Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta- define God as the ultimate reality. I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate reality asks for an act of faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like theology. The reason I use and insist on theology, God etc. is that I fear people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in science which use expression like science has proved, or worst we know that By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific manner. is arithmetical truth, So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can call it ultimate reality without refering to it as god... I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit. The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that such beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G. It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a machine simpler than us scientifically (indeed it is mainly given by G*). But we cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not even assuming) for comp and our relative correctness. but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality once again, it seems you can... ? (the sentence is not finished) is arithmetical truth, or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent. Ok, if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god* you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight. No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name, no description, should be invoked in argument, etc. And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem. You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by honest researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people who use the idea to install there power. Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God? Both have got a lot of names, and are essentially mind-blowing things, but for Cannabis, we got 75 years of brainwashing, for God we got 1500 years of brainwashing. Do you think that by changing the name of Cannabis, it would become legal? Well, it is a way to avoid locally problem and that why it has so many names, and the same appeared with God, but really, to abandon God and theology, is still a way to credit the bandits who lied about cannabis and God. God is not more that unpleasant all loving entity sending your friends to hell, than cannabis is a terrible drug which makes you rape and kill people. Religion is not a problem,
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash. Does evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection? Whose the programmer? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:40 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Crick designed the perfect means for DNA replication (I think that was it) without any errors long before it was established empirically. When experimenters finally discovered how nature did it, it turned out that nature's method produced occasional errors. So the system of evolution is not perfectly designed. Should not it follow that there is no god.? On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 00:51, Jesse Mazer wrote: To add to my last comment, the article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/ mentions that Leibniz was among those philosophers who distinguished between necessary and contingent truths, and only granted God the power to change contingent ones. Here's a relevant bit from the article: Consider the way Leibniz distinguishes necessary and contingent truths in §13 of the Discourse on Metaphysics. The one whose contrary implies a contradiction is absolutely necessary; this deduction occurs in the eternal truths, for example, the truths of geometry. The other is necessary only ex hypothesi and, so to speak, accidentally, but it is contingent in itself, since its contrary does not imply a contradiction. And this connection is based not purely on ideas and God's simple understanding, but on his free decrees and on the sequence of the universe. (A VI iv 1547/AG 45) I think that this is about the same error as believing that free will needs indeterminacy. So, what's wrong with adopting Tegmark's solution which takes our universe as a Platonic mathematical structure, so that all truths about it are necessary ones too? But if it is one mathematical structure, and not another, that would make it contingent. I think the laws of physics are mathematical necessities, because the physical illusion is an arithmetical process involving all universal machines, which is a well defined notions (assuming Church Thesis). Then there would be no need for a creator God, though one might still talk about a sort of Spinoza-esque pantheist God (especially if one also prefers panpsychism as a solution to the metaphysical problem of the relation between consciousness and third-person objective reality) But that would make a brain or a computer unnecessary for being conscious relatively to some stories. That would work, as indeed, by negating comp, we can still imagine some infinite mathematical structure linking brain and mind, in a way avoiding the FPI and the reversal consequence of the comp assumption. But then we can't survive with a brain-computer, and we can't use computer science in philosophy of mind and theology. Bruno On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Jesse Mazer wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
No reason at all. I'm just sharing my understanding on the topic, so that 1) if I'm wrong, someone will point out the flaw in my understanding 2) if my understanding is generally pointing towards the correct theory / belief, perhaps it'll be of use to someone. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 9:11 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. That's what you say you believe. But is there any reason I should believe it? 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
On 02 Dec 2013, at 05:37, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 12:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: but there is no known proof (or even an argument offered by materialists) that matter cannot be explained in terms of something simpler. Of course not. That would the point the it's fundamental. The point of Jason if I may, is that there is no way to explain numbers without assuming them... but there are ways to explain matter without assuming it. I'm not convinced of either of those points. And as I noted to be explained does entail that something cannot be fundmental, only that it might not be. OK, but then we use Occam razor. Thermodynamic cannot disprove the existence of invisible horse. 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... God as understood by billions people on earth... You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate reality asks for an act of faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like theology. The reason I use and insist on theology, God etc. is that I fear people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in science which use expression like science has proved, or worst we know that By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific manner. is arithmetical truth, So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can call it ultimate reality without refering to it as god... I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit. The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that such beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G. It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a machine simpler than us scientifically (indeed it is mainly given by G*). But we cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not even assuming) for comp and our relative correctness. but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality once again, it seems you can... ? (the sentence is not finished) is arithmetical truth, or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent. Ok, if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god* you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight. No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name, no description, should be invoked in argument, etc. And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem. You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by honest researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people who use the idea to install there power. Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God? Both have got a lot of names, and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu- huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. That's right, I'm agnostic with respect to the question of whether there could be a god(s). But I'm still an atheist because I'm pretty sure there's not theist god. But you said yourself that theist is vague. I am pretty sure than there is no guy with a beard sitting on a cloud, but that does not make me feeling like an atheist. just a rationalist. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. It's not what you wrote. You wrote: If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife, it means you can conceive a non Christian God, which is nice, but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. The context was different. I said to John Clark that his argument against the Christian God was no more an argument in favor of atheism once he agree that the God might not be the Christian one. ... Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God. So you claimed that conceiving of a non-Christian God makes it more difficult to believe in the non-existence of God (by which I think you mean to fail to believe in the existence of God). No, I mean to positively believe in the non existence of all Gods possible. And then you agree that one *must* concieve of a God (or anything else) in order to fail to believe in its existence. Exactly. As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan- yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si- Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston- of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. Scientists don't believe in things. They only hypothesize them. Belief = hypothesizing, in standard analytical philosophy. Science is only belief. The mark of a belief is that it can be shown false, which is impossible for knowledge. G* proves [] f. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Using God for the ultimate reality, it seems to me, can in the long run enlarge the listening and the understanding of what the machines are already telling us. Not as much as using ultimate reality for ultimate reality. One must suspect you have some hidden agenda to avoid plain speaking. See the comment to Quentin that I made today. There is a subtle nuance between ultimate reality, truth and God. I can come back on this, but it is so subtle, that I can hardly explain it without using the arithmetical hypostases. Plato and the neoplatonists, and mystics people (including machines) seem to be aware of that nuance, but it is hard to explain it in everyday day terms, and even Plato and Plotinus get unclear on that nuance (cf the abyss between the Timaeus and the Parmenides). Nobody said that a theory of everything or a theology is a simple thing, and that's why we must be happy that with comp we can use computer science and mathematical logic to avoid easy but misleading identification. It is due to that difference, between UR and God that the question of God being a person is still open in the machine's theology, and probably very difficult. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
By the way, Tegmark has a new book coming out Jan 14, I do recall. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 7:28 pm Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ? On 2 December 2013 12:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: To add to my last comment, the article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/ mentions that Leibniz was among those philosophers who distinguished between necessary and contingent truths, and only granted God the power to change contingent ones. Here's a relevant bit from the article: Consider the way Leibniz distinguishes necessary and contingent truths in §13 of the Discourse on Metaphysics. The one whose contrary implies a contradiction is absolutely necessary; this deduction occurs in the eternal truths, for example, the truths of geometry. The other is necessary only ex hypothesi and, so to speak, accidentally, but it is contingent in itself, since its contrary does not imply a contradiction. And this connection is based not purely on ideas and God's simple understanding, but on his free decrees and on the sequence of the universe. (A VI iv 1547/AG 45) So, what's wrong with adopting Tegmark's solution which takes our universe as a Platonic mathematical structure, so that all truths about it are necessary ones too? Then there would be no need for a creator God, though one might still talk about a sort of Spinoza-esque pantheist God (especially if one also prefers panpsychism as a solution to the metaphysical problem of the relation between consciousness and third-person objective reality) I am of the same opinion, that reality is probably in some sense emergent from logically necessary truths - however, possible objections include: The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) doesn't make testable predictions (Tegmark claims it does, about the gerenicity of the universe we should expect to find ourselves in, but there have been objections that this isn't quantifiable, etc). Various objections by materialists - for example, they have been known to object that there aren't resources available in the universe to do the maths and similar level confusions. This tends to come down to I don't believe it! (usually expressed as something like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence etc, but that's what they mean). These need not concern us too much, because they are basically religious objetions - they don't like their metaphysical premises being questioned. The MUH doesn't address the nature of consciousness. Tegmark describes consciousness as (somethnig like) what data feels like when it's being processed but this bit of hand-waving fails to explain qualia etc. Bruno will perhaps have more to say on this. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
We're just guessing on this Samiya, or our ancestors, really. What God may be, is may not exactly fit the Omni,characterizations. Moreover, being a practical, American, we have to know, in a self-interested way, what good/benefit does knowing about God do for us. A ridiculous statement, and yet, We the Who in Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ? This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Maybe. I'm a Muslim and the more I learn of science, the more convinced I get of the authenticity of the Quran. Hence, when I read about the purpose of this life and the hereafter, I do take it very seriously. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:54 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: We're just guessing on this Samiya, or our ancestors, really. What God may be, is may not exactly fit the Omni,characterizations. Moreover, being a practical, American, we have to know, in a self-interested way, what good/benefit does knowing about God do for us. A ridiculous statement, and yet, We the Who in Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ? This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
What I say is that atheism is NOT an option. Not only because Chesterton said that anyone who does nor believe in God will en up believing in anything, but also because that is in the structure of the human mind as is know by personal introspection (the greek philosophers), historical experiience (any religion-less community that lasted?) and by game theoretical+ evolutionary reasons that i tried to explain here. At the moment that you reject a deity, you accept other. The religion of atheists is quite similar to a primitive religion because religion emerges in its primitive form when you reject your own. But the human mind can not work with impersonal myths. Whenever impersonal myths are created, exist also personal entities that become myts. Normally the ones that created these myths of fighted for them. The most primitive form is the cult to the personality, that is the cult to a living god-man. Who was the leader of the tribu, whose actions are mtified and celebrated. Of course this is the worst of all kinds of religions. That happens ever when a society tried to establish itself in abstract principles, being them comunism, equality, progress, rule of law, evolution etc. As an example, after the cult to Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jon II, Castro.. and many others.. the modern cult to Darwin http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf Incidentally the reason why the cult to Lincoln, Jefferson etc is so weak is because the American constitution IS a constitution under a personal God. 2013/12/2 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. Ok, but here I think government is meant as some pre-existing complexity. While the laws of physics are simpler than their outcome, the christian god is more complex that its outcome. And, rephrasing what Liz said, we never found any evidence of higher complexity downstream. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. I would say that it's society that can't live without myths, and we can't live without society. Since we have no agency over society but we depend on it for survival, we must be part of a super-organism. Some of our behaviour has to be molecule-like, but our human minds want to feel they are in control. So we post-rationalise. We haven't found a way for society to work without dominance, so we rationalise this dominance in increasingly sophisticated ways. In democracy, the dominated are accomplices in keeping the illusion, because they want to reap the benefits of being subservient without having to signal subservience. The voting ritual makes this possible. Breaking such illusions is a very dangerous proposition, as we've seen in Europe in the first half or the 20th century (early republicanism broke the monarchy illusion but quickly degrading into fascism -- fascism had more powerful binding myths to offer, and a lesson had to be learned). Of course, as you point out, republics come with a myth set of their own. Modern law is a very sophisticated, if perverse system. Many laws are not meant to be followed. They are used to post-rationalise punishment for breaking unwritten rules that nobody wants to acknowledge but all want to enforce. Telmo. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- You received this message because you are subscribed
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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, -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
