Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 11 Feb 2013, at 17:52, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If Bob is behind a door that will reveal Moscow and Bill is behind a door that will reveal Washington then the probability that Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washington is 100%. Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washington is very ambiguous. If Bob and Bill DID open a door I understand. and if Bob and Bill DID see Moscow and Washington Do you mean that a) both Bob and Bill see both cities, Moscow and Washington, at once? or do you mean that b) Bob saw once city and Bill the other? then my prediction was correct If you meant a) above, then comp is incorrect, as it supposed some telepathy. If you meant b) then both Bob and Bill will refute the statement W and M (with their first person meaning already exposed). if they don't then it wasn't, and there is nothing ambiguous in that. The result was that Bob and Bill DID open a door and Bob and Bill DID see Moscow and Washington, so the prediction was correct. If Bob and Bill are absolutely identical the probability that Bob-Bill will see Moscow and Washington remains at 100%. Bob-Bill will refute this once he, whoever he is, will open the door. No, it remained true that Bob and Bill opened a door and saw Moscow and Washington. I could have added in my prediction that the guy who didn't see Washington will be the guy who didn't see Washington, but it seemed silly to do so. The point with computationalism is that Bob and Bill have only once body and soul in Helsinki, but then differentiated into two persons having exclusive experience (seeing W and seeing M). None of them will note in the diary I see W and M. And the unique guy in Helsinki knows that he will surivive, assuming comp, and that he will in any case surivive as either Bob, or Bill, not as being the two person at once. You keep mixing the 3-view on the 1-views, And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person view, Yes, as it is the content of the diary of the guy I am asking the question where do you feel you are?. And the W-guy look in his diary where ha did put the result of his self-localization, and see W, and answer me W, and the other does the same and tell me M, and none told me, I am in both M and W, as none got that first person result. *THE* first person view is the content of the diary, of each persons resulting from the duplication. You keep playing with words, as everything is well defined in the paper. Bruno and that might be a OK approximation in a world without duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is only A first person view and one view is every bit as legitimate as another. And the only thing that turns one first person view into another first person view is what they view, so all you're saying is that the guy who sees Washington will be the guy who sees Washington which is too flimsy to build a philosophy on. 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?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote: On 2/11/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote: And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person view, and that might be a OK approximation in a world without duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is only A first person view and one view is every bit as legitimate as another. And the only thing that turns one first person view into another first person view is what they view, so all you're saying is that the guy who sees Washington will be the guy who sees Washington which is too flimsy to build a philosophy on. Similarly there is no such thing as the result of an observation of a quantum observable that is not already prepared in an eigenstate of that observable. Why? If I look to an up+down electron in the {up, down} base, *the* result will be 'up' or will be 'down'. From my perspective I am not certain of which result I will get, but the result of the observation will be quite definite. That's why quantum mechanician, like the comp predictors, introduces probabilities. Uncertain does not mean vague. (That's a common confusion). 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 10 Feb 2013, at 18:54, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: All the probabilities need to add up to 100% or it's nonsense, making your W and M prediction into nonsense. If Bob is behind a door that will reveal Moscow and Bill is behind a door that will reveal Washington then the probability that Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washington is 100%. Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washington is very ambiguous. If Bob and Bill are absolutely identical the probability that Bob- Bill will see Moscow and Washington remains at 100%. Bob-Bill will refute this once he, whoever he is, will open the door. He will see only W, or M, as both bob-bill will recognize. You keep mixing the 3-view on the 1-views, with each particular 1- views on the 1-view, on which the prediction was bearing. If Bob-Bill changes his name to John K Clark the probabilities will still not change. Indeed. But it 50%, not 100%, as both John K Clark will recognize (making abstraction of John Clark's bad faith, of course). And this miss the point that the act of prediction is asked to the guy in Helsinki. The point is that prediction works great at establishing or falsifying scientific theories Indeed. So why not compare the prediction of comp and the prediction of physics? but that is NOT how we get our feeling of a unbroken chain of personal identity, you and I make incorrect predictions every day but we don't loose our sense of self as a result. It is made only from the present into the past, trying to push identity into the future works about as well as pushing on a string. Prediction are always on future events, and always involve a future first person verification. Physicists have to assume (implicitly or not) some brain mind identity for this being able to work. You have already agreed that such identity is not correct, as two identical computer in two places can support a unique mind. UDA shows that such identity cannot work, in no circumstances. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/11/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote: And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person view, and that might be a OK approximation in a world without duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is only A first person view and one view is every bit as legitimate as another. And the only thing that turns one first person view into another first person view is what they view, so all you're saying is that the guy who sees Washington will be the guy who sees Washington which is too flimsy to build a philosophy on. Similarly there is no such thing as the result of an observation of a quantum observable that is not already prepared in an eigenstate of that observable. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 08 Feb 2013, at 17:54, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the right plate, not the left side and the right side. So which is it? Yet more confusion and for exactly the same reason, those God damned personal pronouns. H = Helsinki where the person is read and annihilate. M is for Moscow, and W is for washington (the cities or the experience of feeling to be in the cities, according to the context). We have agreed that: - the M-guy is the H-guy. - the W guy is the H-guy - The M-guy is not the W-guy. No problem because pronouns are indexical, and thus modal notions, on which typically the Leibniz identity rule don't applied. We know by comp that the H-guy will survive. The H-guy knows comp, and so knows that the two computerized version s, that is the M-guy and the W-guy , will not have direct access to the memory of their respective doppelganger, and so that whoever the H-guy will become, it can only be felt to be in one city, and that it has two be W or M. The experience, when done, we can get confirmation. If the H-guy predicted W or M, then the W-guy and the M-guy can compare the statement W or M in their diaries (which has been multiplied by definition of first person), then they look at the city, and the W-guy see W, which makes W or M true (by elementary logic). Etc. John K Clark sees the photon hit the left AND the right side of the plate, however John K Clark has been duplicated so the John K Clark who sees the photon hit the left side of the plate sees the photon hit the left side of the plate and the John K Clark who sees the photon hit the right side of the plate sees the photon hit the right side of the plate. In the same way John K Clark sees Washington AND Moscow although the Washington John K Clark sees only Washington and the Moscow John K Clark sees only Moscow. If it is in the same way, it justifies the same use of probability. The only difference then is that in the quantum the 3p duplication is the 3p quantum superposition, and in comp it is the amoeba type, or computer type of classical duplication (a read of code followed by a reconstitution). It is crucial, as this shows, before MGA that to use correctly a physical laws to predict a first person experience (like seeing an eclipse) we have to assume the physical universe is little to apply the laws, if not, we have to take into account the probabilities of having extension in the universal dovetailing, or in some long enough universal dovetailing. Physicalist must bound the physical universe, to keep the brain mind identity thesis they use implicitly in applied physics. Then MGA suggests this does not work either, unless some magic is put in the notion of matter. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:16, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/8/2013 12:04 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: “A secular purpose” is a nice ruse, because it is “theology-free”, right? Yes it is. It's not dependent on any ultimate foundation of the universe (per Bruno's definition of 'theology') or even any agreement about what that might be. It only depends on the public subjective non-religious values of society as expressed in their laws. That's what 'secular' means. By what mechanism does a value become non-religious? How did marriage become secular for instance? Can you define non-religious values? I can where religions are certified by the state. Care to share an example of a secular value stripped of all religious and transcendental connotations? Sure, murder is bad. Of course this may be incoporated into many different religions as a value imposed by some transcendental force - but it's constancy across many cultures and religions, it's obvious relation to evolutionary survival makes it pretty clear that it's a secular value. You take negation murder to be a secular value? Ok, I'll go along with this even though I believe no state or individual sees that, as an ethical end to strive for in the sense of a negative intrinsic value. Not murder is, along with all these cultural and evolutionary factors, transcendental, as it follows from valuing life in the simpler self-referential statement: I live, hence I don't want to die. I live, therefore I wouldn't want to be killed, therefore murder is bad. You ask why, and you'll get a transcendental answer: Because my life is not worth killing. = simply belief, as the person in question could be a Hitler type, with a Stauffenberg waiting in the next room. Human life appears as the primary, intrinsic value even here, and not not murder, which is merely instrumental negative value implied by the primary value of affirming human life. The negative instrumental value can be overridden, to assert the intrinsic one. I value human life in the general intrinsic, affirmative sense is much harder to override. Value human life is common sense with transcendental roots; not some naive nonsense imposed onto religions by their arbitrary transcendental false deity. Additionally, some mystics, theologians, and religions were able to nail this point without recourse to historical appearance of cultural consistency and religions, evolutionary survival, in which you've obscured the transcendental quality to make your point: these are imho just sophisticated justifications (still products of science's narrative of seeking truth; a truth beyond our reach = transcendental smiles back at us again anyway, if you ask why? enough times) of something much simpler: the will to live, including the irrational belief bit we can't wrap our minds around, as we could also be evil and our value of life misplaced at times. If you make evolution set the standard, then you have to buy the darker side of its theology: Good Tsunami, asteroid, CO2, mass extinctions of life forms; as these shocks will create a stronger forcing function on populations and individuals to adapt in the long term; good my family got killed in that last quake. Good points. In fact some people seem to have hard to understand that physics is not theology, as they bear on different questions. But saying there is no theology, makes physics (usually) into a theology. It is no more physics: it is physics + a theological assumption. It becomes *a* theology. Not saying it makes it authoritative, which is, provably with comp, the theological trap. In science, locally, we can still tolerate an amount of authority and conservatism, but in religion we can't. The contrary can happen, and that's we have not really begin to do science. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 09 Feb 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: you agree that if I ask you the question in the MWI context, what is the probability that you see the photon hit the left plate, you'll say 50%, As I've said before the primary weakness of the MWI is how to consistently assign probabilities to observers seeing things, particularly if the number of universes is infinite and not just very large. All the probabilities need to add up to 100% or it's nonsense, ... making your W and M prediction into nonsense. (with W and M being respectfully denoting the corresponding subjective experience of being in the city W, or, exclusively, the city M, as you cannot be in both cities from the first person point of view. and there is considerable debate about how well Many World's has managed to do that, some say pretty well but others say not so much. yet you say that in the duplication experience of Bruno, it 100% you see left, 100% you see right which is of course false... the correct one either in MWI or with Bruno's experiment is 50%. If you can do a prediction in MWI so can you *the same way* in Bruno's experiment, only bad faith prevent you to admit it. In Many Worlds everything is completely deterministic, everything is determined by Schrodinger's wave equation; or at least that's it's goal if it can get over the infinity problem mentioned above. But Bruno claims to have found a brand new type I just make my case. I have never brag on new and things like that. That is not relevant, and the fact that you insist on this illustrate an ad hominem kind of argument. of indeterminacy never seen before when all he has really discovered is the less than astonishing fact that the guy who well see the photon go to the left is the guy who sees the photon go to the left. And this miss the point that the act of prediction is asked to the guy in Helsinki. That if he said W or M, all his successors will agree, and that if he said W and M, all its successors will refute the prediction, assuming of course that he has the cognitive ability to understand the definition of first person and third person given in comp, at the start of UDA. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/9/2013 6:16 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you make evolution set the standard, then you have to buy the darker side of its theology: Good Tsunami, asteroid, CO2, mass extinctions of life forms; as these shocks will create a stronger forcing function on populations and individuals to adapt in the long term; good my family got killed in that last quake. You can recognize that evolution is responsible for you valuing your life, and valuing the life of your children even more, without making natural selection your standard of value. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:03:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 6:16 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you make evolution set the standard, then you have to buy the darker side of its theology: Good Tsunami, asteroid, CO2, mass extinctions of life forms; as these shocks will create a stronger forcing function on populations and individuals to adapt in the long term; good my family got killed in that last quake. Not really though. This stems from the 'survival of the fittest' misconception of evolution. More selection filters doesn't make for an organism more impervious to all future threats. If people survive a flood because they live on the top of hills, that doesn't mean that their offspring is stronger in any way. Even if some people who survive an earthquake did so because they were smart and prepared for natural disasters doesn't mean that they aren't idiots in a dozen other ways. You can recognize that evolution is responsible for you valuing your life, and valuing the life of your children even more, without making natural selection your standard of value. Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective motivation. All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high priority to protecting ones own children and ones own life. Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is unsentimental and unconscious would always be more effective. Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective motivation. Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside. All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high priority to protecting ones own children and ones own life. And that's what happened and that's what you feel as love of life and love of children. Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is unsentimental and unconscious would always be more effective. Unsentimental, maybe. But not unemotional. For example, rage is very useful in defense of one's children. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective motivation. Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside. Why would quantitative values have an inside though? The only reason that we might presume that is because we are looking at it retrospectively. If you turn it around though, and assume quantitative mechanisms can exist without awareness, then there is no possibility of any interior experience being generated. How and why would such a thing arise? All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high priority to protecting ones own children and ones own life. And that's what happened and that's what you feel as love of life and love of children. I understand why that makes sense to you, but you are making that up by taking the undeniable existence of love and drawing a straight line to what you presume, unquestionably, to be the cause. It's an unfalsifiable misconception which begs the question. Lets say you wanted to make a computer program that did not feel anything, but just reproduced and survived. Are you suggesting that is impossible? Are you saying that whenever a sufficiently complex machine is programmed to avoid specific conditions that avoidance conjures an experience of pain out of nowhere? Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is unsentimental and unconscious would always be more effective. Unsentimental, maybe. But not unemotional. For example, rage is very useful in defense of one's children. No it isn't. You are only looking at it retrospectively. The effectiveness of rage is not in the experience of rage, it is in the boost of strength, endurance, aggressive behavior, etc. All of that could be engineered without inventing some kind of ridiculous 'emotional state' as a theatrical presentation. Look at it prospectively instead. You are trying to make an effective replicator. Why would you ever need to do anything but optimize its behaviors? Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/9/2013 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective motivation. Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside. Why would quantitative values have an inside though? The only reason that we might presume that is because we are looking at it retrospectively. If you turn it around though, and assume quantitative mechanisms can exist without awareness, then there is no possibility of any interior experience being generated. How and why would such a thing arise? All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high priority to protecting ones own children and ones own life. And that's what happened and that's what you feel as love of life and love of children. I understand why that makes sense to you, but you are making that up by taking the undeniable existence of love and drawing a straight line to what you presume, unquestionably, to be the cause. It's an unfalsifiable misconception which begs the question. Lets say you wanted to make a computer program that did not feel anything, but just reproduced and survived. Are you suggesting that is impossible? Yes. Just like a philosophical zombie is impossible because intelligence entails consciousness, goals and purposes (like survival) plus intelligence entails values and emotions. Are you saying that whenever a sufficiently complex machine is programmed to avoid specific conditions that avoidance conjures an experience of pain out of nowhere? Pain and pleasure. Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is unsentimental and unconscious would always be more effective. Unsentimental, maybe. But not unemotional. For example, rage is very useful in defense of one's children. No it isn't. You are only looking at it retrospectively. The effectiveness of rage is not in the experience of rage, it is in the boost of strength, endurance, aggressive behavior, etc. All of that could be engineered without inventing some kind of ridiculous 'emotional state' as a theatrical presentation. That's what you say. But what do you think is an emotional state except the boost in adrenaline, the focus on objective, etc? You are simply imagining the two can be separated because you have different words and viewpoints to describe them. Look at it prospectively instead. You are trying to make an effective replicator. Why would you ever need to do anything but optimize its behaviors? You wouldn't, but that would entail it having values and emotions. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective motivation. Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside. Why would quantitative values have an inside though? The only reason that we might presume that is because we are looking at it retrospectively. If you turn it around though, and assume quantitative mechanisms can exist without awareness, then there is no possibility of any interior experience being generated. How and why would such a thing arise? All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high priority to protecting ones own children and ones own life. And that's what happened and that's what you feel as love of life and love of children. I understand why that makes sense to you, but you are making that up by taking the undeniable existence of love and drawing a straight line to what you presume, unquestionably, to be the cause. It's an unfalsifiable misconception which begs the question. Lets say you wanted to make a computer program that did not feel anything, but just reproduced and survived. Are you suggesting that is impossible? Yes. Just like a philosophical zombie is impossible because intelligence entails consciousness, goals and purposes (like survival) plus intelligence entails values and emotions. It's circular reasoning. You are assuming that function is intelligence, and then projecting your own human goals, purposes and consciousness onto that function. Then, realizing that your own consciousness doesn't make any sense as far as assisting function in any way, so you affirm the consequent by concluding that there can't be a philosophical zombie. In reality, every machine that human beings have ever built is a potentially philosophical zombie, it's entirely up to the beholder who determines how deeply they subscribe to the pathetic fallacy. Are you saying that whenever a sufficiently complex machine is programmed to avoid specific conditions that avoidance conjures an experience of pain out of nowhere? Pain and pleasure. Can you explain why that would happen and how it could happen? 1+1 = pain? Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is unsentimental and unconscious would always be more effective. Unsentimental, maybe. But not unemotional. For example, rage is very useful in defense of one's children. No it isn't. You are only looking at it retrospectively. The effectiveness of rage is not in the experience of rage, it is in the boost of strength, endurance, aggressive behavior, etc. All of that could be engineered without inventing some kind of ridiculous 'emotional state' as a theatrical presentation. That's what you say. But what do you think is an emotional state except the boost in adrenaline, the focus on objective, etc? I think that an emotional state is a sensory-motor experience in which we participate directly. Adrenaline is a substance, it has no emotional qualities. A dead person's body could be filled with adrenaline and there would be no emotion there. You are simply imagining the two can be separated because you have different words and viewpoints to describe them. No, I am observing that there are different words for them because they have absolutely nothing in common except a spatiotemporal correlation. Look at it prospectively instead. You are trying to make an effective replicator. Why would you ever need to do anything but optimize its behaviors? You wouldn't, but that would entail it having values and emotions. Values and emotions don't exist yet. That's what I mean by looking at it prospectively. You have to justify the creation of 'values and emotions', but you can't. You can only claim blindness to the obvious difference between a machine acting rapidly and forcefully, and an experience of anger and strength. It may not be your fault. I don't know if I have every come across someone who has the Western orientation who is able to shift their perception. It's a foreground-background shift, which you may not be wired to be able to do, in which case I apologize for expecting you to be able to do that. Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/9/2013 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective motivation. Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside. Why would quantitative values have an inside though? The only reason that we might presume that is because we are looking at it retrospectively. If you turn it around though, and assume quantitative mechanisms can exist without awareness, then there is no possibility of any interior experience being generated. How and why would such a thing arise? All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high priority to protecting ones own children and ones own life. And that's what happened and that's what you feel as love of life and love of children. I understand why that makes sense to you, but you are making that up by taking the undeniable existence of love and drawing a straight line to what you presume, unquestionably, to be the cause. It's an unfalsifiable misconception which begs the question. Lets say you wanted to make a computer program that did not feel anything, but just reproduced and survived. Are you suggesting that is impossible? Yes. Just like a philosophical zombie is impossible because intelligence entails consciousness, goals and purposes (like survival) plus intelligence entails values and emotions. It's circular reasoning. You are assuming that function is intelligence, It's how I recognize intelligence - and so do you. and then projecting your own human goals, purposes and consciousness onto that function. Then, realizing that your own consciousness doesn't make any sense as far as assisting function in any way I don't 'realize' that - and neither do you. It's just another of your unsupported assumptions. , so you affirm the consequent by concluding that there can't be a philosophical zombie. In reality, every machine that human beings have ever built is a potentially philosophical zombie, it's entirely up to the beholder who determines how deeply they subscribe to the pathetic fallacy. Are you saying that whenever a sufficiently complex machine is programmed to avoid specific conditions that avoidance conjures an experience of pain out of nowhere? Pain and pleasure. Can you explain why that would happen and how it could happen? 1+1 = pain? Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is unsentimental and unconscious would always be more effective. Unsentimental, maybe. But not unemotional. For example, rage is very useful in defense of one's children. No it isn't. You are only looking at it retrospectively. The effectiveness of rage is not in the experience of rage, it is in the boost of strength, endurance, aggressive behavior, etc. All of that could be engineered without inventing some kind of ridiculous 'emotional state' as a theatrical presentation. That's what you say. But what do you think is an emotional state except the boost in adrenaline, the focus on objective, etc? I think that an emotional state is a sensory-motor experience in which we participate directly. Adrenaline is a substance, it has no emotional qualities. A dead person's body could be filled with adrenaline and there would be no emotion there. You are simply imagining the two can be separated because you have different words and viewpoints to describe them. No, I am observing that there are different words for them because they have absolutely nothing in common except a spatiotemporal correlation. Look at it prospectively instead. You are trying to make an effective replicator. Why would you ever need to do anything but optimize its behaviors? You wouldn't, but that would entail it having values and emotions. Values and emotions don't exist yet. That's what I mean by looking at it prospectively. You have to justify the creation of 'values and emotions', but you can't. You can only claim blindness to the obvious difference between a machine acting rapidly and forcefully, and an experience of anger and strength. It may not be your fault. I don't know if I have every come across someone who has the Western orientation who is able to shift their perception. It's a foreground-background shift, which you may not be wired to be able to do, in which case I apologize for expecting you to be able to do that. And I apologize for expecting you to be able to imagine that implementing intelligence would entail value and emotion. Brent
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/9/2013 5:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It's how I recognize intelligence - and so do you. No, I recognize intelligence by experiencing learning. If there were an Elvis impersonator who was so good that you could not tell the difference between a film of him performing and one of Elvis performing, would you say that he had become Elvis Presley? Learning is only detectable via function. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 9:07:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/9/2013 5:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It's how I recognize intelligence - and so do you. No, I recognize intelligence by experiencing learning. If there were an Elvis impersonator who was so good that you could not tell the difference between a film of him performing and one of Elvis performing, would you say that he had become Elvis Presley? Learning is only detectable via function. Experiencing learning is implicitly detected already. Think about it this way: Let's say I'm a politician. I am about to give a press conference and so I have a stack of cards which have been pre-prepared for me by six different speech writers. They are color coded; red for questions about the military, white for the economy, green for the environment, etc. If I am a complete idiot, assuming that my writers have done their job, I can field most if not all of the hot button questions without having known much about them at all. I need only know how to read and to be able to recognize which colors belong to which category of questions, and which questions seem to be about which category. Note that there is no one intelligent agent which has an understanding of all of the categories. However, if I were not an idiot, I could conceivably *learn* through the course of acting out this political charade, a bit of what I find myself parroting. If I am very intelligent, I could actually become informed in all of these categories and become, myself, a single intelligent agent with a polymath understanding - but - my function need not change. Nobody in the press will be able to tell whether I am a genius or an idiot based upon anything that I say, given that my speech writers have effectively predicted the types of questions which can be answered. As a politician, I could probably evade any question which isn't covered by my cards. So there it is - a thought experiment, which, without getting into too much Searlean complication, clearly shows the enormous hole in assuming any sort of equivalence between intelligence and function, especially when there is both a will and skill to execute a simulation of intelligence. Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
2013/2/8 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the right plate, not the left side and the right side. So which is it? Yet more confusion and for exactly the same reason, those God damned personal pronouns. John K Clark sees the photon hit the left AND the right side of the plate, however John K Clark has been duplicated so the John K Clark who sees the photon hit the left side of the plate sees the photon hit the left side of the plate and the John K Clark who sees the photon hit the right side of the plate sees the photon hit the right side of the plate. In the same way John K Clark sees Washington AND Moscow although the Washington John K Clark sees only Washington and the Moscow John K Clark sees only Moscow. Yet you agree that if I ask you the question in the MWI context, what is the probability that you see the photon hit the left plate, you'll say 50%, yet you say that in the duplication experience of Bruno, it 100% you see left, 100% you see right which is of course false... the correct one either in MWI or with Bruno's experiment is 50%. If you can do a prediction in MWI so can you *the same way* in Bruno's experiment, only bad faith prevent you to admit it. Quentin 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/8/2013 12:04 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: “A secular purpose” is a nice ruse, because it is “theology-free”, right? Yes it is. It's not dependent on any ultimate foundation of the universe (per Bruno's definition of 'theology') or even any agreement about what that might be. It only depends on the public subjective non-religious values of society as expressed in their laws. That's what 'secular' means. By what mechanism does a value become non-religious? How did marriage become secular for instance? Can you define non-religious values? I can where religions are certified by the state. Care to share an example of a secular value stripped of all religious and transcendental connotations? Sure, murder is bad. Of course this may be incoporated into many different religions as a value imposed by some transcendental force - but it's constancy across many cultures and religions, it's obvious relation to evolutionary survival makes it pretty clear that it's a secular value. Brent Not trying to make a point. Just interested :) PGC - Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6085 - Release Date: 02/06/13 -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not illegal, some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can be). But for example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) but they are often brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think). Sorry to be frank, but if this is serious (I miss some joke), then it is naive: the mechanism that serves to monitor and regulate the founding of religions in Western Europe, is the same judicial tool to control and finally repress religious groups- by seemingly integrating them. The moment any of these groups moves to do things like: Well they have to conform to the laws (same as in the USA)... So no sects are not illegal in belgium, they can't be declared illegal as long as they conform to the laws like anywhere else on earth. And as I said, scientology *is not* illegal in belgium and it is *in practice* not in theory. No if you rant about the laws it's a totally different subject and you should not conflate the two. Regards, Quentin - change conceptions of marriage - change conceptions of family - import for example its sacred ceremonial brew from South America, that has a controlled substance in it for thousands of years - want more appropriate economic frameworks for taxation for their conceptions of groups and individuals (why not marriages, as Judith Butler often put forward, between 3,4,5 or more partners, if their financial strategy and survival is solid with every partner consenting? Today: If a community of six partners works and lives together, hopefully they pair off to 3 males and 3 females, and still they would be taxed as 3 couples) - or simply make too much money: the western democracy rears its totalitarian face; less obvious than in North Korea, but let's stop telling ourselves stories about our democracy vs. China etc. We have learned nothing from totalitarian times and wars. Just because we hide the totalitarian tendencies in different judicial spots of cultural prejudice, doesn't mean freedom of religion. A Rastafarian wanting some of his sacred herb in France: fat chance, if he were to cite his religious reasons in court. So yes, you can apply for official recognition of your religion if you are interested in playing poker in pairs with plastic money beside your bed. Sorry, prohibition applies here too. So yes, alternate religious groupings are in practice illegal in Western Europe, if not on paper. PGC Quentin or does the government have some standard (numbers?) by which they automatically get recognized? Do they have to file some statement of doctrine/theology/dogma with the government so that it can be determined whether a group is a splinter sect or a different religion? Is Mormonism recognized? Brent The result is that sect become secret societies, so it is even harder to get rid of them, or for adherent to ever been able to get out of the influence. It is a real social dramatic problem. Then corruption makes also some sect still developing, like notably scientology. Bruno -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Arbitrarily. basically great known religion are accepted (the Abramanic one and, Hinduism, Buddhism). With the other you have to be careful when recruiting, and try to look like an association without financial interests. Typically a sect will be considered as such if people complain on sectarian activity, the most typical one being the subtraction of the children from the parents. Do they have to apply, or does the government have some standard (numbers?) by which they automatically get recognized? Do they have to file some statement of doctrine/theology/dogma with the government so that it can be determined whether a group is a splinter sect or a different religion? Is Mormonism recognized? It is not. Now if there are enough people adhering, and if the religion is widespread in some places, they can have a chance. Most people accept this state of affair, because we do have an history of bad sects leading to collective suicide. Scientology has oscillated between some form of acceptance and reject. Eventually, when too much people complains, like it has been the case for scientology, the government get its attention turned on them, and they disintegrate the sect, which sometimes come back with another name. Jehovah witness are tolerated because they are numerous, and considered as a variant of christians. Most male members were sent to jail, though, because they refused the military service, when it was obligatory for all. Bruno Brent The result is that sect become secret societies, so it is even harder to get rid of them, or for adherent to ever been able to get out of the influence. It is a real social dramatic problem. Then corruption makes also some sect still developing, like notably scientology. Bruno -- 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?