Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2013, at 08:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:




Since most of these people were theists, I found it easier to just  
say, I'm an atheist, because that succinctly conveys (to those  
who respect the meaning of words) my lack of belief in their  
theist gods.


Then I am atheist too. I am just out of that debate. The real  
question is does God exist, and then we can measure if such or such  
religion is closer to that God. But God is defined here by the  
(unnameable) transcendental (independent of me) from which all  
notion of existence emerge. Then we can ask if we can have personal  
link, like with the notion of inner god. For a plotinian God is  
both a universal soul attractor, and the reason why soul fall from  
it, in some circumstances.


No, the real question is whether there is something fundamental from  
which all that we experience can be derived and if so what is it?


Yes.




 If you were German and called it Urstoff I'd go along with you.


I try to avoid Aristotelian imagery.  God = truth, not stoff and  
even less Ur.
You should perhaps read Plotinus. The being (Noùs), which is what  
looks like stuff for the internal creature is enclosed between two  
things outside beings, God (by definition the truth frm which the  
beings emanate) and matter, the unavoidable and uncontrollable (by  
God) border of the observable.





But you insist on calling this hypothetical thing God thus  
dragging in all kinds of connotations of personhood, judgement,  
worship, dogma,...


because I read many theologians of different culture. I realize that  
'even Christianism is less wrong than atheism with respect of the  
global rational picture that we can bet on with computationalism.  Let  
us call it the 'one' (but this change of name can be misleading as It  
has no name, and changing name can be a symptom that we take the name  
seriously.














Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all  
Aristotelian Gods are refuted, somehow. But they are usually not  
even aware of the other conceptions of God and reality.





Other physicists I know like Tegmark's idea or Wheeler's It  
from bit and many work on information based physics.  None that  
I know hold primary matter as dogma that they believe even if  
they think it's the best current model.


Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather  
exceptional.


No, they are not.  Of course most physicists don't worry about  
'what's fundamental, mathematics or matter'.  But among those that  
do think about it, I'd say more are close to Tegmark than to  
Aristotle.


Really? Note that Tegmark is still close to Aristotle too. he has  
not embrace the comp reversal between physics and machine theology/ 
psychology/biology. There is still a notion of physical  
universe, even if he become perhaps more cautious, and get closer  
to comp.


Yes, but his physical universe is just mathematical.  It is  
physical like your fundamental stuff is God


It is not stuff. Is it a person? I don't know yet.




- it's just a use of an old word to mean something quite different.   
Physicist are sometimes criticized (rightly) for the same thing,  
using words like color and free energy in ways that are only  
vaguely related to the common meaning.  But they at least all agree  
on the technical meaning - whereas every theologian redefines God  
for himself.


I follow Plato. I give the references, and despite 1500 years of  
politics, even the conventional religion are less false than atheism  
in this matter. It *is* a technical point. An important one, given  
that the opposition to my work comes from fundamentalist atheists.  
They don't like the realization that the belief in primary matter is a  
religious belief.















You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret  
and non transparent. I think you might never have met  
fundamentalist atheists.


I belong to the Ventura County Freethinkers, which has some fifty  
members almost all of whom call themselves atheists.  I'd say a  
only two or three match your idea of believing in 'primary  
matter', but most of them haven't thought of it that deeply anyway.


Even the cat believe in primary matter by default. Milk is a sort  
of independent substance for him/her.
Our brains are constituted that way. Only people with frequent  
realist dreams usually can doubt, by themselves, the basic nature  
of reality.
So people who does not think deep on this usually have never doubt  
primary matter.


You are putting thoughts into their head.  Cats and people believe  
in matter.  They don't need to have any opinion about whether it is  
primary.


You might be right, but given our mammal brain, I think it is  
reasonable to suppose it seems primary for them by default. Unless  
when waking and remembering dream, which is the root of the skepticism  
here.









They just 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-14 Thread meekerdb

On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.


All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in 
mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like 
entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis.


That is dishonest in two ways.  First, primary matter is not god-like except in 
your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal 
Theologian).


Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a 
fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most 
famous one being Aristotle).
Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very 
different for some american and european Christians.


It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has 
not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings.


OK. Nice.




It's not like any god,


That's not true. It is like the God of those who introduce the concept, or the very idea 
that we can reason on that concept.





except the liberal theologians god which can be anything.


It might be any thing that we can conceive as being the explanation or model of the 
universal realm. Why does atheist defended so much the idea that only the Christian's 
notion of God make sense?

Why defending a notion of God just to say that it does not exist?










That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant.  It is not a 
necessary part of being an atheist.  You might as well say atheists usually drink 
beer - which is equally true.


I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort 
of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense).


But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything 
is a theist?


Well, everybody who believe in primary matter is a theist. But you don't need to be 
theist to believe in matter. Only when you posit the existence of something non 
jusitifiable, as a complete type of explanation, are you doing theology.


Science is agnostic, by definition. But many scientist believe in primary matter without 
even realizing that this needs an act of faith, and then as I show it contradicts the 
comp explanation of mind and body, without suggesting any theory of mind and its 
relation with matter.







When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my 
neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God,


How do you know that?


I asked them for years. They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain.




 Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter?


They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. It is equivalent, even if it looks 
more modern.

The atheists around here hate more the agnostic than the Christians.
They consider as crackpot any attempt to just doubt primary matter.
And some of them have cult and quasi equivalent notion of God, when you ask the details. 
If you insist they can even invoke secrecy.





Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation?


Well, there is the case of China and the USSR who did.





and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, 
arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)).


It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with 
you in order to discredit them.