The Muslim philosophers and theologians I have found addressing the issue seem to agree that there are necessary truths that God cannot change, which include logical necessity. Examples: From http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/K057 on Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who rejected causal necessity but seems to have accepted logical necessity-- Unlike the Ash'arites, however, al-Ghazali presents a philosophical argument for this position. The only form of necessity he recognizes is logical necessity, and he has little difficulty in showing that causes do not logically necessitate their effects. Also see http://www.betsymccall.net/edu/philo/blackbox.pdf causality's black box which suggests al-Ghazali accepts geometric necessity. Another Muslim thinker who discussed the issue is Ibn Rushd or Averroes, quoted on p. 85 of An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy by Leaman (Averroes had great influence on Maimonides and Aquinas as discussed at http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2011-11-08-malik-en.html ): Those evil events which inevitably affect the individual cannot be said not to have come from God...he cannot do absolutely anything at all, for the corruptible cannot be eternal, nor can the eternal be corruptible. In the same way that the angles of a triangle cannot be equal to four right angles, and in the same way that colour cannot be heard, so it is an offence against human reason to reject such propositions. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: Maybe. I'm a Muslim and the more I learn of science, the more convinced I get of the authenticity of the Quran. Hence, when I read about the purpose of this life and the hereafter, I do take it very seriously. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:54 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: We're just guessing on this Samiya, or our ancestors, really. What God may be, is may not exactly fit the Omni,characterizations. Moreover, being a practical, American, we have to know, in a self-interested way, what good/benefit does knowing about God do for us. A ridiculous statement, and yet, We the Who in Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ? This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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 -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading than stating that there is transcendental. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but misleading as I've laid out above. PGC Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate reality asks for an act of faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like theology. The reason I use and insist on theology, God etc. is that I fear people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in science which use expression like science has proved, or worst we know that By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific manner. is arithmetical
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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, -- 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
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:26, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't If you defend a consistent theory of God, then you agree that it *might* exist or make sense, so that the field of theology, and theological question make sense. In particular we can study the universal machine experience and believe in the matter, which of course needs to agree on some definition and axiom. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... God as understood by billions people on earth... I am not sure. When I discuss with Muslims or with Christians they agree that God, very typically, does not belong to the thing you can understand. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I don't think so. They are adult and can tell me so, or take distance with the talk of the universal machine, or abandon comp, or whatever. With comp, *after UDA*, working in arithmetic, things like Souls, Arithmetical Truth, Consciousness, God, etc. are NOT assumed. To interrogate the machine we have to agree on some definition, and they have to be large. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Even if the Outer God might not be exactly a person, it can make sense only through our personal relation with It, and they can depend to what you identify yourself with. I have no problem with atheists, but some fundamentalist atheists seem to have a problem with comp and their consequences, a bit like Bill Taylor and John Clark apparently. It is normal because those atheists *are* believer: - They believe that the notion of God is ultimate crackpot, and so are annoyed when presented with an arithmetical transparent and clear interpretation of Plotinus in elementary arithmetic (which shows, at the least, the relative consistency of Plotinus in arithmetic). - They believe that the brain is a machine, and are annoyed when I insist that it is a belief, that is an hypothesis, an assumption, a postulate, a theory. - They believe in a primitive material universe, and that physics is the fundamental science. Some confuse physical universe and primitive or in-need-to-be-assumed physical universe, which is easy to make me, or comp, looking mad. I know that there are atheists who know better. I describe only the atheists who have a problem with computationalism and its consequences. I have never met them, as they have declined the desire to meet me, which makes me think they are not scientists at all. My feeling is that you have a prejudice on religion, perhaps for some reasons. Did you have a religious education? If you ask the people in the street on physics, 99% of them are wrong. We don't mislead them by teaching them physics. It is normal a bigger proportion of people might be wrong in theology, given that we forbidden the interrogative inquiries and experiences in the field since about 1500 years in West and 1000 year in Middle-East. You must read the book of theologians, not those who repeat sacred texts like parrots, and who have been programmed by those who stolen the field, for obvious purpose, degrading the issue with varied degrees. By mocking those who search the truth in the matter, you make yourself de facto an ally of those who pretend they found it. By refusing to discuss those matter rationally, in the axiomatic way, you make yourself de facto an ally of those who want to keep it as dogma, and who evacuate the modesty needed for progressing. Bruno 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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic. Then he said Oops!. Analysis, Topology, Algebra, Physics, History, Geography, archeology and Theology are tools for the integers to understand themselves. Truth already warns the numbers: the path is infinite and there are surprises. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is
perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible
for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic
are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if
you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can
change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a
proposition cannot be both true and false.
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are
necessary attributes of God.
When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan
that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods.
However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He
wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited
senses and knowledge.
However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that
would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first
question properly.
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change
the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and
not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases?
Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is
independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in
God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect
understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God,
along with other more specifically theistic attributes like
perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has
necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make
a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in
every possible meaning of the word.
I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers
and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create
the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or
any other necessary truths, ...'
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote:
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God?
Making It consistent is not really limiting it.
Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to
inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism.
(that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of
God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field).
We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer,
and the Final Goal.
OK.
Everything is as God wills and allows it to be.
I don't know.
Bruno
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue
agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have
the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists
might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as
omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure
mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules
themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly
most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one
could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just
another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms.
On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote:
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can
function without some form of government.
How silly.
