On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:29:10 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > There are no reasons to believe in God > any more than there were reasons, > as an infant, to trust your mother. >
Infants only trust their mother because they have no expectation of distrust. That's why they're... infants. When we grow up though, we can learn the awful truth about things not being what we wish they were or what we thought they were. > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2013-02-01, 10:12:53 > *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be <javascript:>>wrote: > > > i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. > > > Then what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about science or > mathematics or philosophy, or are we just arguing about first grade > vocabulary? > > > Good question. You are the one criticizing the use of some word, despite, > like we do in science, the key words are redefine each time we use them. > > > > > > > but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic > one, > > > I don't understand how you can disagree with the definition of a word, > especially if it's the same definition used by 99% of the people on the > planet who wish to communicate. > > > Today, in Occident, perhaps. the term "God" as a lasting use in > philosophy; as others have point out. In comp, it is the difference between > G and G* which relates the Platonist "god" , truth, with arithmetic. It is > tha fact, many thanks to Tarski theorem, that the concept of arithmetical > truth share the main attribute of God: like non nameability, ineffability, > roots of everything, everywhere and everytime presence/relevance, and even > more with the God of the neoplatonists (simplicity, origin or the No�, > origin of the souls, origin of the illusion of matter, and why it obeys a > "spurious calculus" (Plotinus). The similarities are striking, and Plotis > get quite close to comp with its chapter on "the Numbers". > > > > > > God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation > > > You believe that your pee pee argument proves that numbers are the > ultimate explanation of everything, it doesn't prove that > > > It does not prove that for someone confusing "and" and "or" or first > person and third person. You should find a flaw to assess what you say > here, but you just stop doing the experience. To verify the statistics, you > have to put yourself at the place of each copies, but for unknown reason > you fail to do that simple exercise. > > > > but even if it did that would not be "God" as the word is commonly used. > > > And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in > the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you > want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. This is like > throwing genetics because some people are wrong on it. It is not rational. > > I tend to interpret this by the fact that you want the whole field of > theology being spurious, but it seems clear you have never read > neoplatonists, or just Plato and Aristotle on Gods and God. > > > > > Numbers are not a being much less the supreme being, numbers did not > will the universe into existence and numbers do not change human destiny or > the way the universe operates on a whim influenced buy prayer. > > > ... and you don't red me. the God notion raised by comp is NOT a number. > Arithmetical truth is NOT definable in arithmetic. I have insist on this > all along. You betray that you did not read the post, and that your critics > is based on prejudices, like your critics on theology in general. > > > > > Numbers are not the source of all moral authority, and nobody thinks > that numbers are deserving of worship, and nobody prays to the integers. > > > Indeed. Comp makes this into a blasphemy. God, in mechanism, is not a > number, at all. Nor is matter, nor is consciousness. > > > > You could of course personally redefine the word so that "God" and numbers > are synonyms, > > > I could not. I have explained this in detail. > > > > and in the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that you manage to > convinced others to adopt this new linguistic convention you would have > succeeded in explaining absolutely nothing about how the world works, you'd > have just changed English, one of about 7000 human languages used on this > planet. > > And then you'd need to invent a new word for the old meaning of the word > "God" and then people like me would say "of course I believe in God but I > don't believe in Fluberblast" and then over time people would develop a > emotional attachment to the word "Fluberblast" and insist on redefining the > word and give it such a amorphous all encompassing sloppy meaning that > everybody would have to say " I believe in Fluberblast". > > > Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually a > christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter. > > At ll level, you seems to defend the Aristotelian theology/theory of > everything. Like many atheists you want us to believe that this is the only > rational option. But comp explains in detail why this can't work, and to > avoid this, you have to do confuse 1p and 3p at some point, and we have > shown you were. > > > > > > > >> I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, > > > > > Really? > > > Yes really. > > > It looks like Santa Klaus to me. > > > God looks like Santa Klaus to me too, and that is exactly why theology has > no more substance to it than Santaklausology. > > > This is so ridiculous. > > > > > > You know that both of us does not find such existence plasuible, or > even capable of explaining anything. > > > Then what are we arguing about? > > > On the fact that machines can distinguish between many different notion of > truth: that they feel, or intuits, or observe, or prove, or get through > special experiences, etc. > > > > > Shouldn't we be arguing about concepts not how best to redefine words so > that it is possible to say "I believe in God" without being a complete fool? > > > With computer science we can distinguih between truth about a machine, and > truth accessible by the machine, and this in different ways, and it matches > what mysticals and religious people described, beyond the popular fairy > tale account. > > God, if you want, is the ultimate truth which remains when you lost your > faith in the primary physical reality. if you want. > > > > > > > > I use the term God, as it was used with that large and vague meaning > for a millenium before it becomes a political tool of manipulation. > > > The common meaning of God a millennium ago was NOT the amorphous > philosophical blob you're talking about, > > > Arithmetical truth is not an amorphous blob. The God discussed by the > greeks was close to it. It comes from Pythagoras, and the neoplatonists > makes are responsible for a revival of the Pythagorean thread. The numbers > have always play a role in theology. for the greeks, mathematics was the > best inspiration for theology. > > > > it meant the same thing it meant 5 millennium before that, a being who's > existence was as concrete as that of your wife or children. > > > Then we should not use the word "earth" to describe a our spheric planet, > which has been thought to be falt by a majority for a long time. The > meaning of words evolve. It is pretty ridiculous to throw out a concept > because of a word. > > > > > God meant a being in which it was a good idea to sacrifice virgins to. > To my knowledge nobody has ever sacrificed virgins to the integers, > although I admit there is a story (probably apocryphal) about Pythagoras > killing a man for leaking the proof that the square root of 2 could not be > expressed as a fraction. > > > > But if you don't like that term I will use "ONE" with discussing with > you, > > > Like the word "God" the ASCII sequence "ONE" already has a meaning in the > English language, the first positive integer. If you've discovered a new > concept that nobody has ever found before then you shouldn't use a word > that already has a meaning or you will cause needless confusion, you're > going to have to invent a new word for it, let's call it "Fluberblast". > > > It is frequent that a word has different meaning. The fact that you reject > "one" which is the quite standard term in neoplatonism shows how much to > have bad faith on such question. Good, I will stick on "God", which is > indeed much more general. keep in mind that with comp, the question is god > (arithmetical truth) can be personal is an open problem in math. > > > > > > > as you take the vocabulary too much seriously, imo. > > > Me?! You're the one who has such a strong emotional attachment to one > particular word in the vocabula > > ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