It is explicit beliefs. It is true that some can doubt in private, but they will not say 
so in public, and will discredit you, i.e. the doubter, in name of non dogma, but yet 
dogmatic proposition. you are just lucky never have met that kind of sectarian form of 
atheism.























We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put 
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its 
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits 
show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the 
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in 
Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.


?






Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply 
embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the 
subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is 
overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 11 Jan 2013, at 17:37, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 I don't believe that you can explain perception without God

And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying God  
just did it? If the God theory could actually explain something and  
not just chant God did it I'd go to church with you next Sunday  
and handle venomous snakes with the best of them, but it can't. The  
religious like to complain that science can explain a lot but can't  
explain everything and that's true, but they forget that religion  
can't explain ANYTHING.


In your religion. I guess.

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 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/11/2013 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:




Empirical proofs can be ostensive.


But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be  
misleading when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that  
empirical evidences.






So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.


Almost nothing indeed.




Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of  
propositions into others.  They are relevant to empirical  
propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that  
maps the axioms to facts.


I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences  
of the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but  
will never prove it to be true.


You should write, ...but will never empirically evidence it.   :-)


Why?

Not sure I get the joke :?

We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those  
evidences as a proof that the theory applies to reality.


I was just tweaking you for using prove both for the  
transformation from axiom to theorem and for empirically testing a  
theory - right after you acknowledged they were quite different.   
The 'proof' than connects the axioms to the theorem (consequence) is  
completely different from 'proving' a theory is false (or true).


But that was my point. That's why there is no empirical proof at al  
indeed.


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: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-12 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Richard Ruquist 

OK, He would work.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/12/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-11, 13:54:47
Subject: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.


Hi Rog,
Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply.
Rich

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.



 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/11/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Richard Ruquist
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44
 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.


 wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
 experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
 heated.

 Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
 materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
 Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.

 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
 wrote:


 On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:


  Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
  ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )

 Wrong


 According to Charle? law and the consequence of the
 third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
 of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
 approaches zero too.

 ===?

 --
 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.


-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to  
believe in God.


All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some)  
God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary  
matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis.


That is dishonest in two ways.  First, primary matter is not god- 
like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f.  
John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian).


Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it  
usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was  
the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being  
Aristotle).
Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God  
is already very different for some american and european Christians.


It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what  
people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred  
writings.


OK. Nice.




It's not like any god,


That's not true. It is like the God of those who introduce the  
concept, or the very idea that we can reason on that concept.





except the liberal theologians god which can be anything.


It might be any thing that we can conceive as being the explanation or  
model of the universal realm. Why does atheist defended so much the  
idea that only the Christian's notion of God make sense?

Why defending a notion of God just to say that it does not exist?










That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is  
irrelevant.  It is not a necessary part of being an atheist.  You  
might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally  
true.


I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already  
believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the  
Roman sense).


But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who  
believes anything is a theist?


Well, everybody who believe in primary matter is a theist. But you  
don't need to be theist to believe in matter. Only when you posit the  
existence of something non jusitifiable, as a complete type of  
explanation, are you doing theology.


Science is agnostic, by definition. But many scientist believe in  
primary matter without even realizing that this needs an act of faith,  
and then as I show it contradicts the comp explanation of mind and  
body, without suggesting any theory of mind and its relation with  
matter.







When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even  
taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter  
into the God,


How do you know that?


I asked them for years. They reject papers who submit doubts in the  
domain.





 Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter?


They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. It is equivalent,  
even if it looks more modern.

The atheists around here hate more the agnostic than the Christians.
They consider as crackpot any attempt to just doubt primary matter.
And some of them have cult and quasi equivalent notion of God, when  
you ask the details. If you insist they can even invoke secrecy.





Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation?


Well, there is the case of China and the USSR who did.





and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make  
them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the  
inquisition (actually much worst)).


It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those  
who disagree with you in order to discredit them.


It is explicit beliefs. It is true that some can doubt in private, but  
they will not say so in public, and will discredit you, i.e. the  
doubter, in name of non dogma, but yet dogmatic proposition. you are  
just lucky never have met that kind of sectarian form of atheism.























We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that  
we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from  
the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to  
keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that  
you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the  
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as  
well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of  
religious opinion.


?






Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and  
divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective  
study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality  
or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is  
overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the 

Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb  

a= not or anti, so atheist is not a theist or is an antitheism. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/11/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-10, 13:27:52 
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 


On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:  
I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to 
mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized 
religion, which both appear reasonable. 

Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? 
as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call 
these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, 
mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, 
creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, 
shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about 
with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to 
avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind.  

Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a 
leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. 

I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't 
understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that 
transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not 
differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working 
hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have 
convinced or forced us to invest in them. 

I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here 
can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I 
often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes 
me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. 

Do you know what theist means? 

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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Dear Bruno:

 - As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the
operation of social beings.

For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be
 approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the Löbian
 threshold.


 That´s absolutely right.
But only when you add scarcity of resources, time and reproduction, that
is, evolution, you can grasp the details of this religion.

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net
 The Universe ( as a whole) is a Double World: next to Matter World
( a few % of whole mass of Universe) exist Vacuum World
( with more than 90% of whole mass of Universe).
Question:
How can the more than 90% of Vacuum Mass in the Universe
(dark mass, dark energy, quantum virtual particles, particles of
ideal gas)
create a few % of Matter Mass, which give possibility to many
scientists
 and philosophers to say that God doesn’t exist ?

==.