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
--
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 javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'everything-list@googlegroups.com');
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: What I say is that atheism is NOT an option. Ok, you appear to be alluding to something deeper than the need to overcome prisoner dilemmas. I recognise that there is a need to put something at the root of the ontology, and also a need for meaning. Without meaning life becomes very depressing -- unless one is so absorbed by some task that one doesn't even think about such things. That is a blissful feeling, that I can get from coding, sometimes. Which leads me to this question: do you figure that practitioners of Zen Buddhism still have a deity? Telmo. Not only because Chesterton said that anyone who does nor believe in God will en up believing in anything, but also because that is in the structure of the human mind as is know by personal introspection (the greek philosophers), historical experiience (any religion-less community that lasted?) and by game theoretical+ evolutionary reasons that i tried to explain here. At the moment that you reject a deity, you accept other. The religion of atheists is quite similar to a primitive religion because religion emerges in its primitive form when you reject your own. But the human mind can not work with impersonal myths. Whenever impersonal myths are created, exist also personal entities that become myts. Normally the ones that created these myths of fighted for them. The most primitive form is the cult to the personality, that is the cult to a living god-man. Who was the leader of the tribu, whose actions are mtified and celebrated. Of course this is the worst of all kinds of religions. That happens ever when a society tried to establish itself in abstract principles, being them comunism, equality, progress, rule of law, evolution etc. As an example, after the cult to Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jon II, Castro.. and many others.. the modern cult to Darwin http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf Incidentally the reason why the cult to Lincoln, Jefferson etc is so weak is because the American constitution IS a constitution under a personal God. 2013/12/2 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. Ok, but here I think government is meant as some pre-existing complexity. While the laws of physics are simpler than their outcome, the christian god is more complex that its outcome. And, rephrasing what Liz said, we never found any evidence of higher complexity downstream. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. I would say that it's society that can't live without myths, and we can't live without society. Since we have no agency over society but we depend on it for survival, we must be part of a super-organism. Some of our behaviour has to be molecule-like, but our human minds want to feel they are in control. So we post-rationalise. We haven't found a way for society to work without dominance, so we rationalise this dominance in increasingly sophisticated ways. In democracy, the dominated are accomplices in keeping the illusion, because they want to reap the benefits of being subservient without having to signal subservience. The voting ritual makes this possible. Breaking such illusions is a very dangerous proposition, as we've seen in Europe in the first half or the 20th century (early republicanism broke the monarchy illusion but quickly degrading into fascism -- fascism had more powerful binding myths to offer, and a lesson had to be learned). Of course, as you point out, republics come with a myth set of their own. Modern law is a very sophisticated, if perverse system. Many laws are not meant to be followed. They are used to post-rationalise punishment for breaking unwritten rules that nobody wants to acknowledge but all want to enforce. Telmo. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 12:55 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash. Does evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection? Natural selection is just part of evolution, a consequence of life reproducing exponentially so that the death rate must increase to reach a quasi-static equilibrium. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic. Then he said Oops!. Analysis, Topology, Algebra, Physics, History, Geography, archeology and Theology are tools for the integers to understand themselves. Truth already warns the numbers: the path is infinite and there are surprises. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
You explained it yourself: ' so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '. Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently making a fool of myself :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Hi Samiya, If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother? Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic. Then he said Oops!. Analysis, Topology, Algebra, Physics, History, Geography, archeology and Theology are tools for the integers to understand themselves. Truth already warns the numbers: the path is infinite and there are surprises. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
On 12/2/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 05:37, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 12:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: but there is no known proof (or even an argument offered by materialists) that matter cannot be explained in terms of something simpler. Of course not. That would the point the it's fundamental. The point of Jason if I may, is that there is no way to explain numbers without assuming them... but there are ways to explain matter without assuming it. I'm not convinced of either of those points. And as I noted to be explained does entail that something cannot be fundmental, only that it might not be. OK, but then we use Occam razor. Thermodynamic cannot disprove the existence of invisible horse. Of course I meant to write, And as I noted to be explained does NOT entail that something cannot be fundamental. But I don't think it's so simple as applying Occam's razor. In my example red is an experience that from the perspective of conscious thoughts may have no explanation, i.e. is fundamental. But from the perspective of biology has an explanation in terms of physics and chemistry. From an evolutionary perspective it has an explanation in terms of survival advantage. So Occam's razor cuts different ways depending on the perspective. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 14:58, Jesse Mazer wrote: The Muslim philosophers and theologians I have found addressing the issue seem to agree that there are necessary truths that God cannot change, which include logical necessity. Examples: From http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/K057 on Abu Hamid al- Ghazali, who rejected causal necessity but seems to have accepted logical necessity-- Unlike the Ash'arites, however, al-Ghazali presents a philosophical argument for this position. The only form of necessity he recognizes is logical necessity, and he has little difficulty in showing that causes do not logically necessitate their effects. Also see http://www.betsymccall.net/edu/philo/blackbox.pdf causality's black box which suggests al-Ghazali accepts geometric necessity. Another Muslim thinker who discussed the issue is Ibn Rushd or Averroes, quoted on p. 85 of An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy by Leaman (Averroes had great influence on Maimonides and Aquinas as discussed at http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2011-11-08-malik-en.html ): Those evil events which inevitably affect the individual cannot be said not to have come from God...he cannot do absolutely anything at all, for the corruptible cannot be eternal, nor can the eternal be corruptible. In the same way that the angles of a triangle cannot be equal to four right angles, and in the same way that colour cannot be heard, so it is an offence against human reason to reject such propositions. There has been a Muslim Neoplatonist branche, but like with the Christians, neoplatonism survived only partially, on the Sufi, like on the Cabbala. Ibn Arabi is also quite interesting. Averroes will influence Maimonides and Aquinas to diverge or deviate from Platonism (and from comp, thus) Where is my book on Muslim Neoplatonism? Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot make 17 into a composite number. God obeys to logic, So the God theory has zero explanatory power and even if God does exist He is just as mystified as to why there is something rather than nothing as we are. This does not really limit his power Even for questions less deep the God has power theory still explains nothing unless it can explain exactly how that power works, and if you understand all about that power then God Himself becomes redundant, a useless fifth wheel. For example, if you say that God created the first living organism on the Earth 4 billion years ago that explains nothing unless you can explain how He did it, and if you know that you don't need 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/2/2013 1:04 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: No reason at all. I'm just sharing my understanding on the topic, so that No, you are just asserting your position. That's not understanding. Understanding something implies knowing reasons why it might be true, being able to infer consequences and test it. Brent 1) if I'm wrong, someone will point out the flaw in my understanding 2) if my understanding is generally pointing towards the correct theory / belief, perhaps it'll be of use to someone. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 9:11 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. That's what you say you believe. But is there any reason I should believe it? 