Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs).
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
You know that it is not By the way, I´m glad that you recovered from the punch and adopted the standard superiority mode of atheistic conversation that I find sooo lovely 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si,Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's theology (G* minus G). And it is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com You know that it is not By the way, I´m glad that you recovered from the punch and adopted the standard superiority mode of atheistic conversation that I find sooo lovely Well, you use the standard rethoric... you don't discuss, so... That's you who said atheist must be deaf because they don't hear what's screaming in their mind, if it's not a superiority mode, don't know what is... anyway, I'll stop here, it's useless. Quentin 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si,Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's theology (G* minus G). And it is
Re: Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:40, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In fact, materialism cannot explain matter, either. Worst, it avoids trying to explain it at the start. It's not worse, it's logic. Whatever is taken as fundamental in a theory is not something explained in the theory. Your theory takes numbers and arithmetic for granted. Computationalism has to take anything Turing universal at the start. Without something Turing universal, you get no Turing universal things, and so, numbers+add+mult (or anything recursively equivalent) is the minimal we need to start with. But for the physical there is a tradition of doubting that we have to take it in the basic assumption. it is the debate between Plato and Aristotle. Popular religion is the popular oversimplified (often for political reason) of Plato. There is no problem with a physicist taking matter for granted, or assuming it, even implicitly, when they do physics. There is a problem with metaphysics, or theology, or philosophy taking matter for granted, or not assuming it explicitly, because that becomes a huge lack of rigor, and makes it impossible to understand that mechanism is incompatible with materialism. The problem is not with physics, but with implicit physicalism, in a place where science has just not decided. It is a deny of ignorance, or an imposition of a dogma. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang- mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of- the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain- exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, OK. then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Or of having a non physical origin. creation involves the idea of someone doing something with something, and so that idea take some something for granted, and so miss by construction the goal of explaining why we exist. Like Quentin said, God created the universe leads to the problem of what is God, why and how has It created the universe, etc. Also, in some culture, the universe can be the result of God sneezing, or the result of God being unable to control the consequence of his creation of something else. the danger of saying that we are created by God is apparent in the doctrine that God has made the humans into his own image. This leads to the idea that humans are somehow single out from all creatures, when the truth might be that all creature are equal and interconnected (as we see ecologically). We cannot pretend that we are the favorite of God. You know the theory that God created the cat in his own image, and then created the humans to be the servants of the cats ... just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? OK. But then God is only a pointer to our ignorance. If we cannot comprehend God, we cannot use It as an explanation. Here computationalism put some light by explaining that something (may be just the arithmetical truth) is intrinsically ignored by all finite creature. So if we are machine, there is something which transcend us, and I think this is closer to the rational conception of the mystical experience and of the God of the greeks and the mystics. Is that not intellectual dishonesty? It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is atheist with respect to the God of the atheists. My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions. From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to a ONE, the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws). It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain everything from it. Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are generated by arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key Mandelbrot set which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border. The god of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, OK. then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Or of having a non physical origin. creation involves the idea of someone doing something with something, and so that idea take some something for granted, and so miss by construction the goal of explaining why we exist. Like Quentin said, God created the universe leads to the problem of what is God, why and how has It created the universe, etc. Also, in some culture, the universe can be the result of God sneezing, or the result of God being unable to control the consequence of his creation of something else. the danger of saying that we are created by God is apparent in the doctrine that God has made the humans into his own image. This leads to the idea that humans are somehow single out from all creatures, when the truth might be that all creature are equal and interconnected (as we see ecologically). We cannot pretend that we are the favorite of God. You know the theory that God created the cat in his own image, and then created the humans to be the servants of the cats ... just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? OK. But then God is only a pointer to our ignorance. If we cannot comprehend God, we cannot use It as an explanation. Here computationalism put some light by explaining that something (may be just the arithmetical truth) is intrinsically ignored by all finite creature. So if we are machine, there is something which transcend us, and I think this is closer to the rational conception of the mystical experience and of the God of the greeks and the mystics. Is that not intellectual dishonesty? It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. I don't believe in a primitive physical universe and I don't believe in god, I see no contradiction with that... it's because you redefine what god means you're able to say such things, but that is dishonest. Quentin Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is atheist with respect to the God of the atheists. My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions. From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to a ONE, the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws). It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain everything from it. Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are generated by arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key Mandelbrot set which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border. The god of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang- Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke- Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is my only point here,