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
 Charles Law is appropriate at or near absolute zero ,
 because this law belongs to the particles of ' ideal gas' ,
 it means that these particles  can exist in  the absolute vacuum:
 T=0K.
 no, not OK

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread Roger Clough
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net  

I don't believe that you can explain perception without God (or something like
Himn, perhaps Universal Mind) being the observer. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/11/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: socra...@bezeqint.net  
Receiver: Everything List  
Time: 2013-01-11, 06:22:23 
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 


 The Universe ( as a whole) is a Double World: next to Matter World 
( a few % of whole mass of Universe) exist Vacuum World 
( with more than 90% of whole mass of Universe). 
Question: 
How can the more than 90% of Vacuum Mass in the Universe 
(dark mass, dark energy, quantum virtual particles, particles of 
ideal gas) 
create a few % of Matter Mass, which give possibility to many 
scientists 
 and philosophers to say that God doesn? exist ? 

==. 

--  
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 I don't believe that you can explain perception without God


And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying God just did
it? If the God theory could actually explain something and not just chant
God did it I'd go to church with you next Sunday and handle venomous
snakes with the best of them, but it can't. The religious like to complain
that science can explain a lot but can't explain everything and that's
true, but they forget that religion can't explain ANYTHING.

  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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.


There is no such thing as nearly zero just as there is no such thing as
nearly infinite or nearly pregnant; the Third law of Thermodynamics says
that you can never reach zero degrees Kelvin in a finite number of steps.
And Charles's Law was developed long before Quantum Mechanics was
discovered and even at the time it was known that it was only a
approximation of how real world gasses behaved. Charles's Law worked pretty
well at the limited temperature ranges available in the 19'th century.

  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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net
What is vacuum?
=.
  The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
 is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? 
  / Paul Dirac ./
#
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
 its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
 vacuum is a gross misnomer!
   / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
#
 Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well
defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of
space,
 how can we characterize either? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
#
Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,
 said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
#
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
 nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
 tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen  Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
#
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
/ University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
#
Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
 allowing light-light interactions.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

!
==.

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:




Empirical proofs can be ostensive.


But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading  
when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical  
evidences.






So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.


Almost nothing indeed.




Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions  
into others.  They are relevant to empirical propositions only  
insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts.


I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of  
the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will  
never prove it to be true.


You should write, ...but will never empirically evidence it.   :-)


Why?

Not sure I get the joke :?

We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those  
evidences as a proof that the theory applies to reality.


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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread Richard Ruquist
Hi Rog,
Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply.
Rich

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.



 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/11/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Richard Ruquist
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44
 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.


 wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
 experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
 heated.

 Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
 materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
 Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.

 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
  wrote:


 On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist  wrote:


  Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
  ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )

 Wrong


 According to Charle? law and the consequence of the
 third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
 of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
 approaches zero too.

 ===?

 --
 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.


-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread meekerdb

On 1/11/2013 8:37 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 I don't believe that you can explain perception without God 



And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying God just did it? If the 
God theory could actually explain something and not just chant God did it I'd go to 
church with you next Sunday and handle venomous snakes with the best of them, but it 
can't. The religious like to complain that science can explain a lot but can't explain 
everything and that's true, but they forget that religion can't explain ANYTHING.


The antinomy that theists can explain anything and hence fail to explain at all, arises 
from two different concepts of 'explain'.  One is to satisfy curiosity and forestall 
further questions.  The other is to describe causal relations among potentially observable 
events.  I leave it to the reader which is favored by religions.


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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-11 Thread meekerdb

On 1/11/2013 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:




Empirical proofs can be ostensive.


But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied 
logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences.






So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.


Almost nothing indeed.




Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others.  They 
are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation 
that maps the axioms to facts.


I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be 
used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true.


You should write, ...but will never empirically evidence it.   :-)


Why?

Not sure I get the joke :?

We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those evidences as a proof 
that the theory applies to reality.


I was just tweaking you for using prove both for the transformation from axiom to 
theorem and for empirically testing a theory - right after you acknowledged they were 
quite different.  The 'proof' than connects the axioms to the theorem (consequence) is 
completely different from 'proving' a theory is false (or true).


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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


  Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
  that are full of infinities of discrete number relations

 Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).
 --

 Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
 ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )

Wrong

 therefore we think that they have  infinite parameters  .

 socratus

 --
 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
soc,

that truth referring to what Bruno said. may or may not be true.
You did not read the thread.
Richard

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:00 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

 Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
 Richard

 Truth is true !!!
  / Richard /
 Very good proof.  . .
  . . . . and   . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are
 beautiful . . .
 by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger,
 and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . .
 . . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . .
 . . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’

 about 2500 years ago Plato wrote.

 =.

 --
 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb  

Coincidence with Newton's laws proves, to me at least, that the earth orbits 
the sun
rather than the inverse. There's too much mass on the sun to have it orbit the 
earth.
 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/10/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-09, 15:55:18 
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 


On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 
 On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: 
 
 On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote: 
 
 On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: 
 
 Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
 Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 
 
 
 Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was 
 almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable 
 assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to 
 *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby 
 with 
 the clerical bath water. 
 Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the 
 idea that there is a reality which transcend us. 
 
 Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless 
 you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that 
 goes beyond experimental proof in scope. 
 
 I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or 
 informal). 
 I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. 
 
 You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know 
 that there  
 is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no 
 experimental evidences at all for that! 

And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof 
of that.  
Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. 
Empirical  
proofs can be ostensive. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in 
common.  
Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. 
They are  
relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation 
that maps  
the axioms to facts. 

Brent 


 
 But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just 
 beyond proof  
 (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency 
 of PA,  
 which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the 
 *completeness theorem*  
 (G?el 1930), 
 consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) 
 reality  
 satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some 
 machine,  
 that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. 
 