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather precise notion of God to disbelieve in it. And you criticize us for that!? My main criticism of you and theologians is that they want to take the fairly precise notion of God, the one that billions of people pray to and tithe to and strive to obey, try to stretch it and chop it to fit some rational philosophy, just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally and so all those people are justified in continuing to believe in fairy tales; they just don't know what the fairy tale really is. But the only God in which it is easy to disbelieve in, are the Fairy Tale notion of God. Atheism becomes equivalent with I don't believe in fairy tales. Now I have tuns of books in theology, and I have not yet seen one defending fairy tales notion of Gods. (Except the free one given by Jehovah witness, which I don't read, except to measure the credulity exploited by their sects). And except the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah - which are the fairy tales believed by billions of people, all but a tiny group of 'theologians' who also claim to believe them, but try to make the belief rational by redefining all the words in them - just as you redefine God. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. But the idea is important because so many people believe it - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. I realize that science redefines common words too, like energy, but those new definitions subsume the common terms. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/2/2013 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). I have read that this is the root of Islam falling behind the west and missing the Enlightenment: Because Islamic theologians believed that the existence of physical laws, e.g. Newtonian mechanics, was a limitation on Allah. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You seem to have assumed the task is to find something label with the word God. I say let us be modest and use words for what we know. Let us be genuinely modest. We know about nothing, and all we can do is agreeing on some axioms. A logicians conceit. We can agree ostensively. Be it point, line, and god, reality, etc. Thats why Gödel provided a proof of the existence of God. By formalising St-Anselm definition of God, he illustrates the idea that we can be serious (modest, scientific) when doing theology. Is the God of Gödel coherent with comp? St Anselm's proof is not a proof of the God of Abraham. Like you he, and Godel, use the word God to imply a person, but the argument doesn't prove a person or even a singular. Brent This would mean we can do the Gödel proof in S4Grz, and I doubt this, so we can search now if the machine believes in a slightly different notion than St-Anselm/Gödel. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. Scientists don't believe in things. They only hypothesize them. Belief = hypothesizing, in standard analytical philosophy. Science is only belief. The mark of a belief is that it can be shown false, which is impossible for knowledge. G* proves [] f. An hypothesis can be shown false. A belief is an act of will and is independent of what can be shown false - as testified to by the billions of people who believe there is a Big Daddy in the sky who will reward them after death and punish their enemies. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:46, Samiya Illias wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. I can make sense, but in the machine's theory, some truth there need to remain silent, as they will look like nonsense for some people. It is of the type only going without saying. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Are you open to doubt your theory? Or some points in your theory? If not it means you stay connected to the incommunicable part, and you take the risk of saying to much, and fuel disbelief, even and especially when not wrong. And, btw, what is your position on computationalism, because this is an hypothesis shared by many here (if only for the sake of the argument). Would you accept that you or some friend get an artificial digital brain? Have you think about this question? Have you an idea of the consequence for consciousness and physical realities, and for the possible theologies? I don't defend the idea that comp is true, but comp makes possible to use computer science and mathematics to formulate the questions, and put some light around. Sent from my iPhone Well, for the Mandelbrot sets zooms, I hope you can access a bigger computer with a larger screen. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss. My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life, nothing before or after, but what if there is? And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother... Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Hi Samiya, If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother? Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic. Then he said Oops!. Analysis, Topology, Algebra, Physics, History, Geography, archeology and Theology are tools for the integers to understand themselves. Truth already warns the numbers: the path is infinite and there are surprises. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message
Re: Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:51, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 05:37, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 12:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: but there is no known proof (or even an argument offered by materialists) that matter cannot be explained in terms of something simpler. Of course not. That would the point the it's fundamental. The point of Jason if I may, is that there is no way to explain numbers without assuming them... but there are ways to explain matter without assuming it. I'm not convinced of either of those points. And as I noted to be explained does entail that something cannot be fundmental, only that it might not be. OK, but then we use Occam razor. Thermodynamic cannot disprove the existence of invisible horse. Of course I meant to write, And as I noted to be explained does NOT entail that something cannot be fundamental. But I don't think it's so simple as applying Occam's razor. In my example red is an experience that from the perspective of conscious thoughts may have no explanation, i.e. is fundamental. Like the guy in Washington cannot explain why he is the one in Washington. But we can explain why he cannot explain it, and in general we can explain why machines are first person confronted with arithmetical first person truth that they have to feel as fundamental and unexplainable. But from the perspective of biology has an explanation in terms of physics and chemistry. From an evolutionary perspective it has an explanation in terms of survival advantage. So Occam's razor cuts different ways depending on the perspective. This is an abstract base problem, but with comp the points of view don't depend on the choice of base machine, and we can refine the use of Occam razor for each points of view. In fact we can use it only one time, for the Turing universal ontology. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:52, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot make 17 into a composite number. God obeys to logic, So the God theory has zero explanatory power That does not follow. Newton's theory obeys to logic too. and even if God does exist He is just as mystified as to why there is something rather than nothing as we are. You might be true, especially when he lost himself in the Garden of its Mother. But frankly we are a long way to really just address such question in arithmetic. This does not really limit his power Even for questions less deep the God has power theory still explains nothing unless it can explain exactly how that power works, and if you understand all about that power then God Himself becomes redundant, a useless fifth wheel. For example, if you say that God created the first living organism on the Earth 4 billion years ago that explains nothing unless you can explain how He did it, and if you know that you don't need God. I have already insist that God cannot be part of the explanation. We agree on this. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. I just did. Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. than stating that there is transcendental. Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist It is not, revelation is BS... all religions on earth with book from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but misleading as I've laid out above. PGC Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather precise notion of God to disbelieve in it. And you criticize us for that!? My main criticism of you and theologians is that they want to take the fairly precise notion of God, the one that billions of people pray to and tithe to and strive to obey, The very fact that this definition is precise should make you skeptical about it. You talk current majority, I point on a concept with has a large long human history. You look like wanting aborting a possible science. try to stretch it and chop it to fit some rational philosophy, But that is what we do all the time in science. Why couldn't we do that in theology? Who forbids that? The pope, the Ayatollah and the atheists. just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. and so all those people are justified in continuing to believe in fairy tales; they just don't know what the fairy tale really is. Some fairy tales might have some symbolical explanation, others might not. But the only God in which it is easy to disbelieve in, are the Fairy Tale notion of God. Atheism becomes equivalent with I don't believe in fairy tales. Now I have tuns of books in theology, and I have not yet seen one defending fairy tales notion of Gods. (Except the free one given by Jehovah witness, which I don't read, except to measure the credulity exploited by their sects). And except the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah - which are the fairy tales believed by billions of people, all but a tiny group of 'theologians' who also claim to believe them, but try to make the belief rational by redefining all the words in them - just as you redefine God. I suggest definition, and make reasoning, and that is what the scientists always do. The simple machines theology is refutable as it contains physics. I can understand the dislike of the term God given the many things made in its name, but I think that if your read the theological literature you can become open that the religious phenomenon is not just in the brain, it might reflect some deeper arithmetical truth, concerning notably the relation between the first person self and truth. I fail to understand the certainty you seem to have in this matter. 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic,
