On 06 Aug 2012, at 12:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Define "theology"
The study of something that does not exist.
Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can
be defined by something which is supposed to be responsible,
willingly or not, for my existence, and which I cannot prove to
exist. I remeber having already some times ago provided this
definition.
Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level,
by G* minus G. (if you have read my posts on those modal logics
and Solovay theorem). For example <> t (consistency, ~[]f)
belongs to G* minus G. Consistency is true for the machine, but
it cannot prove it. Yet the machine can guess it, hope it, find
it or produce it as true with some interrogation mark.
Theology is the study of the transcendent truth, which can be
defined, in a first approximation, by the non provable (by the
machine) truth.
Dear Bruno,
It is hard to explain transcendence.
That is why I approximate it by p & ~Bp, or G* minus G (and
intensional variant of this like Z1* minus Z1).
Dear Bruno,
Forgive me that I am slow on this or even dumb... p is true (or
false) and not belief that p .... Is that right? I am still learning
the jargon.
> Define "God"
The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who
created the universe. If you define God, as so many fans of the
word but not the idea do,
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular
conception of God. This confirms what I have already explained.
Atheism is a variant of christianism. They defend the same
conception of God than the Christians, as you do all the time.
I agree. They are anti-christians.
Yes. That are the same modulo the absolute value, so to speak.
HA HA! :-) Nice!
Note that philosophers use often the term "God" in the general
and original sense of theology: as being, by definition, the
transcendental cause of everything.
Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks
that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement
(anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of
such.
For me, and comp, it is an open problem.
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
Why?
Say that it is X. There is something that is not that person and
that something must therefore have a different name: not-X. What is
God's name? ... It cannot be named because there is nothing that it
is not! Therefore God cannot be a person. Transcendence eliminates
nameability. The Abrahamist think that Satan is the anti-God, but
that would be a denial of God's transcendence. There are reasons why
Abrahamists do not tolerate logic, this is one of them.
With comp if God exists it has no name, but I don't see why it would
make it a non person. God is unique, it does not need a name.
as "a force greater than myself" then I am a devout believer
because I believe in gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong
nuclear force. I believe in bulldozers too.
But I have already told you that God is supposed to be
responsible for our existence; which is not the case for the
bulldozer. But gravity and physical force/matter could have been
a more serious answer, as it describe the perhaps primary
physical world, and that can obey the definition of God I gave,
for a physicalist, and is indeed again a common belief of
christians and atheists. I am agnostic, and correct
computationalist are "atheists" with respect to such material God.
Bruno! You are falling into the same trap with this verbiage!
Taking the anti-thesis of a thesis still requires that the thesis
is possibly true.
? (where did I say the contrary? I insist that if comp is true,
then it has to be possible, from the machine povs that comp is
false). Like <>t, it entails the consistency of its negation: <>t -
> <>(~ <>t). If a machine is consistent, then it is consistent that
the machine is inconsistent. If comp is true, then it is consistent
that comp (and its consequences) is (are) false.
Bruno
A "material god" would be nameable and thus not transcendent.
Why? In which theory?
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.