 Bruno 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Richard 
 
 By definition it cannot be 
 proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to 
 appear for any sound machine. 
 
 Bruno 
 
 
 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
 1/8/2013 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Bruno Marchal 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
 
 
 
 
 On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: 
 
 
 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: 
 
 
 
 Consider God, a word for Mind 
 
 
 OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. 
 
 I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is 
 unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not 
 the 
 word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST 
 be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. 
 
 
 
 GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral 
 than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not 
 belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 
 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but 
 there 
 is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. 
 God 
 has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be 
 a 
 fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the 
 abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to 
 designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With 
 comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, 
 and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 
 'neoplatonism'. 
 
 
 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net


On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


  Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
  ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )

 Wrong


According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
 third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too.

===…

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 18:56, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:



On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal  
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:




On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.





Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the  
platonist, and

was
almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but  
reasonable
assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by  
reaction to
*imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the  
theology baby

with
the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less  
equivalent with

the
idea that there is a reality which transcend us.




Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion  
unless
you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof  
that

goes beyond experimental proof in scope.




I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense  
(formal

or
informal).
I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any  
evidence. We

know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no
experimental evidences at all for that!

But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth  
are just
beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The  
simplest one is
the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven  
by PA.

Note
that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is
equivalent
with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality  
satisfying the
axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some  
machine,

that
there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.



Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .



Lol.





Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
that are full of infinities of discrete number relations



Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).




and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them.
Or is that overboard?



If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of  
reifying
the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of  
infinities in a

too much materialist sense.


But Bruno, you just said that matter came from
infinities of discrete number relations


The appearance of matter comes from infinities of discrete number  
relations.

Those appearances themselves are like continuous dream.






If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration,  
that

will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those
infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it  
becomes matter
appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the  
whole UD* or

(sigma_1) arithmetical truth.

I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that  
this was
just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the  
Gödelian
argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine  
turns such

argument in favor of comp.

I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong
evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of  
course,
*many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at  
least we

have the tools to formulate them precisely.

Bruno


Are you granting that QM laws are
arithmetic theorems on the level
as those of Godel and Church?


Yes. (I will be explicit on FOAR, on this). But everything is  
explained on the sane04 paper.
The arithmetical quantization is given by []p , with []p = Bp  Dt,  
with D = ~B~, and B = Gödel's *arithmetical* beweisbar (provability)  
predicate.

An arithmetical version of a Bell inequality is

[]([]A  []B) -[]([]A v []B)  ([]A v []C)





So you can argue from them
like they were axioms?


Yes. All formula are theorem in Löbian (enough rich, like PA or ZF)  
arithmetic, from the classical definition of knowledge, that we  
recover by using Theatetus'definition of knowledge in the arithmetical  
setting (with believable = provable, which makes sense for the ideally  
correct machine that we have decided to interview).


Bruno




Richard





Richard
points and lines
word geometry?










Richard



Bruno








Richard


By definition it cannot be
proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical  
truth has

to
appear for any sound machine.

Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to  
believe in God.


All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some)  
God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary  
matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis.


That is dishonest in two ways.  First, primary matter is not god- 
like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John  
Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian).


Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually  
attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God  
or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle).
Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is  
already very different for some american and european Christians.





That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is  
irrelevant.  It is not a necessary part of being an atheist.  You  
might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true.


I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already  
believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman  
sense).
When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even  
taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter  
into the God, and worst, they believe this explains everything,  
which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting  
like in the inquisition (actually much worst)).
















We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that  
we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from  
the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep  
and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you  
are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the  
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as  
well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of  
religious opinion.


?






Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and  
divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study  
of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the  
resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall,  
mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of  
reality


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source  
of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation  
and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental,  
personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God  
must  be personal, among other things, or else, the believer  
lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes.


Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal  
Theologian.




As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for  
the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning,  
that is, goals, there is no  inequivocal rules for social action.  
if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination,  
descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows.  
For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as  
deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits,  
like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation  
(facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions  
of others).


I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social  
values.  But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a  
supernatural robot who defined the values.


They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to  
values.


What does 'truth' have to do with values?  Do I love my children  
because of some 'truth'?


Yes. the truth that you have children, for example.



A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and  
cooperate and effect changes in a shared world.


OK.














Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the  
recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide  
to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and  
by neccesity a god, must be personal .


Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with  
agency.  There was no sharp line between science and religion  
because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and  
sacrifice, was ubiquitous.  Only later did the voice of the dead  
leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually  
religion with shamans and priests.




A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller  
personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent.


Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism  
developed.  Yaweh at first insisted on being the 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.



Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the  
platonist, and was
almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but  
reasonable
assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by  
reaction to
*imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the  
theology baby with

the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent  
with the

idea that there is a reality which transcend us.


Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion  
unless

you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.


I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense  
(formal or informal).

I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any  
evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than  
10^1, but have no

experimental evidences at all for that!


And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no  
mathematical proof of that.  Mathematical proofs are always relative  
to axioms and rules of inference.


OK.



 Empirical proofs can be ostensive.


But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading  
when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences.






 So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.


Almost nothing indeed.




Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions  
into others.  They are relevant to empirical propositions only  
insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts.


I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of  
the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will  
never prove it to be true.


Bruno





Brent




But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth  
are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The  
simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible  
to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel  
1930),
consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a  
(mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is  
already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a  
transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.