which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction,
no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would
be within God's power or not?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
You explained it yourself: '
so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '.
Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and
consequently making a fool of myself :)
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is
perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible
for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic
are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if
you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can
change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a
proposition cannot be both true and false.
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are
necessary attributes of God.
When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan
that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods.
However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He
wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited
senses and knowledge.
However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that
would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first
question properly.
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change
the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and
not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases?
Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is
independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in
God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect
understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God,
along with other more specifically theistic attributes like
perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has
necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make
a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in
every possible meaning of the word.
I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers
and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create
the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or
any other necessary truths, ...'
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote:
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God?
Making It consistent is not really limiting it.
Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to
inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism.
(that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of
God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field).
We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer,
and the Final Goal.
OK.
Everything is as God wills and allows it to be.
I don't know.
Bruno
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue
agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have
the power
--
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 javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'everything-list@googlegroups.com');
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:45 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:46, Samiya Illias wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. I can make sense, but in the machine's theory, some truth there need to remain silent, as they will look like nonsense for some people. It is of the type only going without saying. Okay No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Are you open to doubt your theory? Or some points in your theory? There was a time when I doubted. I read and discussed with many theists of other faiths and atheists. I also studied the Quran more objectively, questioning the translations and my interpretations. I am still open to new ideas and do accept what convinces me. However, I find that I am more convinced now than before. If not it means you stay connected to the incommunicable part, and you take the risk of saying to much, and fuel disbelief, even and especially when not wrong. If I do not honestly give my input, its not fair to others. Choices come with consequences, and when seeking truth, one must take risks... I hope my honesty is of help to someone. And, btw, what is your position on computationalism, because this is an hypothesis shared by many here (if only for the sake of the argument). I believe we are all in a giant software and everything, including us, are computed. So, your deductions from your work do fascinate me. Would you accept that you or some friend get an artificial digital brain? Like Ganesh? :) Have you think about this question? Have you an idea of the consequence for consciousness and physical realities, and for the possible theologies? Or you're suggesting 'soulless' clones? I don't defend the idea that comp is true, but comp makes possible to use computer science and mathematics to formulate the questions, and put some light around. Sent from my iPhone Well, for the Mandelbrot sets zooms, I hope you can access a bigger computer with a larger screen. Thanks. Just am very busy and mostly away from my laptop these days, yet this is an interesting discussion, and I want to participate. I should go to my phone's setting and remove this msg. Samiya Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
No, I just do not want to speculate about something I really have not given much thought to or can contribute by 'thinking' on it. The little that I've read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only seem to go round and round in their efforts to make sense of it. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:28 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic, which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction, no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would be within God's power or not? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: You explained it yourself: ' so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '. Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently making a fool of myself :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
but priginally you responded to my comment about God and logic by saying This
is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? which I took to mean you
were expressing a definite disagreement with the idea that God was
limited to acts consistent with the laws of logic. Did I misunderstand,
and you actually did not mean to suggest any speculations about whether God
can change the laws of logic?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
No, I just do not want to speculate about something I really have not
given much thought to or can contribute by 'thinking' on it. The little
that I've read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only
seem to go round and round in their efforts to make sense of it.
Samiya
On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:28 AM, Jesse Mazer
laserma...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'laserma...@gmail.com');
wrote:
But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic,
which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction,
no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would
be within God's power or not?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
You explained it yourself: '
so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '.
Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and
consequently making a fool of myself :)
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is
perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible
for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic
are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if
you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can
change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a
proposition cannot be both true and false.
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are
necessary attributes of God.
When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan
that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods.
However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He
wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited
senses and knowledge.
However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that
would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first
question properly.
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change
the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and
not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases?
Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is
independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in
God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect
understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God,
along with other more specifically theistic attributes like
perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has
necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make
a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in
every possible meaning of the word.
I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers
and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create
the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or
any other necessary truths, ...'
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote:
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God?
Making It consistent is not really limiting it.
Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to
inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism.
(that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of
God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field).
We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer,
and the Final Goal.
