
atheists, and then claim they have no belief, when in fact they
believe in 0 god, unlike agnostic who say: I don't know, give the
definition and the theory.
There are also strong agnostics, i.e. those who hold it is
impossible to know anything about god(s).
That is self-defeating. They hold that it is impossible to know
anything about god(s), but then they hold a strong statement about
God(s): that it is impossible to know anything about Gods.
If you weaken slightly "strong-agnosticism", you will arrive
quickly to the negative theology, which asserts that we cannot
define God by any positive (or even negative) attribute,
That's nonsense. Words get defined, not things.
What ????
We cannot define "God", is simply false. We can define "God"
however suits us for purposes of communication.
Not at all. But if you think so I can understand the confusion. In
arithmetic it is the concept of truth which cannot be defined. We
manage to define that notion ... by using even more complex assumption
that we cannot defined, but are used too, because it is part of
mathematics. So we can say that a sentence p is true, and write "true
('p') <=> p", and makes sens of this because we do have the intution
of the standard moedl of arithmetic, by defining it in ZF. But tarki
theorem is that in no theory can we define the notion of truth if it
is rich enough to encompasse that very theory.
Words are used to make definition, but the definition are semantical,
or axiomatical, and point usually on thing which are not number. The
words "consciousness" or "trith", as word, are easy to define (they
are just special sequence of letters taken in some finite alphabet".
When we say that consciousness, truth, or god, are not definable, we
mean that the concept cannot be defined by any sequence of letters.
They just do not exist. And that is the meaning of Tarski theorem for
arithemtical truth: there are no predicate "truth" definable in the
alphabet "logical symbol + symbols "+", "*", "s" "0"" such that RA or
PA, or any sound extensions can prove truth('p') <-> p.
It is the thing pointed by the word which lacks a definition.
To say we cannot know anything about God is contradictory because
it assumes we know what God is in order that we can make an
assertion that we can't know anything about it. So I'm not a strong-
agnostic.
That's what I said. Strong-agnosticism does not make sense. Such a
notion can only confuse people.
but you can approach it by a sequence of negative assertions: it is
not this, nor that, etc.
Which naturally evokes the question, "WHAT is not this or that?"
The answer can only point toward the thing, but sum up by "the creator
of everything", or "the reason of everything", or "the origin of
everything", etc. And then we can reason, and show that today that the
evidences accumulated that it is that it cannot be ... a physical
universe.
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 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.