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:11, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not illegal, some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can be). But for example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) OK. With enough money on the table, anything is legal in Belgium, and many countries. but they are often brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think). Also, I am talking about the legislation I knew about many years ago. Maybe today they focus only on sectarian behavior (which would be more reasonable). Bruno Quentin or does the government have some standard (numbers?) by which they automatically get recognized? Do they have to file some statement of doctrine/theology/dogma with the government so that it can be determined whether a group is a splinter sect or a different religion? Is Mormonism recognized? Brent The result is that sect become secret societies, so it is even harder to get rid of them, or for adherent to ever been able to get out of the influence. It is a real social dramatic problem. Then corruption makes also some sect still developing, like notably scientology. Bruno -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/7/2013 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not illegal, some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can be). But for example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) but they are often brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think). Sorry to be frank, but if this is serious (I miss some joke), then it is naive: the mechanism that serves to monitor and regulate the founding of religions in Western Europe, is the same judicial tool to control and finally repress religious groups- by seemingly integrating them. The moment any of these groups moves to do things like: - change conceptions of marriage - change conceptions of family - import for example its sacred ceremonial brew from South America, that has a controlled substance in it for thousands of years - want more appropriate economic frameworks for taxation for their conceptions of groups and individuals (why not marriages, as Judith Butler often put forward, between 3,4,5 or more partners, if their financial strategy and survival is solid with every partner consenting? Today: If a community of six partners works and lives together, hopefully they pair off to 3 males and 3 females, and still they would be taxed as 3 couples) - or simply make too much money: the western democracy rears its totalitarian face; less obvious than in North Korea, but let's stop telling ourselves stories about our democracy vs. China etc. We have learned nothing from totalitarian times and wars. Just because we hide the totalitarian tendencies in different judicial spots of cultural prejudice, doesn't mean freedom of religion. A Rastafarian wanting some of his sacred herb in France: fat chance, if he were to cite his religious reasons in court. One can invent a religion and cite it for anything from eating hallucinogenic mushrooms to burning Jews. In the U.S. the general rule is that a legal prohibition must serve a secular purpose (not be directed specifically at a religion) and laws apply equally to everyone. So if your religion says you can beat women who show their face in public, that's just too bad for your religion. So yes, you can apply for official recognition of your religion if you are interested in playing poker in pairs with plastic money beside your bed. Sorry, prohibition applies here too. So yes, alternate religious groupings are in practice illegal in Western Europe, if not on paper. PGC So what's the advantage of being recognized? Will some authority prevent you praying at a shrine or from reading your sacred text if you're not recognized? Will you get some tax advantage if you are? And when a religion is recognized that must imply that it is somehow defined. How is that done? And how finely are religions defined...is Christianity recognized as one religion, or do they distinguish Catholics from Baptists from Mormons? This all seems impossibly messy. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/7/2013 8:23 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not illegal, some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can be). But for example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) but they are often brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think). Sorry to be frank, but if this is serious (I miss some joke), then it is naive: the mechanism that serves to monitor and regulate the founding of religions in Western Europe, is the same judicial tool to control and finally repress religious groups- by seemingly integrating them. The moment any of these groups moves to do things like: Well they have to conform to the laws (same as in the USA)... So no sects are not illegal in belgium, they can't be declared illegal as long as they conform to the laws like anywhere else on earth. And as I said, scientology *is not* illegal in belgium and it is *in practice* not in theory. No if you rant about the laws it's a totally different subject and you should not conflate the two. Why? Because religious beliefs have nothing to do with judicial concepts? Our judicial marriage model has nothing to do with the Christian conception of marriage? There is no freedom of religion, You seem to jump from there are some restrictions on practices that claimed to be religious, to there is NO freedom of religion. Is it your position that freedom of religion only exists when every practice called 'religion' by its adherents is permitted? I hope you don't have freedom of religion for Aztecs. no freedom of thought, no legality of sects that stray from Western European Christian-Secular legal conceptions = this is conflated via history, so don't blame the messenger á la thou shalt not conflate... also you take this conflation for granted in arbitrary manner suiting your argument, but not when I raise religious freedom issues + you legitimize via because they conform to the laws like everywhere else on earth, which is not an argument. Discriminatory laws have been passed before and continue to be passed. The legality of sects you cite is peanuts given to caged animals, to be a bit hyperbolic :) The freedom of religion you seek is like letting the lions run free in the zoo - to be a little hyperbolic. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 8:23 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not illegal, some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can be). But for example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) but they are often brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think). Sorry to be frank, but if this is serious (I miss some joke), then it is naive: the mechanism that serves to monitor and regulate the founding of religions in Western Europe, is the same judicial tool to control and finally repress religious groups- by seemingly integrating them. The moment any of these groups moves to do things like: Well they have to conform to the laws (same as in the USA)... So no sects are not illegal in belgium, they can't be declared illegal as long as they conform to the laws like anywhere else on earth. And as I said, scientology *is not* illegal in belgium and it is *in practice* not in theory. No if you rant about the laws it's a totally different subject and you should not conflate the two. Why? Because religious beliefs have nothing to do with judicial concepts? Our judicial marriage model has nothing to do with the Christian conception of marriage? There is no freedom of religion, You seem to jump from there are some restrictions on practices that claimed to be religious, to there is NO freedom of religion. Is it your position that freedom of religion only exists when every practice called 'religion' by its adherents is permitted? I hope you don't have freedom of religion for Aztecs. Yes, that is what I am after Brent. You want me to take this seriously? Ok: you got me. Should I step outside put my hands on the car now, or what? Damn it! I was so close to world domination, and then Brent stepped in... DAMN YOU BRENT :) no freedom of thought, no legality of sects that stray from Western European Christian-Secular legal conceptions = this is conflated via history, so don't blame the messenger á la thou shalt not conflate... also you take this conflation for granted in arbitrary manner suiting your argument, but not when I raise religious freedom issues + you legitimize via because they conform to the laws like everywhere else on earth, which is not an argument. Discriminatory laws have been passed before and continue to be passed. The legality of sects you cite is peanuts given to caged animals, to be a bit hyperbolic :) The freedom of religion you seek is like letting the lions run free in the zoo - to be a little hyperbolic. I just don't like to confuse necessary and possible in absolute reductive sense, particularly when considering danger in a broad sense, which you do in every line here. I am not being hyperbolic this time. PGC Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 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
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: There might be confusion between necessary and possible dangers. If there is, you haven't cleared it up. Necessary danger: It’s legal for your neighbor to walk on to your property and shoot you for emotional reasons or it’s legal to burn a minority on racial grounds etc. What's 'necessary' about either one of those events? First, if it were legal it would still be extremely unlikely (my neighbor likes me) and certainly no necessary. Second, it can happen even though it is illegal. So it's a possible danger - but not necessitated by anything. Possible danger: eating hallucinogenic mushrooms or driving a car (more die of the latter on % basis). These involve some degree of danger, so you are required to meet certain criteria and get a license to drive a car and there are various rules for traffic to reduce the degree of danger. That more people die of car accidents than eating hallucinogenic mushrooms is not really to the point. Many more people drive and ride in cars that eat hallucinogenic mushrooms and they thereby accomplish many things useful to society as well as too themselves, while of hallucinating is of dubious value. In any case eating hallucinogenic mushrooms is widely tolerated in the U.S. and it's not even clear that it is illegal under federal law, independent of any religious claims. Beating people in public/private again: necessary, forced harm; no matter how you look at it. Smoking a herb: possibly, depends on how you look at it. “A secular purpose” is a nice ruse, because it is “theology-free”, right? Yes it is. It's not dependent on any ultimate foundation of the universe (per Bruno's definition of 'theology') or even any agreement about what that might be. It only depends on the public subjective non-religious values of society as expressed in their laws. That's what 'secular' means. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: “A secular purpose” is a nice ruse, because it is “theology-free”, right? Yes it is. It's not dependent on any ultimate foundation of the universe (per Bruno's definition of 'theology') or even any agreement about what that might be. It only depends on the public subjective non-religious values of society as expressed in their laws. That's what 'secular' means. By what mechanism does a value become non-religious? How did marriage become secular for instance? Can you define non-religious values? I can where religions are certified by the state. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: After a experiment has been completed the Many World's Interpretation can give some people, including me, a intuitive feel of what just happened, The analogous experiment in the UDA is pressing the button and seeing what City you now find yourself. ^ ^^ Yep it's true, the pee pee proof can not be explained without the use of ambiguous pronouns to hide behind. I did it more than once. You miss the point: you know that whoever you can feel to be in the immediate future---after pushing the button, you (whoever you have become) will see only one city, making your statement non sensical. So I would say MW is a theory and not an interpretation. OK, but it's a theory that has not been proven; An applied theory is never proven. And MW is a theorem in QM. It follows from the linearity of the evolution and of the tensor product. Superpositions never disappear. QM is not proven (except from comp), but the existence of the moon has never been proven. To prove happens only in theories, and all theories are assumed. We have only evidences or refutation. don't get me wrong I rather like the theory but that doesn't make it true. Godel thought that all arithmetical statements are either true or they are not, but he also knew there are true arithmetical statements that can never be proven to be true. So maybe that's also the case for statements about physics and cosmology, maybe many worlds is true but there is no way to ever experimentally demonstrate it. On the other hand maybe tomorrow somebody will find a experimental way to prove it. I know of no good explanation of why quantum computers should work under single-universe interpretations. And at least so far quantum computers haven't done much of anything except to find the factors of the number 15. We'll talk again when somebody makes a real quantum computer, but I don't see what they or many worlds has to do with the pee pee proof. Comp implies MW, or many-dreams, and that physics emerges, in a precise mathematical way, from that. We have already an ortholattice structure at the sigma_1 bottom. You criticize without studying. You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making some measurement. Yes. You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. That can make sense, but but then you are me. And that does not make the relative indeterminacy disappear, because John Clark, in Helsinki, is wrong if he predicts that he *will* see both W and M. He will see only W, or only M, as seeing is a first person view, and that first person view will not been duplicated *from his first person view, only from a third person view, but we do this since we are amoeba. So if your prediction is John will see W and M, both the first person obtained will refute it. because you have been duplicated. It is beyond dispute that you has indeed been duplicated, so if that personal pronoun is used in a question with no additional information on which you We have already agreed that you are both, because you are duplicated. But without adding telepathy you cannot know in advance which one you will feel to be. is being referred to then no answer can be given because the question is ambiguous. However Bruno in his pee pee proof claims to have discovered something new about prediction but he is wrong about that. Third person indeterminacy is not what he claims as some new prediction. Bruno claims to have found a new sort of indeterminacy unrelated to quantum indeterminacy or the sort of uncertainty Godel and Turing dealt with. Bruno's claims are untrue. So what is your algorithm of prediction? W and M has been refuted, but you stick repeating that it is untrue, without given any algorithm which is not refuted immediately by BOTH copies (showing that the pronouns' ambiguity is just irrelevant). you abandoned the proof at step 3 out of the 8. One does not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. You deny elementary common sense, and avoid the definitions given when we single that out. No one here is able to make any sense of your refutation. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 06 Feb 2013, at 03:42, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making some measurement. Yes. You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. because you have been duplicated. It is beyond dispute that you has indeed been duplicated, so if that personal pronoun is used in a question with no additional information on which you is being referred to then no answer can be given because the question is ambiguous. It seems that part of the problem is that in English you is both second person singular *and* plural. Being from the south I suggest that the experiment be expressed as You have been duplicated and y'all see Washington and Moscow. That's correct, as we have already discussed many times. But then with QM MW, you must say y' will all see the electron being everywhere. So the QM-MW and the comp indeterminacy comes from the fact that although we can say, in the 3p views on the 1p views that y'all see W and M, that seeing will be disconnected, and individual. If not the 1p views are just eliminated, and neither QM without collapse, nor Mechanism makes any sense. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. The result is that sect become secret societies, so it is even harder to get rid of them, or for adherent to ever been able to get out of the influence. It is a real social dramatic problem. Then corruption makes also some sect still developing, like notably scientology. Bruno Brent or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)? Craig 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6070 - Release Date: 01/31/13 -- 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?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, or does the government have some standard (numbers?) by which they automatically get recognized? Do they have to file some statement of doctrine/theology/dogma with the government so that it can be determined whether a group is a splinter sect or a different religion? Is Mormonism recognized? Brent The result is that sect become secret societies, so it is even harder to get rid of them, or for adherent to ever been able to get out of the influence. It is a real social dramatic problem. Then corruption makes also some sect still developing, like notably scientology. Bruno -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be recognized by the government. If not they are classified as sect, and are forbidden (like scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply the case. I'm curious. How do they get recognized? Do they have to apply, They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not illegal, some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can be). But for example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) but they are often brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think). Quentin or does the government have some standard (numbers?) by which they automatically get recognized? Do they have to file some statement of doctrine/theology/dogma with the government so that it can be determined whether a group is a splinter sect or a different religion? Is Mormonism recognized? Brent The result is that sect become secret societies, so it is even harder to get rid of them, or for adherent to ever been able to get out of the influence. It is a real social dramatic problem. Then corruption makes also some sect still developing, like notably scientology. Bruno -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? What about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas (hey dogma is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of christianity, why would you call yourself a christian ?? I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. The major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, That is not my view. I am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? Are there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about? I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I could call an existential force, a reality maker... Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense. But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable answers, religions are not about seeking truth, it is just shut up and believe. Regards, Quentin then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God?