Bruno







Richard


By definition it cannot be
proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical  
truth has to

appear for any sound machine.

Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:




Consider God, a word for Mind



OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that  
is
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God  
but not the
word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will  
not do) MUST

be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit  
more neutral
than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which  
does not
belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since  
about 1500
years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural  
colors, but there
is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian  
theory. God
has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it  
can only be a
fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities  
than the
abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term  
God to
designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our  
existence. With
comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play  
that role,
and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of  
Plotinus

'neoplatonism'.


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.



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 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
heated.

Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


 On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


  Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
  ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )

 Wrong


 According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
  third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
 of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
 approaches zero too.

 ===…

 --
 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread meekerdb

On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean 
existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, 
which both appear reasonable.


Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're 
all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures 
primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, 
computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + 
individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas 
where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically 
distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind.


Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of 
faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis.


I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand 
the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, 
that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between 
absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result 
still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them.


I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can 
point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the 
same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile 
condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up.


Do you know what theist means?

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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread meekerdb

On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.


All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind 
that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a 
metaphysical hypothesis.


That is dishonest in two ways.  First, primary matter is not god-like except in your 
idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal 
Theologian).


Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a 
fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most 
famous one being Aristotle).
Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very 
different for some american and european Christians.


It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not 
dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings.  It's not like any god, except the 
liberal theologians god which can be anything.







That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant.  It is not a 
necessary part of being an atheist.  You might as well say atheists usually drink beer 
- which is equally true.


I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of 
God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense).


But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a 
theist?


When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my 
neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, 


How do you know that?  Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter?  Do they quote 
primary matter as a reason for legislation?


and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, 
arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)).


It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you 
in order to discredit them.



















We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put 
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its 
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits 
show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the 
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in 
Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.


?






Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply 
embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the 
subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is 
overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all 
aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as 
well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, 
God must  be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation 
for the aspects that God does not includes.


Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian.



As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of 
social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no  
inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social 
coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For 
that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social 
nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social 
adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others).


I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values.  But that 
doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values.


They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values.


What does 'truth' have to do with values?  Do I love my children because of 
some 'truth'?


Yes. the truth that you have children, for example.



A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect 
changes in a shared world.


OK.














Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of 
the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. 
That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .


Actually 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears
 to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not
 organized religion, which both appear reasonable.

 Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking
 about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever
 you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another.
 Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial,
 political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum,
 and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you
 limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically
 distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in
 mind.

 Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point
 take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis.

 I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I
 can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in
 something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you
 can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and
 work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that
 some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them.

 I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody
 here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist.
 Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that
 anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from
 bringing it up.


 Do you know what theist means?

 Brent


If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier.

That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are
you playing some specific frame?

That broadly though:

Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more or
less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic,
interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in
more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings.
And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end?

  --
 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-10 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/10/2013 11:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears
 to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not
 organized religion, which both appear reasonable.

 Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking
 about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever
 you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another.
 Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial,
 political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum,
 and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you
 limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically
 distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in
 mind.

 Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point
 take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis.

 I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I
 can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in
 something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you
 can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and
 work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that
 some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them.

 I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe
 somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with
 atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude,
 that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from
 bringing it up.


 Do you know what theist means?

 Brent


 If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier.

 That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are
 you playing some specific frame?

 That broadly though:

 Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more
 or less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic,
 interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in
 more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings.
 And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end?


 Then you know what atheist means ... to denote nonbelief in one or
 more...


Which entails believing in one or more other things selectively or
believing non-belief. Either way, I grasp intuitively what people mean,
but it is far from clear to me because of this.
Mark
--


 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.


-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.


Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist,  
and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but  
reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by  
reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the  
theology baby with the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with  
the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. By definition it  
cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical  
truth has to appear for any sound machine.


Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:




Consider God, a word for Mind


OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is  
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but  
not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just  
will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.




GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more  
neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and  
which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the  
Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many  
christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God  
with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many  
theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy  
pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the  
abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God  
to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our  
existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical)  
truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical  
interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'.



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 
.




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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Le me add some meat here

We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we  
need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the  
grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and  
locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a  
well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator.  
if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or  
an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in  
human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of  
the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete.  
if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the  
divinity is part of reality


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of  
meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and  
direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal  
or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must  be  
personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a  
foundation for the aspects that God does not includes.


As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the  
operation of social beings.


For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth  
can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is  
above the Löbian threshold.




If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no   
inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal  
rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal  
decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the  
core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as  
is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another  
social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states  
and intentions of others).


Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently  
dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the  
other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a  
god, must be personal .


A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal  
gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges,  
scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient  
and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar  
or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic  
materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal  
Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need  
a  ruthless political Mahoma.


The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the  
almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal  
religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the  
cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are  
devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and  
mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction  
between us and the others.


A  membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an  
living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the  
latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical  
territory and the blood ties.  In this sense, primitive religion may  
be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican  
religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his  
pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in  
itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization.


Hmm...





That´s why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men  
at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to  
imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of  
us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the  
obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices,  
the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the  
supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others.


Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by  
means of a self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the  
young russians did in the early XX century.  If hihilism would not  
be painful it would not be a matter of exhibition. Sooner or later  
the nihilist has to choose between the suicide, that has a perfect  
evolutionary sense, since someone isolated, with no guide to help  
others in society is a social burden, and suicide is the social  
apoptosis, by means of which the social body re-absorb the useless.