--
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 javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
To post to this group, send email to
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. But they can't be wrong about what their words mean to them. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/2/2013 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? I doubt that perfection is even a coherent concept. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 3 December 2013 09:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? I doubt that perfection is even a coherent concept. I believe perfection is used as an attribute in the ontological argument for the existence of God. (Which looks suspiciously like a circular argument, imho.) -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against *that!* -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? Sure it does, but only half as strong as GR. Ah yes, that's right. I believe that's why the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite catapulting Einstein to fame. (And someone predicted black holes way before Einstein, too, on the basis of Newtonian gravity and the measurement of c - although without realising the full implications ... Mitchell???). Mind you, I think my correction above is still pertinent - that is, it's still truer to say that dark matter is what results when gravity is not modified (pure *Einsteinian*). -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. I just did. You just called statement 1 true and statement 2 a lie so you did no such thing. Whether transcendental category is personified or not, by definition it escapes our current power to prove/understand, so why pretend you can distinguish some types or members (personification vs. numbers/arithmetic for example) of a category that should even transcend the notion of category itself Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. Indeed, such would appear blasphemy to the human gods and those that believe in them. You are just making my point. than stating that there is transcendental. Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. It is the oldest label to account for things/object/properties we can't explain. The newer trend is to pretend that those things are not there, and that anybody who uses them in an argument is a crackpot. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist It is not, revelation is BS...all religions on earth with book from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... That's your argument? Bruno does it too! ??? Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory semantic implications as you do. I think his usage is closer to metaphoric guide story of some theology, not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g. deriving politics or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently wrote of non-compness of Ganesha in some thread, which presupposes some familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all silly fairy tales... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this infantilization discrimination sense. If you were in power there would be prohibition of religious mythology, which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the holy economy. How is doing our accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, counting, chore thing? Exactly the same, and no matter how much you do, pray or gain, you're always out where you started in some sense... Another round? PGC Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. But they can't be wrong about what their words mean to them. Depends who told them. Knights or knaves :-) PGC 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
On 12/2/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I don't think it's so simple as applying Occam's razor. In my example red is an experience that from the perspective of conscious thoughts may have no explanation, i.e. is fundamental. Like the guy in Washington cannot explain why he is the one in Washington. But we can explain why he cannot explain it, and in general we can explain why machines are first person confronted with arithmetical first person truth that they have to feel as fundamental and unexplainable. But from the perspective of biology has an explanation in terms of physics and chemistry. From an evolutionary perspective it has an explanation in terms of survival advantage. So Occam's razor cuts different ways depending on the perspective. This is an abstract base problem, but with comp the points of view don't depend on the choice of base machine, and we can refine the use of Occam razor for each points of view. In fact we can use it only one time, for the Turing universal ontology. They don't depend on the choice of base machine because you've chosen Turing computation as fundamental. That doesn't show that something else could not have been chosen as fundamental instead. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 12:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. No, he agrees that matter is necessary and he only objects to it being considered *fundamental*, because he thinks it is already explained by arithmetical computation and because he thinks it cannot explain some aspects of consciousness. But then he gives computationalism and theology lots of leeway for not explaining things. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against /that!/ Of course his Universal Dovetailer is pretty super too. In my view, these are all just hypothetical models and whatever is in them is implicitly natural if the model is right. If Zeus existed, he'd be part of nature (just an extended notion of nature). Bruno's theory explains some aspects of consciousness, e.g. something are incommunicable, but it doesn't do so well at explaining matter or even other things about consciousness. I'm not even convinced by his movie graph argument (or Mauldin's Olympia) because they seem to require that all possible contingencies be anticipated. But maybe I just don't understand them. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. I just did. You just called statement 1 true and statement 2 a lie No I called it *misleading*. so you did no such thing. I did. Whether transcendental category is personified or not, by definition it escapes our current power to prove/understand, so why pretend you can distinguish some types or members I did not... (personification vs. numbers/arithmetic for example) of a category that should even transcend the notion of category itself Then if it is as you say, you shouldn't talk about it and trying to make a point... but wait...? that's what you're doing... Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. Indeed, such would appear blasphemy to the human gods and those that believe in them. You are just making my point. than stating that there is transcendental. Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. It is the oldest label to account for things/object/properties we can't explain. No... god in english/french and many other language as a clear accepted meaning, and god doesn't mean shoes... even if you want it very much. The newer trend is to pretend that those things are not there, and that anybody who uses them in an argument is a crackpot. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist It is not, revelation is BS...all religions on earth with book from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... That's your argument? Bruno does it too! ??? No you're saying I'm insulting people by not believing in their god... Bruno does not obviously believe in the abrahamic god as he calls that fairy tales... Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory semantic implications as you do. Well ask him... I think his usage is closer to metaphoric guide story of some theology, What is left about that theology when you remove the fairy tales ? not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g. deriving politics or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently wrote of non-compness of Ganesha in some thread, which presupposes some familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all silly fairy tales... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this infantilization discrimination sense. If you were in power there would be prohibition Please refrain to put actions in your opponent mouth, you say that, I don't and wouldn't act like you say... Quentin of religious mythology, which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the holy economy. How is doing our accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, counting, chore thing? Exactly the same, and no matter how much you do, pray or gain, you're always out where you started in some sense... Another round? PGC Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? Sure it does, but only half as strong as GR. Ah yes, that's right. I believe that's why the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite catapulting Einstein to fame. (And someone predicted black holes way before Einstein, too, on the basis of Newtonian gravity and the measurement of c - although without realising the full implications ... Mitchell???). Mind you, I think my correction above is still pertinent - that is, it's still truer to say that dark matter is what results when gravity is not modified (pure /Einsteinian/). Dark matter would be implied by the same observations even assuming Newtonian gravity. Just the amount would be different. I don't know if Fritz Zwicky even used relativistic calculations of rotation curves of galaxies to infer dark matter - it wouldn't have been necessary since the motions are not that fast. Incidentally I met Zwicky at a party once and he regalled me with the story of how he and a NACA team had actually beaten the Russians into space by launching an artificial satellite *before* Sputnik. When I expressed surprise that I had never heard of this satellite, he explained that it was launched from a B-50 flying at 50kft over the equator using a two stage rocket. When the second stage reached it's apogee, it fired a shaped charge which sent a molten mass of metal into orbit around the Earth. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss. But the problem is that either I reason that the outcome is already known or not, it is indeed already known, according to what you said before. So we're just watching as it unfolds. My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life, nothing before or after, but what if there is? If there is, and my life is predetermined and I'm still going to be punished or rewarded, then it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if I win the cosmic lottery no? You still didn't address the problem that you cannot have predetermination and free-will at the same time. And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother... What do you mean by replayed? If the same moment is perfectly replayed, then it's indistinguishable from all other instances of the same moment. There's still just one moment. Otherwise they are different moments, and it's not a replay. Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Hi Samiya, If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother? Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
God, to me, means an All-Powerful, Able to Do All, deity. That is my belief. What I'm saying is that I do not have an answer to the question you pose, and if I try, I'll simply be speculating about what I really do not know or have a way of knowing. There may be a very good explanation for this contradiction, I do not know. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:48 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: but priginally you responded to my comment about God and logic by saying This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? which I took to mean you were expressing a definite disagreement with the idea that God was limited to acts consistent with the laws of logic. Did I misunderstand, and you actually did not mean to suggest any speculations about whether God can change the laws of logic? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: No, I just do not want to speculate about something I really have not given much thought to or can contribute by 'thinking' on it. The little that I've read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only seem to go round and round in their efforts to make sense of it. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:28 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic, which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction, no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would be within God's power or not? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: You explained it yourself: ' so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '. Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently making a fool of myself :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 03-Dec-2013, at 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss. But the problem is that either I reason that the outcome is already known or not, it is indeed already known, according to what you said before. So we're just watching as it unfolds. From our vantage point, one could argue that. Yet, all it does is paralyse action. There is a strong emphasis placed on hope and forgiveness. Believers are not allowed to be 'sit and watch it out'. Belief without good deeds is no good. My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life, nothing before or after, but what if there is? If there is, and my life is predetermined and I'm still going to be punished or rewarded, then it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if I win the cosmic lottery no? You still didn't address the problem that you cannot have predetermination and free-will at the same time. It is attributed to Caliph Ali that when someone asked him about this, he asked the person to stand on one foot, with the other foot folded behind him. Next he asked the person to stand with both feet folded up. Obviously the latter is not humanly possible. That, he said, is the difference between what we can choose to do and what we have no choice about. And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother... What do you mean by replayed? If the same moment is perfectly replayed, then it's indistinguishable from all other instances of the same moment. There's still just one moment. Otherwise they are different moments, and it's not a replay. How about a 3D video playback? Well, it is said that our eyes, ears and skins will bear witness to what we used to do in this life, as God will give them the power of speech. So that will be different. Samiya Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Hi Samiya, If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother? Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 3 December 2013 11:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? Sure it does, but only half as strong as GR. Ah yes, that's right. I believe that's why the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite catapulting Einstein to fame. (And someone predicted black holes way before Einstein, too, on the basis of Newtonian gravity and the measurement of c - although without realising the full implications ... Mitchell???). Mind you, I think my correction above is still pertinent - that is, it's still truer to say that dark matter is what results when gravity is not modified (pure *Einsteinian*). Dark matter would be implied by the same observations even assuming Newtonian gravity. Just the amount would be different. I don't know if Fritz Zwicky even used relativistic calculations of rotation curves of galaxies to infer dark matter - it wouldn't have been necessary since the motions are not that fast. OK. Incidentally I met Zwicky at a party once and he regalled me with the story of how he and a NACA team had actually beaten the Russians into space by launching an artificial satellite *before* Sputnik. When I expressed surprise that I had never heard of this satellite, he explained that it was launched from a B-50 flying at 50kft over the equator using a two stage rocket. When the second stage reached it's apogee, it fired a shaped charge which sent a molten mass of metal into orbit around the Earth. Seriously?! -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 12/2/2013 10:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 11:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? Sure it does, but only half as strong as GR. Ah yes, that's right. I believe that's why the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite catapulting Einstein to fame. (And someone predicted black holes way before Einstein, too, on the basis of Newtonian gravity and the measurement of c - although without realising the full implications ... Mitchell???). Mind you, I think my correction above is still pertinent - that is, it's still truer to say that dark matter is what results when gravity is not modified (pure /Einsteinian/). Dark matter would be implied by the same observations even assuming Newtonian gravity. Just the amount would be different. I don't know if Fritz Zwicky even used relativistic calculations of rotation curves of galaxies to infer dark matter - it wouldn't have been necessary since the motions are not that fast. OK. Incidentally I met Zwicky at a party once and he regalled me with the story of how he and a NACA team had actually beaten the Russians into space by launching an artificial satellite *before* Sputnik. When I expressed surprise that I had never heard of this satellite, he explained that it was launched from a B-50 flying at 50kft over the equator using a two stage rocket. When the second stage reached it's apogee, it fired a shaped charge which sent a molten mass of metal into orbit around the Earth. Seriously?! We were both a little drunk, but he was serious. I asked if the blob of metal had been tracked in orbit? Zwicky said it was too small to track by radar. So then I asked how they knew it entered orbit. He said they knew because telemetry from the second stage rocket showed that it had fired the shaped charge at the right altitude and right direction. I had not recalled this for many years; the party was in 1963. Consulting the internet (which remembers everything, many of which actually happened) I find that Zwicky wrote a paper about these experiments which differs somewhat from my recollection. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1801/1/zwicky.pdf Brent 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