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 03 Feb 2013, at 19:58, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 17:10, Jason Resch wrote: Very nice post Bruno. I found your points convincing and informative. Thanks Jason. I appreciate. I really don't know what happens with John K Clark. At least John K Clark answers mails, and the contradiction can be made public. Some other people have not been so polite. Is there any one on the list who understood Clark's point, and would like to defend it? When I first saw the UDA I paused at step 3 as well, and raised the point on the list that both perspectives are experienced and that these experience could rightly be said to belong to the same person. I think you replied that Chalmers had said the same thing and also that he said it would imply that we are everyone. The notion of a universal self, however, is advanced and using it here at step 3 is in a sense skipping ahead. I think the reasoning on duplicates eventually leads to the realization on the self, which John Clark may had already reached with his writing of short stories on the subject of duplicates. I think I know what he means when he says I experience both, but he is using I in a different sense than you mean it. I think he is using I in the broad sense of the universal self rather than the immediacy of here and now and what is it my mind presently has access to? Like a split brain patient experiencing both sides of the screen, but one hemisphere of the brain not remembering the other hemisphere's experience, you could in the same sense say John Clark is presently experiencing both W and M, but suffers from the same amnesia/loss of access of a split brain patient. Yes. Indeed. Someone (Lee) made a similar point, and i think agreed that this entails that we are already all the same person, like the same amoeba, or the universal self, but John did not reply when I asked him if that was his view. Then it is also not relevant for the first person indeterminacy as it concerns the next possible first person experience about the result of an experiment (like pushing on a button, and looking which city we feel to be). Despite that I share this broad sense of self, I came to realize my problem with step 3 came down to. Good. It is frequent that some people takes time to get the first person indeterminacy. I think most people eventually understand, but some people seems to be unable to acknowlegde it. I guess it is more a psychological problem than a problem of being able to reason or not. What I find most surprising about John's position is that he can use I in the same sense you mean in the UDA when referring to many- worlds thought experiments, but he refuses to use it in that same sense when it comes to duplication in the UDA. Yes. And he did become rather delirious when explaining to me and Quentin why. He introduced the non relevant distinction that in QM the doppelganger belongs to different universes, like if that could change the comp probability. It is a bit sad as being open to the QM MWI is normally a big help to get the comp MDI (many dreams). Also, he uses often the mind-brain identity thesis, which is already non sensical in MWI, and of course also in comp. But the worst is in his tone, which does not reflect that he is willing to think on those matter seriously, so he does look like a sort of priest of the materialist dogma, and at the same time he is not, as he said he was open to the idea that arithmetic might be the basic reality. That's what is rather weird. To be continued ... 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 03 Feb 2013, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The meaning of words can evolve. In this case I use the word theology in the old original sense, and even that sense still make sense for 70% of the Abramanic theology, despite adding more weird attributes. Like John you confirm my feeling that atheists defend the use of the word as it has been imposed to us, and not the more general concept which bring theologies in the first place. Using another world would not help in the comparative theological studies, including the comparaison with comp. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Jason Resch God is a word, and the meanings of words are established by use. So the word God can mean whatever you intend it to mean. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-04, 22:12:54 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net ?rote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? ?o choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. ?hy do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? ?hat about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? ? You say it is because it is the most popular. ?ven if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. ?ll the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. ? You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? ? The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all?hristians?efine God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. ? ? just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. ?he major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. ? Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. ?nd if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, That is not my view. ? am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most?theists?elieved (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? ?re there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about? ? then 70% of people use that same meaning. ? If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. ?s is the case between Gods of various religions. ?here are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. ?ou could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. ?erhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. ?hould science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? Because then we wouldn't know what God meant. ?f course like many words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. ?Automobile refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces. ?hat doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile. So then what are the universal properties of God? ?ou seem to shy away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self-inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most comfortably admit you disbelieve in. ?his is trivial though and I think we can do better. ?t is like a mathematician proving there are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives up deciding to advance the field by proving anything else. In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God cannot exist, you
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? What about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas (hey dogma is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of christianity, why would you call yourself a christian ?? So Thomas Aquinas was not a christian, because he understood the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence. I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. The major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, That is not my view. I am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? Are there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about? I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I could call an existential force, a reality maker... Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense. But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable answers, religions are not about seeking truth, it is just shut up and believe. My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding. A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say they both have some belief in numbers. The fact that many people might have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to say there is nothing of any interest in that field. Jason Regards, Quentin then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: snip I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I could call an existential force, a reality maker... Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense. But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable answers, religions are not about seeking truth, it is just shut up and believe. My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding. A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say they both have some belief in numbers. The fact that many people might have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to say there is nothing of any interest in that field. I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding can only maintain and spread the misconception. It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we tackle theology with the scientific method. I have used the term theology because I have been qualified as such, by vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like I am interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious (answer: that's theology), or even just I am interested in modal logic (comment: that's theology). Eventually I think there were right, and to prevent such easy dismissal I have called that theology. Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement science has shown that we are machine, and a big part of what I have done should explain why this is not a scientific statement, and why saying yes to the doctor asks fro some act of faith. Then the theory of consciousness makes it a basic and common mystical experience, which takes the form of an automated or instinctive bet on a reality. No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists, and marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they were just jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem that atheists seem to have with the use of the scientific attitude in theology makes me suspects that they were perhaps more serious in their religious dogma no God!. In fact they meant probably no God, (with quotes), but they did not say, as they know this is only vocabulary. The idea that matter is an hypothesis makes also some people nervous. But in science we should never make any ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment are private matter. Bruno Jason Regards, Quentin then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? Because then we wouldn't know what God meant. Of course like many words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. Automobile refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces. That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile. So then what are the universal properties of God? You seem to shy away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self- inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most comfortably admit you disbelieve in. This is trivial though and I think we can do better. It is like a mathematician proving there are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives up
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:59:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Quentin, I agree with you, if that's what religion is. But it is not generally like that. Instead, you are talking about a cult. The distinction is questionable. I would say that all religions begin as cults and that all cults become religions given enough time and popularity. Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. Same with religions that become popular too suddenly. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-02-05, 11:42:46 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: snip I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I could call an existential force, a reality maker... Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense. But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable answers, religions are not about seeking truth, it is just shut up and believe. My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding. A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say they both have some belief in numbers. The fact that many people might have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to say there is nothing of any interest in that field. I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding can only maintain and spread the misconception. It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we tackle theology with the scientific method. I have used the term theology because I have been qualified as such, by vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like I am interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious (answer: that's theology), or even just I am interested in modal logic (comment: that's theology). Eventually I think there were right, and to prevent such easy dismissal I have called that theology. Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement science has shown that we are machine, and a big part of what I have done should explain why this is not a scientific statement, and why saying yes to the doctor asks fro some act of faith. Then the theory of consciousness makes it a basic and common mystical experience, which takes the form of an automated or instinctive bet on a reality. No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists, and marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they were just jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem that atheists seem to have with the use of the scientific attitude in theology makes me suspects that they were perhaps more serious in their religious dogma no God!. In fact they meant probably no God, (with quotes), but they did not say, as they know this is only vocabulary. The idea that matter is an hypothesis makes also some people nervous. But in science we should never make any ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment are private matter. Bruno Jason Regards, Quentin then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? Because then we wouldn't know what God meant. Of course
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)? Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/5/2013 6:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? What about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas (hey dogma is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of christianity, why would you call yourself a christian ?? So Thomas Aquinas was not a christian, because he understood the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence. He understood there could be a conflict and he proceeded to redefine 'omnipotence' to meand 'do anything not self-contradictory', then you could invoke the 'nature of God' to say that some things, e.g. sinning, would be contradictory. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the right plate, not the left side and the right side. So which is it? Jason -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/5/2013 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making some measurement. Yes. You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. because you have been duplicated. It is beyond dispute that you has indeed been duplicated, so if that personal pronoun is used in a question with no additional information on which you is being referred to then no answer can be given because the question is ambiguous. It seems that part of the problem is that in English you is both second person singular *and* plural. Being from the south I suggest that the experiment be expressed as You have been duplicated and y'all see Washington and Moscow. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. Brent or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)? Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6070 - Release Date: 01/31/13 -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 10:00:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. A religion is just a cult with good PR. It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition. And all that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents. But legitimacy?? I'm not sure how that world can be attached to religion. Not necessarily a government recognition, but community acceptance. Something enjoyed by Episcopalians but not the Satanic church. Some Wiccans seem to be seeking a more conventional status within the community, i.e petitioning the military to provide a choice for Wiccan symbols on gravestones. Craig Brent or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)? Craig 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6070 - Release Date: 01/31/13 -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. The major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? Because then we wouldn't know what God meant. Of course like many words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. Automobile refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces. That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile. This is not to say the word is meaningless. There are commonalities between different religions and belief systems. In nearly all, it can be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation. Whether it is the Platonic God, Can you cite Plato referring to such a being? the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic God, this property is almost universal. In this respect, it is perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth. Under Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism. Except that all those gods are persons. Arithmetical truth is (a) ill defined and (b) not a person. Brent Would we be better off had we abandoned the word Earth or World merely because we discovered it is round instead of flat, instead of amending our notion of what the Earth or World really is? The Earth is defined ostensively. If we could define god(s) ostensively then it would make sense to say we discovered it's properties were different than we had supposed. Brent Jason -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 02 Feb 2013, at 09:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. That's not accurate. I am happy to consider other notions of gods, but they are all persons and I don't believe any of them exist. The meaning you want to assign to God is the ultimate foundation of the world, which I would call urstuff or something similar. I disagree. I use God to avoid stuff, as we already know it is not stuffy. Read the greeks. read the taoists, read many idealist school of buddhism. The theory you have put forward that the world is emergent from the computations of a UD doesn't make the fundamental a person It is an open problem. and so I can't see any reason to call it a god of God of even ONE (since it is very numerous). ? Arithmetical truth is unique. The standard model of arithmetic is unique. And we can't really define it, without using more intuitions, on sets and infinities. I did provide a definition of God: what is responsible for everything, and can't be named by its creatures. See the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus for more. Even Plotinus was cautious about the personhood of the ONE, and about its possible will. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What I find most surprising about John's position is that he can use I in the same sense you mean in the UDA when referring to many-worlds thought experiments, but he refuses to use it in that same sense when it comes to duplication in the UDA. After a experiment has been completed the Many World's Interpretation can give some people, including me, a intuitive feel of what just happened, The analogous experiment in the UDA is pressing the button and seeing what City you now find yourself. (Don't bother replying to this unless you make some new realization; we've gone over this a dozen times already.) as opposed to just crunching the numbers. However when it comes to prediction Many Worlds is no better than Copenhagen and Copenhagen did come first; and that's why Many Worlds is not the dominant explanation in the scientific community, although it's popularity is increasing. Many worlds requires that gravity be quantized, where the CI does not (according to http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html). So I would say MW is a theory and not an interpretation. Also, I know of no good explanation of why quantum computers should work under single-universe interpretations. In any case, your undermining of many-worlds is only a red herring for the real problem, which is this: You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making some measurement. Despite the fact that according to MW there were multiple results and you were duplicated. You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment because you have been duplicated. There is an inconsistency somewhere in there. However Bruno in his pee pee proof claims to have discovered something new about prediction but he is wrong about that. Third person indeterminacy is not what he claims as some new prediction. It is only a building block to see how arithmetical realism can explain the appearance of the physical universe. Of course you would not know this because you abandoned the proof at step 3 out of the 8. And to make matters worse Bruno is pushing on a string, he's trying to establish a chain of identity from the present to the future and that's never going to work, you've got to do it from the present to the past. Reverse causality experiments in QM has shown that your existence is consistent with multiple pastes as well. In any case, this is not a problem if you accepted the survival with a digital substitution of your brain which was an explicitly assumption before any steps of the proof. If you reject this assumption, it is not a flaw of the proof, you just don't believe in the computational theory of mind. I don't know what my future identity will be, maybe tomorrow I'll become a rodeo clown, maybe I'll be elected Pope, maybe I'll be dead I just don't know, but I know who I was yesterday. Even that is not a given. Jason -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? What about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. The major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, That is not my view. I am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? Are there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about? then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? Because then we wouldn't know what God meant. Of course like many words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. Automobile refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces. That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile. So then what are the universal properties of God? You seem to shy away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self-inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most comfortably admit you disbelieve in. This is trivial though and I think we can do better. It is like a mathematician proving there are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives up deciding to advance the field by proving anything else. In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God cannot exist, you end up doing science and advancing the field of theology. You could prove logically some possible properties of God are mutually inconsistent (e.g., God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient, or both omnipotent and omnibenevolent). And with that advancement in understanding you gain
