subject:"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 ?

2013-12-02 Thread meekerdb


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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-02 Thread meekerdb


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 > 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.


--
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 ?

2013-12-02 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  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 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 ?

2013-12-02 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, 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.
> 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  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: 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  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  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  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  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

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  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 ?

2013-12-02 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> 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 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 acknowled

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-02 Thread Jesse Mazer

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  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  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  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  'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');>.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com 'everything-list@googlegroups.com');>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/gro

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 ?

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  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  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  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 receiv

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-02 Thread Alberto G. Corona

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 

>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> 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 
>>
>>> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I
>>> would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 December 2013 10:29, 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!

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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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  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 ?

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  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  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 ?

2013-12-02 Thread spudboy100


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 
To: everything-list 
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  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 ?

2013-12-02 Thread spudboy100

By the way, Tegmark has a new book coming out Jan 14, I do recall.

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
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  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 ?



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  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: 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  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: 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.

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 ?

2013-12-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 02 Dec 2013, at 00:13, 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,


Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot  
make 17 into a composite number. God obeys to logic, and nobody is  
interested in an inconsistent God.
This does not really limit his "power", in fact without being  
consistent, God would become trivial. For the same reason,  
everythingers can believe only in all possible *consistent* things,  
and "consistency" is the modal possibility in provability logic.
The cul-de-sac world still make "inconsistency" consistent, without  
introducing an "inconsistent reality". That's part of the explanation  
of the mind in comp, and an explanation of why a travel "near  
inconsistency" is possible, and that's probably part of the  
computationalist job. You don't have world satisfying false (which  
would be an inconsistent reality", stretching a little bit the  
vocabulary), but we do have world (for G), in which we have  
provable("false"), indeed that the syntactical way to say we are in a  
cul-de-sac world.





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.



But that speculation cannot make sense if we assume that we are  
machine. Indeed if we are machine, our first person experience are  
distributed in the mathematical (actually arithmetical is enough)  
structure, and the physical reality is not a mathematical structure  
among others, but a mathematical (biological, psychological,  
theological) phenomenon, which makes us (us = the universal machine)  
believe in some big "universal machine". This predicts that below our  
level of substitution, we must see the trace of "parallel universe",  
and this is confirmed by (Everett) theory, as as far as it works which  
seems to be the case until now.
Tegmark still use an Aristotelian identity theory (mind-body) which is  
incoherent with computationalism. That is why he must "speculate".  
Once we assume comp, there is no need to speculate on a mathematical  
universe, as the "universe" does not exist per se, but has to be a  
persistent and invariant mind construct of all universal machine/ 
number, and this in a completely testable way, as the beliefs in laws  
of physics should all be extracted from (Robinson) Arithmetic. The  
mathematical "hypothesis" was already a theorem in the comp theory.  
Tegmark missed the FPI, which breaks the Aristotelian identity thesis,  
and eventually breaks the whole Aristotelian theological paradigm of  
the (weak) materialists (the materialism of the believer in primitive  
matter).
It is a bit weird, as Tegmark interprets correctly QM (with respect to  
comp) and Everett QM already break the aristotelian identity thesis,  
imo.


Bruno







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 ema

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-01 Thread meekerdb


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.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-01 Thread Samiya Illias

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  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.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 2 December 2013 12:51, 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)
>
>
> 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.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-01 Thread Jesse Mazer

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)

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! 
>> Antivirusprotection 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.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-01 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> 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 
>
>> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
>> say.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 December 2013 10:29, 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! 
>>> Antivirusprotection 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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+

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Agnosticism should be the "religion" of the state.


On 2 December 2013 11:33, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/1 LizR 
>
>> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
>> say.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 December 2013 10:29, 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! 
>>> Antivirusprotection 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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 ?

2013-12-01 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.

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.

2013/12/1 LizR 

> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
> say.
>
>
>
> On 2 December 2013 10:29, 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! 
>> Antivirusprotection 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.
>

-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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 ?

Nice video!

Yes even Fred Hoyle fell down on understanding what's possible with simple
rules and a large number of iterations.


On 2 December 2013 10:59, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
>> say.
>>
>
> I agree. People underestimate the complexity that can arise from
> multiplying simple behaviours by many entities. Here's a beautiful example:
>
> http://vimeo.com/16256894
>
> Everything here is the outcome of the behaviours of simple agents
> following simple rules in reaction to their local environment. This example
> has two types of agents: preys and predators. If we consider the fantastic
> number of ways in which molecules can aggregate and interact, it's possible
> to imagine how something like this can scale up to the complexity of the
> human body.
>
> Under some such environment, when replicators emerge, evolutionary
> processes take over and thus begins the climb up mount improbable.
>
> I never found a proponent of interventionist gods who seemed to grasp
> what's possible with simple rules and building blocks.
>
> This does not explain consciousness, of course. There are enough deep
> mysteries to existence as is.
>
> Telmo.
>
>
>> On 2 December 2013 10:29, 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! 
>>> Antivirusprotection 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 ?

2013-12-01 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
> say.
>

I agree. People underestimate the complexity that can arise from
multiplying simple behaviours by many entities. Here's a beautiful example:

http://vimeo.com/16256894

Everything here is the outcome of the behaviours of simple agents following
simple rules in reaction to their local environment. This example has two
types of agents: preys and predators. If we consider the fantastic number
of ways in which molecules can aggregate and interact, it's possible to
imagine how something like this can scale up to the complexity of the human
body.

Under some such environment, when replicators emerge, evolutionary
processes take over and thus begins the climb up mount improbable.

I never found a proponent of interventionist gods who seemed to grasp
what's possible with simple rules and building blocks.

This does not explain consciousness, of course. There are enough deep
mysteries to existence as is.

Telmo.

> On 2 December 2013 10:29, 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! 
>> Antivirusprotection 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.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?