Or else the , guided by its simple instints and devoid of the  
experience and traditions of the past, and therefore with no vaccine  
for the recurrent errors of humanity, the unbeliever will reinvent  
again and again the primitive cults to the earth the tiranic leader  
and the 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe  
in God.


All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some)  
God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary  
matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis.









We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we  
need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the  
grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and  
locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a  
well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator.  
if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as  
well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of  
religious opinion.


?






Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and  
divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of  
God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the  
resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall,  
mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of  
meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and  
direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal  
or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must  be  
personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a  
foundation for the aspects that God does not includes.


Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal  
Theologian.




As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for  
the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that  
is, goals, there is no  inequivocal rules for social action. if  
there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination,  
descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows.  
For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as  
deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits,  
like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates  
the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others).


I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social  
values.  But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a  
supernatural robot who defined the values.


They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to  
values.








Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the  
recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide  
to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by  
neccesity a god, must be personal .


Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with  
agency.  There was no sharp line between science and religion  
because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice,  
was ubiquitous.  Only later did the voice of the dead leader and  
dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with  
shamans and priests.




A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal  
gods in conflict, sometimes violent.


Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism  
developed.  Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all  
the personal and household gods.  Then later he evolved into the  
only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus.


Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This  
politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal  
God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the  
ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin  
and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The  
abstract and incognoscible Allah need a  ruthless political Mahoma.


The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the  
almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal  
religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the  
cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All  
are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration,  
and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp  
distinction between us and the others.


Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of  
the Aztecs, the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the  
unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,...


It is an intrinsic weakness of the theological field: to be perverted  
by politics. But this is not a rational reason to abandon the field.  
On the contrary, it is even more politicized when it is abandoned by  
the academicians.








A  membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an  
living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in  
the latter case, the 

Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Richard Ruquist  

That could be so. But Wittgenstein and others believed 
that the meaning of a word is established through usage.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/9/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-08, 11:37:47 
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 


that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means 
until we understand what the opposite stands for. 
a sorta duality that math may be based on 
that may even be the basis of existence 
of how something can come 
from nothing. 

RR 
a semantic toe 

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
 Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
 Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
 1/8/2013 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Bruno Marchal 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
 
 
 
 
 On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: 
 
 
 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: 
 
 
 
 Consider God, a word for Mind 
 
 OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. 
 
 I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown 
 to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word 
 G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be 
 preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. 
 
 
 
 GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral 
 than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not 
 belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 
 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there 
 is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God 
 has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a 
 fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the 
 abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to 
 designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With 
 comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and 
 this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 
 'neoplatonism'. 
 
 
 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. 
 

--  
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal  

Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism 
(top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up 
being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian
intellect gets stuck. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/9/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. 




On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 


Le me add some meat here 


We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put 
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its 
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly 
visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the 
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion 
-or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human 
nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective 
reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, 
mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality 


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in 
all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is 
physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. 
Therefore, for the believer, God must  be personal, among other things, or 
else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not 
includes. 


As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation 
of social beings.  


For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be 
approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian 
threshold. 






If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no  inequivocal rules 
for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, 
descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that 
matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social 
nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another 
social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and 
intentions of others).  


Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead 
leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by 
emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .  


A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in 
conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, 
Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no 
personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the 
ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin 
because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and 
incognoscible Allah need a  ruthless political Mahoma. 


The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost 
mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have 
by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public 
rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and 
ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp 
distinction between us and the others.  


A  membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit 
that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the 
membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties.  In 
this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The 
bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with 
his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself 
when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization.  


Hmm... 








That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its 
image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best 
use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this 
sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly 
leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of 
the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others. 


Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a 
self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in 
the early XX century.  If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a 
matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the 
suicide, that has

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Bruno Marchal

 Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.


 Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was
 almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable
 assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
 *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with
 the clerical bath water.
 Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the
 idea that there is a reality which transcend us.

Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.
Richard

By definition it cannot be
 proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to
 appear for any sound machine.

 Bruno




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/8/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




 On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:



 Consider God, a word for Mind


 OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

 I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
 unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the
 word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST
 be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



 GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral
 than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not
 belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500
 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there
 is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God
 has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a
 fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the
 abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to
 designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With
 comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role,
 and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
 'neoplatonism'.


 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.


 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.


-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism
(top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from  
bottom-up

being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian
intellect gets stuck.


Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between  
addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations  
and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability  
(intellect).


Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.




On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Le me add some meat here


We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we  
need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the  
grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and  
locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a  
well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator.  
if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or  
an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in  
human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of  
the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete.  
if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the  
divinity is part of reality



For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of  
meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and  
direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal  
or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must  be  
personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a  
foundation for the aspects that God does not includes.



As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the  
operation of social beings.



For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth  
can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is  
above the L?ian threshold.







If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no   
inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal  
rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal  
decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the  
core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as  
is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another  
social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states  
and intentions of others).



Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently  
dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the  
other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a  
god, must be personal .



A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal  
gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges,  
scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient  
and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar  
or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic  
materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal  
Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need  
a  ruthless political Mahoma.



The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the  
almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal  
religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the  
cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are  
devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and  
mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction  
between us and the others.



A  membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an  
living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the  
latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical  
territory and the blood ties.  In this sense, primitive religion may  
be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican  
religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his  
pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in  
itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization.



Hmm...








That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men  
at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to  
imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of  
us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the  
obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices,  
the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the  
supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others.



Because

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.



Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist,  
and was

almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable
assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by  
reaction to
*imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology  
baby with

the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent  
with the

idea that there is a reality which transcend us.


Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.


I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense  
(formal or informal).

I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence.  
We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no  
experimental evidences at all for that!


But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are  
just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The  
simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to  
be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930),  
consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a  
(mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is  
already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a  
transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.


Bruno







Richard


By definition it cannot be
proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth  
has to

appear for any sound machine.

Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:




Consider God, a word for Mind



OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God  
but not the
word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not  
do) MUST

be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more  
neutral
than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which  
does not
belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since  
about 1500
years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors,  
but there
is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian  
theory. God
has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can  
only be a
fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities  
than the
abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term  
God to
designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our  
existence. With
comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play  
that role,

and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
'neoplatonism'.


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.



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- 
l...@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 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 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Bruno Marchal

 Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.



 Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and
 was
 almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable
 assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
 *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby
 with
 the clerical bath water.
 Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the
 idea that there is a reality which transcend us.


 Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
 you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
 goes beyond experimental proof in scope.


 I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or
 informal).
 I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

 You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We
 know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no
 experimental evidences at all for that!

 But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just
 beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is
 the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note
 that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent
 with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the
 axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that
 there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.

Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
Richard


 Bruno







 Richard

 By definition it cannot be
 proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to
 appear for any sound machine.

 Bruno




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/8/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




 On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:



 Consider God, a word for Mind



 OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

 I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
 unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not
 the
 word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do)
 MUST
 be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



 GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more
 neutral
 than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not
 belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about
 1500
 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but
 there
 is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory.
 God
 has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only
 be a
 fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the
 abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to
 designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence.
 With
 comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that
 role,
 and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
 'neoplatonism'.


 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.


 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.


 --
 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 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:



On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.




Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the  
platonist, and

was
almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but  
reasonable
assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by  
reaction to
*imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the  
theology baby

with
the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent  
with the

idea that there is a reality which transcend us.



Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion  
unless

you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.



I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense  
(formal or

informal).
I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any  
evidence. We

know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no
experimental evidences at all for that!

But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth  
are just
beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest  
one is
the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by  
PA. Note
that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is  
equivalent
with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality  
satisfying the
axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some  
machine, that

there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.


Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .


Lol.





Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
that are full of infinities of discrete number relations


Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).




and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them.
Or is that overboard?


If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of  
reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of  
infinities in a too much materialist sense.
If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration,  
that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that  
those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it  
becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as  
distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth.


I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this  
was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the  
Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the  
machine turns such argument in favor of comp.


I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong  
evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of  
course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least),  
but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely.


Bruno



Richard
points and lines
word geometry?









Richard



Bruno








Richard


By definition it cannot be
proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical  
truth has to

appear for any sound machine.

Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:




Consider God, a word for Mind




OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that  
is
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God  
but not

the
word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will  
not do)

MUST
be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more
neutral
than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which  
does not
belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since  
about

1500
years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural  
colors, but

there
is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian  
theory.

God
has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it  
can only

be a
fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities  
than the
abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term  
God to
designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our  
existence.

With
comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play  
that

role,
and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of  
Plotinus


Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



 On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Bruno Marchal

 Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.




 Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and
 was
 almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable
 assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
 *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby
 with
 the clerical bath water.
 Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with
 the
 idea that there is a reality which transcend us.



 Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
 you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
 goes beyond experimental proof in scope.



 I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal
 or
 informal).
 I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

 You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We
 know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no
 experimental evidences at all for that!

 But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just
 beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is
 the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA.
 Note
 that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is
 equivalent
 with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the
 axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine,
 that
 there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.


 Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .


 Lol.




 Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
 that are full of infinities of discrete number relations


 Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).



 and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them.
 Or is that overboard?


 If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying
 the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a
 too much materialist sense.

But Bruno, you just said that matter came from
infinities of discrete number relations

 If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that
 will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those
 infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter
 appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or
 (sigma_1) arithmetical truth.

 I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was
 just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian
 argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such
 argument in favor of comp.

 I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong
 evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course,
 *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we
 have the tools to formulate them precisely.

 Bruno

Are you granting that QM laws are
arithmetic theorems on the level
as those of Godel and Church?
So you can argue from them
like they were axioms?
Richard



 Richard
 points and lines
 word geometry?








 Richard


 Bruno







 Richard

 By definition it cannot be
 proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has
 to
 appear for any sound machine.

 Bruno




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/8/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




 On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:



 Consider God, a word for Mind




 OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

 I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
 unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but
 not
 the
 word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do)
 MUST
 be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



 GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more
 neutral
 than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does
 not
 belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about
 1500
 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but
 there
 is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian
 theory.
 God
 has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only
 be a
 fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread meekerdb

On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.


All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind 
that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a 
metaphysical hypothesis.


That is dishonest in two ways.  First, primary matter is not god-like except in your 
idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal 
Theologian).  That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant.  It is 
not a necessary part of being an atheist.  You might as well say atheists usually drink 
beer - which is equally true.











We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put 
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its 
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits 
show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. 
if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in 
Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.


?






Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply 
embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the 
subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is 
overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all 
aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as 
well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, 
God must  be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation 
for the aspects that God does not includes.


Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian.



As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of 
social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no  inequivocal 
rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, 
descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter 
religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is 
other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation 
(facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others).


I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values.  But that 
doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values.


They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values.


What does 'truth' have to do with values?  Do I love my children because of some 'truth'?  
A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect 
changes in a shared world.










Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of 
the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. 
That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .


Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency.  There was no 
sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by 
prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous.  Only later did the voice of the dead leader and 
dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests.




A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, 
sometimes violent.


Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed.  Yaweh at first 
insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods.  Then later he 
evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus.


Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes 
salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus 
that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a 
Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and 
incognoscible Allah need a  ruthless political Mahoma.


The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost 
mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by 
default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The 
bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure 
collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction 
between us and the others.


Yes, it must 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread meekerdb

On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.



Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was
almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable
assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
*imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with
the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the
idea that there is a reality which transcend us.


Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.


I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or 
informal).
I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there 
is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no

experimental evidences at all for that!


And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that.  
Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference.  Empirical 
proofs can be ostensive.  So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.  
Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others.  They are 
relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps 
the axioms to facts.


Brent




But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof 
(not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, 
which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* 
(Gödel 1930),
consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality 
satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, 
that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.


Bruno







Richard


By definition it cannot be
proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to
appear for any sound machine.

Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:




Consider God, a word for Mind



OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the
word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST
be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral
than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not
belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500
years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there
is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God
has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a
fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the
abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to
designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With
comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role,
and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
'neoplatonism'.


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.



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.



--
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, 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net

 Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
 Richard

Truth is true !!!
 / Richard /
Very good proof.  . .
 . . . . and   . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are
beautiful . . .
by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger,
and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . .
. . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . .
. . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’

about 2500 years ago Plato wrote.

=.

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-09 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net


  Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
  that are full of infinities of discrete number relations

 Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).
--

Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
( according to the laws of thermodynamics )
therefore we think that they have  infinite parameters  .

socratus

-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-08 Thread Richard Ruquist
that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means
until we understand what the opposite stands for.
a sorta duality that math may be based on
that may even be the basis of existence
of how something can come
from nothing.

RR
a semantic toe

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Bruno Marchal

 Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/8/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.




 On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:



 Consider God, a word for Mind

 OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

 I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown 
 to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word 
 G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be 
 preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.



 GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral 
 than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not 
 belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 
 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there 
 is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God 
 has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a 
 fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the 
 abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to 
 designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With 
 comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and 
 this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 
 'neoplatonism'.


 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.


-- 
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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-08 Thread meekerdb

On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.



We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put 
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its 
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show 
that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you 
drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe 
where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.


Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply 
embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the 
subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is 
overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all 
aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well 
as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must 
 be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the 
aspects that God does not includes.


Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian.



As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social 
beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no  inequivocal rules 
for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, 
descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter 
religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is 
other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation 
(facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others).


I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values.  But that doesn't 
mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values.




Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the 
tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why 
by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .


Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency.  There was no sharp 
line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and 
sacrifice, was ubiquitous.  Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become 
the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests.




A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, 
sometimes violent.


Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed.  Yaweh at first 
insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods.  Then later he 
evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus.


Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes 
salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that 
make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin 
and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and 
incognoscible Allah need a  ruthless political Mahoma.


The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically 
inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the 
genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, 
All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual 
recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others.


Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of the Aztecs, the Holy 
Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,...




A  membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that 
perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created 
by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties.  In this sense, primitive 
religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, 
which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a 
primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior 
civilization.


That´s why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and 
dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this 
unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free 
us from the obedience 

Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.

2013-01-08 Thread meekerdb

On 1/8/2013 4:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here


Nah.  It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.



We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need 
to put
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which 
for its
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the 
familly
visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is 
like the
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.


That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as 
those in
Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.

Dear Brent, Seriously: Atheism is a group of related religions. An atheist when hear 
his favourite author fire the same neurons that are fired when the most religious hear 
his televangelist: A group of ecologist hearing Al Gore have similar experiences than 
when a group of  nuns hear the Pope.


Patently false, since if you ask one of the ecologists what Al Gore said you will get a 
different answer than if you ask one of the nuns what the Pope said.


If you dont´t accept that same physical phenomena in the brain are associated with the 
same mental experiences then we have a problem.


You have a problem because above you just assert that the same physical phenomena were 
produced in two different brains by two different experiences.


The same physical and mental phenomena can not be two nor three different things. There 
is a common circuitry in the brain that is working in a church, in a foatball match,, in 
a concert in the fans of a rock band.


And there's a similar blood supply and all the same kinds of atoms and molecules.  But 
there's also something different, otherwise the ecologist and nun would give the same report.


in the discourse of a totalitarian dictator. Therefore is a single phenomenon with 
different names. We can not have a circuit for rock concerts, other for admiring a 
leader, other for the Pope. Other for Carlos Marx. One for God and another for holding 
the super-ego  that repeat in our mid the words of of our dead father. or another 
circuit that make us to remember with stasis  that famous scientist that we try to 
emulate. Do you understand?


I understand you're trying to slip by an obviously fallacious argument that since two 
different things can evoked similar emotions they must be the same thing.




The atheist like any other person is subject to the same laws of any other religion. It 
can be a firm believer, or unbeliever, nihilist or exceptic about dialectic materialism 
 or the global warming. It can be comforted for their  strength of his principles or 
repudiated by their fellows for their doubt about the core beliefs in the same way that 
a Muslim can experience the same about Allah.


No, an atheist is person who doesn't believe theism, the religion that claims there is an 
all powerful supernatural person who created the world, who rewards and punishes, and 
answers prayers.  If religions were TV channels then atheism would be OFF.


Brent
Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural
piety, to laws, to reputation;  all of which may be guides
to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but
religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an
absolute monarchy in the minds of men.
   --- Francis Bacon


--
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.