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/4/2013 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What I find most surprising about John's position is that he can use I in the same sense you mean in the UDA when referring to many-worlds thought experiments, but he refuses to use it in that same sense when it comes to duplication in the UDA. After a experiment has been completed the Many World's Interpretation can give some people, including me, a intuitive feel of what just happened, The analogous experiment in the UDA is pressing the button and seeing what City you now find yourself. (Don't bother replying to this unless you make some new realization; we've gone over this a dozen times already.) as opposed to just crunching the numbers. However when it comes to prediction Many Worlds is no better than Copenhagen and Copenhagen did come first; and that's why Many Worlds is not the dominant explanation in the scientific community, although it's popularity is increasing. Many worlds requires that gravity be quantized, where the CI does not (according to http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html ). What gave you the idea CI allowed non-quantized gravity? It isn't a question of interpretation: if gravity is a classical field then it could be used to evade the uncertainty principle. So I would say MW is a theory and not an interpretation. Also, I know of no good explanation of why quantum computers should work under single-universe interpretations. Because they traverse all allowed Feynman paths. Brent Thirty one years ago, Dick Feynman told me about his 'sum over histories' version of quantum mechanics. The electron does anything it likes', he said. It goes in any direction at any speed, forward or backward in time, however it likes, and then you add up all the amplitudes and it gives you the wave-function. I said to him, You're crazy. But he wasn't. --- Freeman J. Dyson, 'Some Strangeness in the Proportion' 1980 -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/4/2013 7:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? What about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? Probably - although I'm not informed on the latter. You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. No doubt. Dawkins only places himself at 9 on a 1-to-10 scale of disbelief in the god of theism. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? Agnostic may mean giving equal roughly equal credence to every position. Agnostic may also mean the position that nothing can be known about the existence of god(s). The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. So what makes the Christians? I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. The major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, That is not my view. I am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? Are there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about? You seem to be confounding disbelieve in and failing to believe in. To believe in zero gods is ambiguous since it might mean asserting There are no gods or There are no gods that I believe in. Compare There are no aliens on other planets and There are no aliens on another planet that I believe in. then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well, I am not an atheist. Sorry to hear about your mind virus, but don't despair, even rabies can sometimes be cured. I am an agnostic. I think that a serious scientist has to be agnostic on any ontological commitment, be it God or Matter. Then with comp I explain that Matter (primitive matter) does not make much sense, and that physicalism cannot work. Evolution have programmed us to believe, or to take very seriously our environment, Yes because that program works. And Evolution also programmed us to believe almost everything adults told us when we were children and no doubt somebody told you that atheist were bad people so although you've managed to free yourself from the God idea (and I congratulate you for that) you still want to make the I am not an atheist noise with your mouth so you redefine the word God and thus all related words like atheist. I just do research. My personal belief are private. My point is that the real debate is between the Aristotelian view, where Matter is primary and everything else emerges from material combinations, and the platonist view, where matter is secondary and emerge itself, statistically, in the mind of arithmetical beings. Today both Christians (with exceptions) and atheists (with fewer exception) have adopted the Aristotelian view, more or less imposed to us by authority since 1500 years, by the Church, but also by many kind of materialist philosophies. What do you believe in? Well, I believe that Tallahassee is the capital of Florida for one thing. I believe in all sorts of other things too, I just don't believe in God. It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. In the machine theology god is arithmetical truth, and I am pretty sure that you do believe in that God. It is a good notion of God for the machines (as seen from outside, as the machine itself will not been able to even define arithmetical truth). Indeed it obeys to the two main fundamental attributes: it is not definable, and it is responsible for the machine dreams (from which the sharble physical realities should emerge (as provable or arguable (at least) once e take comp seriously enough. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and Guilty as charged. for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. I throw out all Gods who are beings that are responsible for the multiverse; I don't throw out a hypothetical vastly powerful being, Good. With comp, arithmetical truth is enough (even a tiny part of it). I'm a agnostic on that, but such a being would not be a God just a comic book superhero or supervillan. ? Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually a christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter. In my opinion Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived, certainly nobody has harmed the subject more. No. It was an excellent physicist. Perhaps the first one. He was wrong basically on all points. OK. But this we can know thanks to the fact that he made precise statements and serious research. He was a good theologian, he invented logic and modal logic notably to argue in metaphysics and theology. But he seems to be also wrong, in that field, at least with respect to the comp hyp. God looks like Santa Klaus to me too, and that is exactly why theology has no more substance to it than Santaklausology. This is so ridiculous. I don't see why you believe Santaklausology is more ridiculous than theology, one is about a invisible man who lives at the north pole and the other about a invisible man who lives in the sky. Read books written by O'meara, on the revival of Pythagoras with the neoplatonists, or read his book on Plotinus. Study the Platonists theology, because comp, in which you believe, implies us to bactrack a lot, which is not hard to guess given the lasting use of argument of authority in the field. You can' compare the concept of God in Plato with a sort of Santa Klaus in the sky. It is pretty ridiculous to throw out a concept because of a word. It's even more ridiculous to throw out a concept but stay loyal to the word for it. Because it is the one used by most, before and around Christians. Notably by Plato, on which I try to point. you're going to have to invent a new word for it, let's call it Fluberblast. The fact that you reject one which is the quite standard term in neoplatonism shows how much to
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/3/13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by God. Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? This is not to say the word is meaningless. There are commonalities between different religions and belief systems. In nearly all, it can be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation. Whether it is the Platonic God, the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic God, this property is almost universal. In this respect, it is perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth. Under Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism. Would we be better off had we abandoned the word Earth or World merely because we discovered it is round instead of flat, instead of amending our notion of what the Earth or World really is? Jason -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. That's not accurate. I am happy to consider other notions of gods, but they are all persons and I don't believe any of them exist. The meaning you want to assign to God is the ultimate foundation of the world, which I would call urstuff or something similar. The theory you have put forward that the world is emergent from the computations of a UD doesn't make the fundamental a person and so I can't see any reason to call it a god of God of even ONE (since it is very numerous). 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi meekerdb God is not in spacetime, which is extended, so he doesn't physically exist. He is intelligence, etc., which is not extended, exists beyond spacetime, and is nonphysical. You don't have to think of God as a person, or believe in any fairy tales (whatever they are, I don't know) unless you think of the One as a person. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 03:08:08 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. That's not accurate. I am happy to consider other notions of gods, but they are all persons and I don't believe any of them exist. The meaning you want to assign to God is the ultimate foundation of the world, which I would call urstuff or something similar. The theory you have put forward that the world is emergent from the computations of a UD doesn't make the fundamental a person and so I can't see any reason to call it a god of God of even ONE (since it is very numerous). 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. Then what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about science or mathematics or philosophy, or are we just arguing about first grade vocabulary? Good question. You are the one criticizing the use of some word, despite, like we do in science, the key words are redefine each time we use them. but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, I don't understand how you can disagree with the definition of a word, especially if it's the same definition used by 99% of the people on the planet who wish to communicate. Today, in Occident, perhaps. the term God as a lasting use in philosophy; as others have point out. In comp, it is the difference between G and G* which relates the Platonist god , truth, with arithmetic. It is tha fact, many thanks to Tarski theorem, that the concept of arithmetical truth share the main attribute of God: like non nameability, ineffability, roots of everything, everywhere and everytime presence/relevance, and even more with the God of the neoplatonists (simplicity, origin or the Noùs, origin of the souls, origin of the illusion of matter, and why it obeys a spurious calculus (Plotinus). The similarities are striking, and Plotis get quite close to comp with its chapter on the Numbers. God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation You believe that your pee pee argument proves that numbers are the ultimate explanation of everything, it doesn't prove that It does not prove that for someone confusing and and or or first person and third person. You should find a flaw to assess what you say here, but you just stop doing the experience. To verify the statistics, you have to put yourself at the place of each copies, but for unknown reason you fail to do that simple exercise. but even if it did that would not be God as the word is commonly used. And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. This is like throwing genetics because some people are wrong on it. It is not rational. I tend to interpret this by the fact that you want the whole field of theology being spurious, but it seems clear you have never read neoplatonists, or just Plato and Aristotle on Gods and God. Numbers are not a being much less the supreme being, numbers did not will the universe into existence and numbers do not change human destiny or the way the universe operates on a whim influenced buy prayer. ... and you don't red me. the God notion raised by comp is NOT a number. Arithmetical truth is NOT definable in arithmetic. I have insist on this all along. You betray that you did not read the post, and that your critics is based on prejudices, like your critics on theology in general. Numbers are not the source of all moral authority, and nobody thinks that numbers are deserving of worship, and nobody prays to the integers. Indeed. Comp makes this into a blasphemy. God, in mechanism, is not a number, at all. Nor is matter, nor is consciousness. You could of course personally redefine the word so that God and numbers are synonyms, I could not. I have explained this in detail. and in the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that you manage to convinced others to adopt this new linguistic convention you would have succeeded in explaining absolutely nothing about how the world works, you'd have just changed English, one of about 7000 human languages used on this planet. And then you'd need to invent a new word for the old meaning of the word God and then people like me would say of course I believe in God but I don't believe in Fluberblast and then over time people would develop a emotional attachment to the word Fluberblast and insist on redefining the word and give it such a amorphous all encompassing sloppy meaning that everybody would have to say I believe in Fluberblast. Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually a christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter. At ll level, you seems to defend the Aristotelian theology/theory of everything. Like many atheists you want us to believe that this is the only rational option. But comp explains in detail why this can't work, and to avoid this, you have to do confuse 1p and 3p at some point, and we have shown you were. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, Really? Yes really. It looks like Santa Klaus to me. God looks like Santa Klaus to me too, and that is exactly why theology has no more substance to it than Santaklausology. This is so ridiculous. You know
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:14, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. same definition of the creator EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word God so when I say I don't believe in God it actually means something, and the meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say I don't believe in God but at least they know what I'm talking about. The usual answer here is that i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. I agree with you, but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, or even by the fairy tales popularly added to it. God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation which we are searching. It is the ultimate ensemble, or the ultimate reason for that ensemble. Then comp makes even clearer why such reason is related to many intuition conveyed in many texts inspired by people having mystical experience, or going through altered state of consciousness. In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when you say I do believe in God nobody knows what you mean and in fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally, when you say I do believe in God you don't know what you're talking about. It means that I believe that a theory of everything makes sense. It is a way for me to communicate that I am AGNOSTIC on the current paradigm which presuppose or assume (very often implicitly) the primary physical universe. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, Really? It looks like Santa Klaus to me. You know that both of us does not find such existence plasuible, or even capable of explaining anything. But comp explains that the assumption of a primary physical universe does not only NOT explain much more (it just compress information), but fails on the mind-body issue, so we have to use a term different from universe (which has physicalist connotation), and I use the term God, as it was used with that large and vague meaning for a millenium before it becomes a political tool of manipulation. But if you don't like that term I will use ONE with discussing with you, as you take the vocabulary too much seriously, imo. but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the word God . I search a TOE. Concentrate on the understanding, not the vocabulary. But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't understand some atheist just want to make the noise I do believe in God with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it means. I think that you have not understand the mind-body problem, from cognition to after-life, and the problem of the origin of the physical universe. Do you believe in a primary physical universe? Are you physicalist? same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions. Bullshit. I'm a atheist because a world that was intelligently designed We both have agreed that this does not make any sense, at least as an explanation. would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be resolved just like any other. Not really with comp. A machine cannot distinguish the result of some simple programs, and a random (or not ORACLE. That makes most conventional religion not interesting, as being irrefutable. And thus non scientific. That is why comp is interesting, as it is completely refutable. If your were willing to study step 4, you would be able to progress toward the understanding of that fact. You have not replied to my last refutation of your prediction algorithm. I was just asking what do you mean by grand concept, with the goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point. I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words, and away we go. You elude my simple question. What do you mean by grand concept? BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your predicting algorithm in self-duplication. I wasn't aware that I had a predicting algorithm in self- duplication, In the WM-duplication, with annihilation of the original you do have agreed on many
