What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html
Samiya On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:30 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 10/8/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: >> >> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the >> question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this >> list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's >> reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic". >> >> >> How do you know that? How could you know that. >> >> >> I read the interview. For example >> >> *D.G.: I’m not a believer, so I’m not in a position to say. First of all, >> it’s worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don’t come >> from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case for >> believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a benevolent God >> could allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils like >> devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always been >> a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of >> responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like >> me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, >> figured out how to accommodate themselves to it.* >> >> It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism. If he were >> referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there >> would be no "problem of evil" for that god. >> >> >> >> On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and evil >> related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person perspective >> yet understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to justify and be >> confronted with that very problem. >> >> >> But under computationlism it's not a problem. The is no presumption >> that a computable world is morally good by human standards. >> > > Under computationalism, all possible worlds and all possible observers > exist and there's nothing God can do about it. God can no more make certain > observers or observations not exist than make 2 + 2 = 3. However, a > benevolent theistic god under computationalism (with access to unlimited > computing resources) could nonetheless "save" beings who existed in other > worlds by continuing the computation of their minds. > > > You say "could" as though he had a choice, meaning He's not part of the > computable world and is not one of the "all possible observers". Seems to > me that he will have to both save everyone and also torture everyone in > hell. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