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:42:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. I admit there is a story (probably apocryphal) about Pythagoras killing a man for leaking the proof that the square root of 2 could not be expressed as a fraction. Wait, someone leaked that?!? Death to the infidel! Craig -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/31/2013 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem, The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what you mean. So you do assume the existence of a primitive or primitively material brain? That doesn't follow. It may be that minds and brains are necessarily linked, without assuming that either one is fundamental. Brent Are such brain Turing emulable? If yes, how do you predict the first person feeling of a person doing a physical measurement? You might study some book on the mind-body problem. Serious books makes clear that we have not yet solve the problem. Note that UDA, and especially MGA (which I will re-explain on the FOAR list) is by itself a formulation of the problem, in the mechanist frame. -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious people I wish it had but no. Such is the awesome virulence of the religious mind virus that there is nobody to my certain knowledge in which my arguments have caused a recovery. Statistically if you are infected at a early age a cure of the religious mind parasite is almost as rare as recovery from rabies. Even exchanging one virus (like Christianity) for another parasite (like Islam) is unusual. but I, and probably others on this list, find it rather unconvincing. If you agree with Martin Luther (and if you're a Christian you've got to) that Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding and that we should tear the eyes out of reason then I'm not surprised that my rational arguments failed to convince you because no rational argument could do that. You have imposed this blindness on yourself for one reason and one reason only, mommy and daddy told you to do it from the first day you learned language; there is quite simply no more to it than that. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:31, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Without religion, science is pseudo-religion That's OK with me. Religion is bullshit, We have discuss this. You confuse religion with clericalism. By saying gross statement like religion is bullshit you are favoring the clericalists and literalists. I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise. Same faith in the creation, same definition of the creator, same perpetual use of authoritative arguments, same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions. so pseudo-bullshit is better than pure, triple distilled, extra virgin, investment grade bullshit. How would you define grand for a concept? That depends on how you define define. And after that I'd like to know the definition of define define ; and after that [...] I was just asking what do you mean by grand concept, with the goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point. If you are interested in a theory of definition, by some good introductory book in logic, as this is has been well studied. BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your predicting algorithm in self-duplication. You seem to praise reason, so why do you act so much irrationally on that subject. Your attitude is perhaps impulsed by the fact that you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem, which is exactly what UDA shows it does not. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 27 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:09:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: I would like a semi-axiomatic definition of sensory, to make this more palatable. I try to get a theory of sense, and I can't take that notion for granted, even if I agree that from the 1p pov, it looks like primitive (but that the comp theory can already explained why). Sensory is primitive, Of course, in the comp theory, sensory is not primitive. It only feels like primitive, exactly like a part of matter looks like being primitive. Comp explains those feeling, except for a tiny part that it still explain has to remain unexplainable. but comp can't explain it because explanation is only a motive which seeks to translate one sensory experience into another sensory mode. That's correct, but this cannot been applied validly to refute comp. Similar remarks for what follows. Bruno It's not that you agree from the 1p POV, it is that you have no choice but to agree - all that your 1p POV consists of is sensory experience. There is nothing else that it can ever consist of, and of course there is no 3p POV except in the explanation of multiple 1p experiences. I think it's useful to talk about sensory experience as 'afferent phenomenology' or maybe 'private participation' (whereas motor or motive activity would be public-facing participation). Note that you can have a public experience in a dream, but the sense of realism of waking public experience is, under most conditions, more significant in comparison. Without the comparison, a dream can seem real, but usually being awake seems clearly different from a dream. I think that's not because of differences in the logic of the experiential content, but because of sub-personal and super-personal (unconscious) sensory connection. Sense is always the connection from one 1p state to another or from a 1p state to its 3p reflection; bridging the literal and the figurative (understanding), the figurative and the figurative (poetry), or the literal and the literal (physics), or even the figuratively literal (logic) and the literally figurative (math). Deleuze has some interesting things to say about sense - about how it exists on the surfaces rather than the depths. I would agree in the way that synapses are important neurological sites or the junctions of a transistor are important. I think that sense is the way that the depths from each other, and/or that division accumulates depth. They are the same thing, except that the surface is foreground-active from our empirical perspective as nested participants in timespace, while the surface is background- irrelevant from an absolute perspective as surfaces require timespace to manifest. Without timespace, at the absolute scale, there is no 3p as there is only a totality of depths. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- li...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:48:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:09:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: I would like a semi-axiomatic definition of sensory, to make this more palatable. I try to get a theory of sense, and I can't take that notion for granted, even if I agree that from the 1p pov, it looks like primitive (but that the comp theory can already explained why). Sensory is primitive, Of course, in the comp theory, sensory is not primitive. It only feels like primitive, exactly like a part of matter looks like being primitive. There's a difference though. Feeling can't feel like feeling if it isn't feeling. Matter can look primitive because matter is inferred from sensory-motor participation - we see public bodies as visual obstacles, we see surfaces and infer volumes, we hear obstructed volume levels, we feel tangible resistance to our touch and can ascribe massive qualities to it. All of these, combined with the consensus agreement of other peer perceivers contribute to a compelling sense of realism, which I would relate to my concepts of significance and perceptual inertia - meta-meta-feeling, sense with bass, like electricity with ground - orientation, and worldliness. You give away comp's weakness by saying that sense 'only feels like primitive', because feeling is already sense. It is actually comp which feels like it's primitive to another set of sensory-motor experiences, that of the verbal-logical thinker. Thought and logic are a special flavor of sense which is optimized to feign objectivity and hide the fact (i.e. Baudrillard's simulacra: a copy with no original: comp takes literally the anonymous impersona of arithmetic as the root of personal sense, rather than the peripheral extension of sense until apotheosis of self-denial). Comp explains those feeling, except for a tiny part that it still explain has to remain unexplainable. Comp doesn't explain any feeling. It explains that if there was a such thing as feeling, then comp has a place to theoretically put it. I maintain that this place is not the true home of feeling, but a sterile partition, an entombment of the almost-utterly-unconscious level of sense. but comp can't explain it because explanation is only a motive which seeks to translate one sensory experience into another sensory mode. That's correct, but this cannot been applied validly to refute comp. Similar remarks for what follows. You say it cannot be applied, but I see clearly that it must. Craig Bruno It's not that you agree from the 1p POV, it is that you have no choice but to agree - all that your 1p POV consists of is sensory experience. There is nothing else that it can ever consist of, and of course there is no 3p POV except in the explanation of multiple 1p experiences. I think it's useful to talk about sensory experience as 'afferent phenomenology' or maybe 'private participation' (whereas motor or motive activity would be public-facing participation). Note that you can have a public experience in a dream, but the sense of realism of waking public experience is, under most conditions, more significant in comparison. Without the comparison, a dream can seem real, but usually being awake seems clearly different from a dream. I think that's not because of differences in the logic of the experiential content, but because of sub-personal and super-personal (unconscious) sensory connection. Sense is always the connection from one 1p state to another or from a 1p state to its 3p reflection; bridging the literal and the figurative (understanding), the figurative and the figurative (poetry), or the literal and the literal (physics), or even the figuratively literal (logic) and the literally figurative (math). Deleuze has some interesting things to say about sense - about how it exists on the surfaces rather than the depths. I would agree in the way that synapses are important neurological sites or the junctions of a transistor are important. I think that sense is the way that the depths from each other, and/or that division accumulates depth. They are the same thing, except that the surface is foreground-active from our empirical perspective as nested participants in timespace, while the surface is background-irrelevant from an absolute perspective as surfaces require timespace to manifest. Without timespace, at the absolute scale, there is no 3p as there is only a totality of depths. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. same definition of the creator EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word God so when I say I don't believe in God it actually means something, and the meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say I don't believe in God but at least they know what I'm talking about. In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when you say I do believe in God nobody knows what you mean and in fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally, when you say I do believe in God you don't know what you're talking about. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the word God . But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't understand some atheist just want to make the noise I do believe in God with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it means. same perpetual use of authoritative arguments, So you think my arguments are reliable and trusted as being accurate and are the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon. Well I'm blushing, there not THAT good, someday sombody might do even better. same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions. Bullshit. I'm a atheist because a world that was intelligently designed would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be resolved just like any other. I was just asking what do you mean by grand concept, with the goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point. I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words, and away we go. I would humbly suggest that for efficient communication you buy yourself a dictionary, then you wouldn't need to ask people what obscure and little used words like grand and God mean, you could just look them up. that depends on how you define define. And after that I'd like to know the definition of define define ; and after that [...] If you are interested in a theory of definition, by some good introductory book in logic, as this is has been well studied. If I already knew what the word define meant then I wouldn't need such books, and if I didn't know the meaning then asking to define define would be like asking to klogknee klogknee. BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your predicting algorithm in self-duplication. I wasn't aware that I had a predicting algorithm in self-duplication, and I have no way of knowing if I should praise your rebuttal or condemn it because I don't know what on earth you're talking about. you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem, The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what you mean. which is exactly what UDA shows it does not. UDA? Oh yes, all that pee and pee pee stuff. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
John, Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious people but I, and probably others on this list, find it rather unconvincing. Jason On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. same definition of the creator EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word God so when I say I don't believe in God it actually means something, and the meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say I don't believe in God but at least they know what I'm talking about. In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when you say I do believe in God nobody knows what you mean and in fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally, when you say I do believe in God you don't know what you're talking about. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the word God . But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't understand some atheist just want to make the noise I do believe in God with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it means. same perpetual use of authoritative arguments, So you think my arguments are reliable and trusted as being accurate and are the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon. Well I'm blushing, there not THAT good, someday sombody might do even better. same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions. Bullshit. I'm a atheist because a world that was intelligently designed would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be resolved just like any other. I was just asking what do you mean by grand concept, with the goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point. I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words, and away we go. I would humbly suggest that for efficient communication you buy yourself a dictionary, then you wouldn't need to ask people what obscure and little used words like grand and God mean, you could just look them up. that depends on how you define define. And after that I'd like to know the definition of define define ; and after that [...] If you are interested in a theory of definition, by some good introductory book in logic, as this is has been well studied. If I already knew what the word define meant then I wouldn't need such books, and if I didn't know the meaning then asking to define define would be like asking to klogknee klogknee. BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your predicting algorithm in self-duplication. I wasn't aware that I had a predicting algorithm in self-duplication, and I have no way of knowing if I should praise your rebuttal or condemn it because I don't know what on earth you're talking about. you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem, The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what you mean. which is exactly what UDA shows it does not. UDA? Oh yes, all that pee and pee pee stuff. 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?hl=en. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. same definition of the creator EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word God so when I say I don't believe in God it actually means something, and the meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say I don't believe in God but at least they know what I'm talking about. In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when you say I do believe in God nobody knows what you mean and in fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally, when you say I do believe in God you don't know what you're talking about. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the word God . But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't understand some atheist just want to make the noise I do believe in God with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it means. same perpetual use of authoritative arguments, So you think my arguments are reliable and trusted as being accurate and are the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon. Well I'm blushing, there not THAT good, someday sombody might do even better. same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions. Bullshit. I'm a atheist because a world that was intelligently designed would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be resolved just like any other. I was just asking what do you mean by grand concept, with the goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point. I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words, and away we go. I would humbly suggest that for efficient communication you buy yourself a dictionary, then you wouldn't need to ask people what obscure and little used words like grand and God mean, you could just look them up. that depends on how you define define. And after that I'd like to know the definition of define define ; and after that [...] If you are interested in a theory of definition, by some good introductory book in logic, as this is has been well studied. If I already knew what the word define meant then I wouldn't need such books, and if I didn't know the meaning then asking to define define would be like asking to klogknee klogknee. BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your predicting algorithm in self-duplication. I wasn't aware that I had a predicting algorithm in self-duplication, and I have no way of knowing if I should praise your rebuttal or condemn it because I don't know what on earth you're talking about. you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem, The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what you mean. which is exactly what UDA shows it does not. UDA? Oh yes, all that pee and pee pee stuff. John K Clark I agree with Jason. I don't know how the bodily fluids relate to TOE's or the UDA apart from primary school usage of urination phonetic pun on the UDA's use of 1p, 3p observations and views, though. But for humor to work, the audience must find it funny. This gets no laughs from me, nor from Jason i would guess, and I gig comedy occasionally (badly, but I do...) Russell can probably explain this to me: how this sort of joke is closer to TOE then posing a question concerning possible future technological horizons. Because from what I can tell, this particular phenomenon is in the domain perception of physical body, but that's not totally right; it's more like psychological connotations of metabolic fluid deposits in discourse; which is of course, much more specific and much further afield from Ensemble Theories of Everything or Russell has A LOT of deleting to do. Everybody can label stuff with their own word fields and make funky assignments, re-frame stuff over and over. Doesn't disguise empty arguments from authority and it doesn't shed one photon on the problems of domain specificity in the face of interdisciplinary phenomena. You just gloss over your own BS by going:
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 25 Jan 2013, at 20:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 25, 2013 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote: John, I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). Little numbers can develop crazy complex behaviors, and with comp they can support (locally) rich inner experiences. The difficulty relies in the first person statistical fitness with the probable universal neighbors. (As you can guess). Makes me think of superfluid helium... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI As simplicity approaches the absolute (and -271K He is an interesting range of simplicity in matter) it seems to expose the hidden complexity of our expectations for what is minimal. Of course, I point to this to show again that arithmetic truth and information float on the surface of an ocean of permanent and expanding sensory depth. I would like a semi-axiomatic definition of sensory, to make this more palatable. I try to get a theory of sense, and I can't take that notion for granted, even if I agree that from the 1p pov, it looks like primitive (but that the comp theory can already explained why). Bruno Craig Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Without religion, science is pseudo-religion That's OK with me. Religion is bullshit, so pseudo-bullshit is better than pure, triple distilled, extra virgin, investment grade bullshit. How would you define grand for a concept? That depends on how you define define. And after that I'd like to know the definition of define define ; and after that [...] John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Thanks. The below shows it would be impossible for us to have a rational discussion on the subject and therefore we need not waste any electrons on the subject. If in the future you change your mind and are interested in discussing the merits/properties/purpose of a possibly true and rational religion (which I define simply as a set of beliefs) we can do so. Jason On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:55 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: how do you define the word religion? re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] 1 n. A theological fungus that thrives best in the dark and when fed by bullshit. 2 Believing what you know ain't so. 3 The boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate. 4 Religion is to rationality as horseshit is to horsepower. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark If you want to learn about science, study Darwin, etc. If you want to learn about God, read the Bible. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 11:17:30 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: ? Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just said stuff happens for all the enlightenment it brought. ? It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. so how complex could it be? Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word.? Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye ? I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam. ? Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, there is no there there. ? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: how do you define the word religion? re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] 1* n.* A theological fungus that thrives best in the dark and when fed by bullshit. 2 Believing what you know ain't so. 3 The boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate. 4 Religion is to rationality as horseshit is to horsepower. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote: John, I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). The book by O'Meara on Plotinus makes clear the idea that Plotinus want the ONE to be simple. The ONE is seen as the simplest thing from which the MANY can emanate, and the SOUL contemplate (or fall). The concept is also not dissimilar to the Neti Neti (Not this, not that) explanation of Brahman in Hindusim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti ) or the Nirguna Brahman, which is Brahman without qualities. Nice. That's also a common point with neoplatonist theologies. It is negation theologies, where the big thing is only refuted to be this or that. With comp this applies to both truth and the inner god, that is you-at-the-first-person (you-1 have no definite name or description), you-yourself are not this or that. Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. Bruno often says, arithmetic is much bigger when seen from the inside. Little numbers can develop crazy complex behaviors, and with comp they can support (locally) rich inner experiences. The difficulty relies in the first person statistical fitness with the probable universal neighbors. (As you can guess). Bruno Jason On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything and neither can I; and there is a reason the word simple is often used as a synonym for stupid. And the Bible just says that God made animals but it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he explained how it did it. Saying animals exist because of God is no more helpful than saying animals exist because of flobkneegrab. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely (like God) is worse than useless. Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it teaches that God is grand. This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:19, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin provided the mechanism by which Evolution did it, so those religions need to explain exactly how the invisible man in the sky did it. Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. If you don't like the simple-complex dimension use the humble-grand dimension. The Bible says something grand made something humble and it doesn't say how so it explains nothing; Darwin says something humble made something grand and the best part is he said how it did in, and that is a explanation worthy of the name. You confuse theology before 523 and after. If you appreciate reason, look at the development from Pythagorus to Plotinus, for example. You would see that they depict a different conception of reality, than the current Aristotelian one, and which by many token is somehow more rational as committing less ontological commitments. And it would be just a lie to say that science has decided on this. Study computer science and take a look how coherent Plotinus appear, from a complete arithmetical point of view (see the pdf at my frontpage url). If you prevent the rationalists to study theology, it will remain in the hand of the irrationalists, you know. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Friday, January 25, 2013 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote: John, I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). Little numbers can develop crazy complex behaviors, and with comp they can support (locally) rich inner experiences. The difficulty relies in the first person statistical fitness with the probable universal neighbors. (As you can guess). Makes me think of superfluid helium... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI As simplicity approaches the absolute (and -271K He is an interesting range of simplicity in matter) it seems to expose the hidden complexity of our expectations for what is minimal. Of course, I point to this to show again that arithmetic truth and information float on the surface of an ocean of permanent and expanding sensory depth. Craig Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just said stuff happens for all the enlightenment it brought. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. so how complex could it be? Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word. Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, there is no there there. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg OK, you can see that in two current junk science cults: (a) materialism (b) climate change What I can see is that your responses seem to be generated by this logic tree: Do I Understand It? Yes = Leibniz No = God Do I Like It? Yes = Rational No = Blame Liberals (aka Nazi-Communist Jews who advocate a Welfare-Police state) Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:15:40 *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/btCFEZ0P0pMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/24/2013 8:17 AM, John Clark wrote: It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. Interestingly, in Aramaic the word was Elohim, and my jewish/anthropologist friend tells me that's a plural. So it should have been translated gods, except that didn't sit well with the later monotheism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 23 Jan 2013, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Clark From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew. I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal. Crystal meth, like crack cocaine, or the quite terrible Krokodil, are typical products of prohibition. Krokodil appeared in Russia after an attempt to make heroin disappear in large region there. Like wood alcohol during alcohol interdiction, prohibition invites people to build ersatz which are usually far more dangerous than the original products. Bruno Craig - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. � than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?� Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.� � Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. �ohn K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:17:30 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather than what it actually says. Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1version=NIV And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just said stuff happens for all the enlightenment it brought. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. Make up your mind, do you have a problem with the God concept being too simple or too complex? so how complex could it be? Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word. Infinity is not quite as simple as God, but it is still very simple compared to natural selection and genetic replication. Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam. I was just thinking that there should be a Chuckle Like Popeye Day added to the calendar actually. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? I don't like the church either, but the church is not theology. To me, the church is a social organization which uses the popularity of theological themes to gain political influence and control over a population. All such organizations can be as barbaric, from governments to business to country clubs and unions. Theological ideas however, are just early philosophy, which is early science. Science, in its refinement of philosophy has made obvious strides beyond theology, but not everything that has been discarded along the way can be forgotten. This is a simplistic view of progress. Until science can reconcile physics with psyche in a way which does not diminish either one, there will continue to be a huge blind spot which fundamentalist churches will exploit. I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, there is no there there. http://divinity.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/academics/course-schedule-course-listing-2012-fall.pdf Hyperbole and bigotry are the antithesis of science, IMO. Ignorance plus arrogance only helps your ego, not science. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ba_F2n9-G5AJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather than what it actually says. Yes, the Bible is a reprehensible document not only because of what it says but because of what it does not say. Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex: Has it come to this, do I really have to prove that the Bible doesn't teach that God is of no importance? Craig, I think you've lost track of the position you're arguing for and just feel obligated to contradict anything said, even if it supports your view, rather like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:45:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather than what it actually says. Yes, the Bible is a reprehensible document not only because of what it says but because of what it does not say. Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex: Has it come to this, do I really have to prove that the Bible doesn't teach that God is of no importance? Craig, I think you've lost track of the position you're arguing for and just feel obligated to contradict anything said, even if it supports your view, rather like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Certainly God is supposed to be of the utmost importance, but that sense of grandeur is not rooted in complexity, either conceptually or literally. A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. If you recall, I said that religion does the exact same thing. The God concept is grand in a different way than natural selection is grand, but they are comparable as far as the relation of simplicity to complexity. This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fRG8Yp6bSYEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
John, I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). The concept is also not dissimilar to the Neti Neti (Not this, not that) explanation of Brahman in Hindusim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti ) or the Nirguna Brahman, which is Brahman without qualities. Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. Bruno often says, arithmetic is much bigger when seen from the inside. Jason On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything and neither can I; and there is a reason the word simple is often used as a synonym for stupid. And the Bible just says that God made animals but it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he explained how it did it. Saying animals exist because of God is no more helpful than saying animals exist because of flobkneegrab. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely (like God) is worse than useless. Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it teaches that God is grand. This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin provided the mechanism by which Evolution did it, so those religions need to explain exactly how the invisible man in the sky did it. Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. If you don't like the simple-complex dimension use the humble-grand dimension. The Bible says something grand made something humble and it doesn't say how so it explains nothing; Darwin says something humble made something grand and the best part is he said how it did in, and that is a explanation worthy of the name. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything and neither can I; Nor can they understand how something simple like 'probability' or 'determinism' can account for everything. and there is a reason the word simple is often used as a synonym for stupid. And the Bible just says that God made animals but it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he explained how it did it. Right, because evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. God concepts are an inescapable feature of all known human cultures (for better or worse, obviously). Saying animals exist because of God is no more helpful than saying animals exist because of flobkneegrab. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely (like God) is worse than useless. A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it teaches that God is grand. I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. Argument from authority. Does that mean I'm wrong about science and religion having simple causation to complexity in common? No, it does not. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jzP8Up4M_ngJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-intuitive because the human mind tends to endow intentionality to nearly everything. That's why Darwin's ideas, although simpler than Newton's, too longer to find. Funny thing that. In a universe devoid of intention, the human mind is overflowing with the illusion of intention. A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? Darwin can't explain why there is something rather than nothing and neither can anybody else, I can, and I have. There is no 'nothing'. Nothing is an idea that a participant in something has about the absence of everything. least of all the invisible man in the sky dingbats. Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's a pretty good accomplishment. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not knocking Darwin. Science can explain a lot but it hasn't explained everything, but religion hasn't explained anything. Zip zero nada goose egg. Religion is not about explaining what is useful, it is about explaining what seems important. Judging religion as a competitor to science is like judging your head as a competitor to the rest of your body. Again, you make it about winning winners who win, proving the non-winners to be LOSERS. This is not the attitude of science, or philosophy, or theology, it is wrestling. I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). I am quite familiar with the use-mention distinction and that ain't it. If God is grand so is the concept. Uh, no. The US Federal Tax Code is grand. The concept of a nation having a tax code is not grand. The God concept is incredibly primitive and compelling (as attested to by anthropological universality). It is basically this. A child understands: I can know things and do things. Grownups know more things and can do more things than I can do - they are wiser, stronger, more aware, and have been around longer. Who can do and know more things than grownups? There must be grand-grownups who know and do more than anyone. There must be someone who knows and does everything. Our Father, who art in heaven... That's it. Big Daddy = God. Not complex. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. Argument from authority. Despite its many faults the argument from authority beats the hell out of argument from ignorance; and Craig let's face reality, you know next to no science and the really depressing thing is that you're not even trying to learn more. When the first fallacy fails, move on to the Ad Hominem. You must have forgotten to defend your reasoning though. Let's face reality John, you can't stand losing. Craig 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/24/2013 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-intuitive because the human mind tends to endow intentionality to nearly everything. That's why Darwin's ideas, although simpler than Newton's, too longer to find. Funny thing that. In a universe devoid of intention, the human mind is overflowing with the illusion of intention. A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? Darwin can't explain why there is something rather than nothing and neither can anybody else, I can, and I have. There is no 'nothing'. Nothing is an idea that a participant in something has about the absence of everything. least of all the invisible man in the sky dingbats. Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's a pretty good accomplishment. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not knocking Darwin. Science can explain a lot but it hasn't explained everything, but religion hasn't explained anything. Zip zero nada goose egg. Religion is not about explaining what is useful, it is about explaining what seems important. Judging religion as a competitor to science is like judging your head as a competitor to the rest of your body. Again, you make it about winning winners who win, proving the non-winners to be LOSERS. This is not the attitude of science, or philosophy, or theology, it is wrestling. I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). I am quite familiar with the use-mention distinction and that ain't it. If God is grand so is the concept. Uh, no. The US Federal Tax Code is grand. The concept of a nation having a tax code is not grand. The God concept is incredibly primitive and compelling (as attested to by anthropological universality). It is basically this. A child understands: I can know things and do things. Grownups know more things and can do more things than I can do - they are wiser, stronger, more aware, and have been around longer. Who can do and know more things than grownups? There must be grand-grownups who know and do more than anyone. There must be someone who knows and does everything. Our Father, who art in heaven... That's it. Big Daddy = God. Not complex. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. Argument from authority. Despite its many faults the argument from authority beats the hell out of argument from ignorance; and Craig let's face reality, you know next to no science and the really depressing thing is that you're not even trying to learn more. When the first fallacy fails, move on to the Ad Hominem. You must have forgotten to defend your reasoning though. Let's face reality John, you can't stand losing. Craig Hear Hear! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi guys, Theology is just a form of philosophy, therefore is a rational pursuit, say like psychology or sociology or engineering mechanics. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 10:50:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the field of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there. And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions. Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. To see a prefect example of a theologian who is apparently a graduate of The John K. Clark school of Liberal Divinity see: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/the-way-of-the-agnostic/ Gary Gutting seems quite good to me. Nice paper. Bruno I didn't bother to comment since there a plenty of good comments already, but it exemplifies many features of liberal theological thought: Some things can never be explained by science; and if science hasn't explained it then religion does. Religion gives access to a rich and fulfilling life of love (which is implicitly denied the irreligious). Atheists have to prove God doesn't exist. There is something called 'understanding' that is better than knowledge and you can have for free Brent John k Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. ? than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.? ? Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. ?ohn K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Clark From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew. I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Clark javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. � than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?� Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.� � Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. �ohn K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:15:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this. Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious. I think of the universe not so much as something we live or infer as just the ultimate context of consideration. Sort of the idea of the largest possible here. Where does provability by mathematical logic come in? I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief: [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p (for the rich machines). Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p). In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p - p) - []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious. It only makes sense to me that propositions are a facet of conscious experience. Not necessarily. Don't confuse the propositions and the content of the proposition. The form of a proposition is an even more abstract facet of conscious experience. I don't see that propositions, or words, or figures drawn on paper, or any other symbolic form would themselves play at consciousness. Indeed, they don't. No more than SWE, or a book on black hole. Even neurons does not play at consciousness in the comp theory. They make it only relatively manifestable. Consciousness is already beyond word. It is a mystical truth, yet quite common. Then why would comp be primitive and not the mystical truth through which comp comes to our attention? Because the mystical truth is what we want to explain, or meta- explain. We must start from simple things on which everyone agree. We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. What is conscious is the person making the inference (of a reality). Consciousness is not the inference, not the symbols used, etc. Why not? What else would they be? ? Consciousness is in the knowledge of the person, Consciousness makes knowledge available to a person in the first place. Unconscious people can gain no knowledge. Conscious people can be conscious whether or not they acquire any knowledge. I agree. This may be the core disagreement that I have with your position. Consciousness is in knowledge? Not a chance. ? Pain hurts whether or not you know anything about anything. You know the pain. Consciousness is that knowledge. and that is non computably associated to infinities of computations. But it can obeys laws, and be described with a theory, or a meta-theory, because consciousness has no formal term to refer to it. Like arithmetical truth has no term to refer to it in arithmetic. that is why modal logic is useful, as it makes possible to talk about things which have no descriptions. That assumes that logic is independent of consciousness. I don't think so. Logic is only a tool to make theories and apply them. It emerges too in the mind of the numbers. We need logic to describe this, but the arithmetical truth are not dependent on logic, nor on theories. I see that it is actually the range of conscious presentations which is furthest from the core. Logic is sense, but it is the sense of the opposite of sense - automated inevitable senseless sense. Applying modal logic to consciousness
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/22/2013 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Of course it can't displace a field of inquiry. But theology wasn't a field of inquiry, it was apologetics for revelation and dogma. Like genetics has been in the ex-USSR. That's a reason to come back to the seriousness in the field. By refusing this, you just perpetuate the dogma. Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Can you cite any physicists who use the term 'primary matter'. Can you cite any physicist interested in the mind-body problem. Physicists does not care about the distinction between primary matter and matter, because they usually take Aristotle theology for granted. It is comp and logic which forces us to realize that science has not yet decide between Plato and Aristotle, making us obliged to be aware that matter might not have a primitive existence and might need to be derived from something else (like arithmetic). I've never come across it except on this list. Of course almost all physicists believe in some kind of matter which is the subject of their study and they may hypothesize that it is primary, that there is nothing more fundamental which explains the matter, but that's just an hypothesis. John Wheeler was not criticized for talking about It from bit. Indeed. Wheeler was aware that physics might be originating from something non physical. he was well inspired by the bits, and even by self-reference. Max Tegmark is still highly respected after suggesting a mathematical universe. I think you have just been unlucky in running into some close minded atheists who probably suspected that your use of God to mean Truth And trapped, as they encouraged me to do so, in the name of the free- exams. Some were sincere though, but others seem to have planned the refusal in advance. In Conscience Mécanisme I define theology by modal logic. Indeed Aristotle invented logic and modal logic to handle tricky metaphysical and theological question. Also, during my studies, when I suggested that modal logic might help for the study of provability and consistency (before Solovay), the atheists was used to dismiss the whole thing as theology. So it was a way to remind them of the free- exam, and indeed that's why some encouraged me to do so: to prevent easy dismissals. (and I'm not sure what that means) was an attempt to slip Christian dogma into science by the back door - it sounds very much like what, as John K. Clark pointed out, liberal theologians do in order to pretend that physics or mathematics supports their dogma. I don't know what is a liberal theologian. In science we have no dogma (ideally). Of course the existence of math and physics supports the idea that there is a reality and so can be seen as evidence that some transcendent truth might make sense. Then computer science explains that if a machine posit a truth it will have transcendent aspect. I use theology because I have read tuns of book in theology (from East and West) and they helped me to find the right
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:26:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then why would comp be primitive and not the mystical truth through which comp comes to our attention? Because the mystical truth is what we want to explain, or meta-explain. We must start from simple things on which everyone agree. To me the mystical truth is much simpler than arithmetic truth. Everyone can agree that we participate in a sensory experience. It's a simple matter to see that the same is true for all things in the proper context. We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. What is conscious is the person making the inference (of a reality). Consciousness is not the inference, not the symbols used, etc. Why not? What else would they be? ? Symbols are an artifact of consciousness. Consciousness is in the knowledge of the person, Consciousness makes knowledge available to a person in the first place. Unconscious people can gain no knowledge. Conscious people can be conscious whether or not they acquire any knowledge. I agree. This may be the core disagreement that I have with your position. Consciousness is in knowledge? Not a chance. ? Knowledge is part of consciousness, but consciousness does not appear out of a hypothetically independent knowledge. Pain hurts whether or not you know anything about anything. You know the pain. Consciousness is that knowledge. You don't have to know pain the first time you feel it. It can feel completely new and unprecedented. You can doubt the pain after you have felt it, you can forget it or diminish it. You can have knowledge of pain and knowledge about pain, but pain itself is a perception independent of knowledge or belief. Pain is an encounter with the concrete, illogical horror of involuntarily and irrevocably embedded participation. The capacity to reflect on that encounter is the experience of knowledge of the horror of it, which modulates the horror to some extent, for better or worse or both. and that is non computably associated to infinities of computations. But it can obeys laws, and be described with a theory, or a meta-theory, because consciousness has no formal term to refer to it. Like arithmetical truth has no term to refer to it in arithmetic. that is why modal logic is useful, as it makes possible to talk about things which have no descriptions. That assumes that logic is independent of consciousness. I don't think so. Logic is only a tool to make theories and apply them. It emerges too in the mind of the numbers. We need logic to describe this, but the arithmetical truth are not dependent on logic, nor on theories. I would agree, but I would say that its because arithmetical truth is a subset of sense. All arithmetic truth makes sense, but not all sense is an expression of arithmetic. Really only the manipulation of abstracted rigid bodies is arithmetic. Arithmetic has no true fluidity or vagueness. Such fluidity is critical for all biological experience, and cannot be constructed logically, except as a digitized integral analysis. I see that it is actually the range of conscious presentations which is furthest from the core. Logic is sense, but it is the sense of the opposite of sense - automated inevitable senseless sense. Applying modal logic to consciousness in that way is like going into a cave with a blacklight and fluorescent paint to study the sun. Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said unconscious faith, I meant unconscious inference of something and the unconscious bears on inference, not on the content of the faith. Ok, I can see where an inference would be unavailable to personal consciousness (I call this perceptual inertia - expectations become backgrounded and implicit) but because we are organisms with particularly elaborate consciousness, I would not rule out that what has become less than conscious to us at the personal level is still conscious on sub-personal levels. I tend to believe this, actually. But not really from my reflexion of comp, but from my reading of books on brains, and then my reading of salvia reports (and other plants). I tend to think that our consciousness result from the association of at least a dozen of already conscious beings integrated in some way. some drugs dissociates those presence. Amazingly some presence might not been in the brain, but in arithmetic, to which our brain is naturally connected. Sounds good to me. Except the
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. Then by that logic, the practice of bloodletting should represent Medicine, and witch burning should represent Justice. Medicine and science and Justice have improved since 1600 but as for religion., well I suppose the Catholic Church has improved too, after all they did admit that they may have gone a bit too far in their treatment of Galileo and that he may have had a point after all, they said this in the year 2000. There have been calls for the church to reopen the case against the astronomer Giordano Bruno and give hin a posthumous apology for burning him alive but so far the church has not done so, but give them time, it's only been 413 years, and I'm sure defending themselves from all those pedophile cases must be time consuming. Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. It did for many people. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Apparently you believe that Charles Darwin should be held accountable for the sins of his cousin Francis Galton, but Darwin was never a social Darwinist and opposed slavery long before it was popular to do so, in a letter he said what a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. But of course the personal virtues or vices of Charles Darwin have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his theory, it's just interesting that unlike Issac Newton who was a complete bastard Darwin was a very nice man, even people who didn't like his theory tended to like the man personally. I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is bullshit, Only if everything you say is bullshit. Try saying something that isn't bullshit, who knows maybe you'll like it. Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing the waters and whatnot Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God) produced something less grand and less complex (humans), but Darwin provided a mechanism by which something complex (humans) could be produced by something less grand and less complex (bacteria) ; and that is why Charles Darwin was a vastly superior human being compared to whatever nameless bozo it was that wrote Genesis. Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. Theology is just like any other line of work, not everybody manages to reach the very top. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/23/2013 7:55 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Belief and question are inseparable. Science and theology are converging to be what they always were before their artificial separation by political interests: agile, adaptive partners in our dealings with the final questions of real. These are exciting times, unless you have some axe to grind, in which case: Back to work! Go on, defend and substantiate with your godlike criteria! While you do that ...Uhmm I'm just gonna have a beer with that crazy Zen dude over there, even though I don't practice Zen. Cheers! My apologies PGC, I didn't mean to imply that your open mindedness was not superior to mine. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:50:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. Then by that logic, the practice of bloodletting should represent Medicine, and witch burning should represent Justice. Medicine and science and Justice have improved since 1600 but as for religion., well I suppose the Catholic Church has improved too, after all they did admit that they may have gone a bit too far in their treatment of Galileo and that he may have had a point after all, they said this in the year 2000. There have been calls for the church to reopen the case against the astronomer Giordano Bruno and give hin a posthumous apology for burning him alive but so far the church has not done so, but give them time, it's only been 413 years, and I'm sure defending themselves from all those pedophile cases must be time consuming. Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. It did for many people. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Apparently you believe that Charles Darwin should be held accountable No, that's why I used the comparison as an example of fallacious logic. for the sins of his cousin Francis Galton, but Darwin was never a social Darwinist and opposed slavery long before it was popular to do so, in a letter he said what a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. But of course the personal virtues or vices of Charles Darwin have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his theory, it's just interesting that unlike Issac Newton who was a complete bastard Darwin was a very nice man, even people who didn't like his theory tended to like the man personally. Newton was definitely a whack job, but I have no problem with either his theories or Darwin's - I'm just saying that they are part of the progress which began with spirituality and religion and continued to develop through theology, philosophy, and science. Of course, the key being that I am one of the many people who view the current phase of science as having passed its prime and will decay unless it can embrace larger and more scientific understandings. I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is bullshit, Only if everything you say is bullshit. Try saying something that isn't bullshit, who knows maybe you'll like it. I don't bullshit as far as I know. I have no reason to lie and I'm not very good at it. It's not because I have a moral aversion to it, I'm just too lazy to keep track of what I say, so it's simpler to tell the truth. Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing the waters and whatnot Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God) Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, so how complex could it be? produced something less grand and less complex (humans), Less grand maybe, but not less complex. Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? but Darwin provided a mechanism by which something complex (humans) could be produced by something less grand and less complex (bacteria) ; and that is why Charles Darwin was a vastly superior human being compared to whatever nameless bozo it was that wrote Genesis. Probably several people contributed to writing Genesis, but while I think that the Bible has caused a lot of harm to the world, it's still responsible for driving much of the art and science of the Western world. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. Theology is just like any other line of work, not everybody manages to reach the very top. I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to investigation. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:07 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the field of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there.? And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions.? ? Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. ? ? ? What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. ? John k Clark ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark Einstein is as welcome to his beliefs as Christians are to theirs and as your scepticism is to you. None of this is provable, so please keep your beliefs to yourself. Roger, you have to admit this is a bit funny coming from you... - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-21, 12:32:38 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013� Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What you say above reminded me of what Einstein said on religion: Let's look at a few more quotations about what Einstein had to say about religion: ** it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.� If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. **I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.� When Einstein moved to America his religious views, or rather lack of them, did not always go over well with the native hillbillies and he got some strange letters: Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from. I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land. We deeply regret that you made your statement in which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest sources of discord in America. � John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.