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang- Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke- Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston- of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain- exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is that not intellectual dishonesty? It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. That's OK, but with comp, this becomes a religious belief in the traditional theological sense. may be you are just ignoring the theological literature. without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. I don't believe in a primitive physical universe and I don't believe in god, I see no contradiction with that... In what do you believe? it's because you redefine what god means you're able to say such things, but that is dishonest. You are using the redefinition of god made by the political power who perverted the original notion for control purpose. But even the theologian belonging to those tradition (who perverted) the word, use it in a sense which is quite close to the original sense. I use it in the same sense than in entheogen: awaking the God inside you, I use it is the sense of most people asserting that they are believer, and who seems genuine, and never pretend their belief is communicable. Then using the terms God and theology can help to correct, with respect to comp, the existing theology, and the demarcation is rather clear: on one par you have the religion based on authoritative arguments, which are far away from comp, and then you have the religion based on personal experience and secret doctrine with negative theology (Soufi, Kabbala, Augustine, Hinduism, Buddhism, taoism, platonism, neoplatonism, etc.). This is certainly an oversimplification, but it illustrates that we might be machine, and that some humans might be more self-referentially correct than others. Bruno Quentin Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is atheist with respect to the God of the atheists. My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions. From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to a ONE, the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws). It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain everything from it. Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are generated by arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key Mandelbrot set which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border. The god of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be
Some basic principles of Leibniz's Idealism
Some basic principles of Leibniz's Idealism 1. Everything that exists has two aspects, essence (mind or monad) and existent (object). This is a localized version of Berkeley's overall Idealism. Essence, being mental, is outside of spacetime while the existent (a corporeal body) is inside of spacetime. 2. Essence is the subjective or mental aspect of existence, which in turn is objective and physical (in spacetime). For example. consciousness or experience is the mental aspect of physical sensory nerve signals. 3. Essence creates, perceives and controls existence. For example, essence is what causes a struck ball to follow Newton's law of motion. For example, tje mind controls the brain. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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/groups/opt_out.
A conjecture- Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism
A conjecture: Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism According to Leibniz's Idealism, everything that exists has two aspects, 1, essence (mind or monad or what we here conjecture is a quantum wave), which is outside of spacetime, and 2. existent (physical particle or object), which is inside of spacetime. This is a localized version of Berkeley's overall Idealism and amounts to the Principle of Complementariy, that everything is a wavicle. Essence, being mental, is outside of spacetime and might be thought of as the quantum wave. while the existent (a corporeal body) is inside of spacetime and follows particle physics and relativity. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: A conjecture- Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism
Dr. Clough: 1, essence (mind or monad or what we here conjecture is a quantum wave), which is outside of spacetime Do you, personally, define spacetime, as the Hubble Volume? I like substance dualism, and I also like quantum dualism, more, precisely. Do you envision an infinite field of mind-monads, before the Hubble Volume? -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 8:04 am Subject: A conjecture- Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism A conjecture: Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism According to Leibniz's Idealism, everything that exists has two aspects, 1, essence (mind or monad or what we here conjecture is a quantum wave), which is outside of spacetime, and 2. existent (physical particle or object), which is inside of spacetime. This is a localized version of Berkeley's overall Idealism and amounts to the Principle of Complementariy, that everything is a wavicle. Essence, being mental, is outside of spacetime and might be thought of as the quantum wave. while the existent (a corporeal body) is inside of spacetime and follows particle physics and relativity. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two
Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or uninformed
description, given that the idea he is best-known for is that the hard
problem of first-person qualia can never be solved by materialist
explanations (even if the so-called easy problem of explaining
third-person behaviors, including everything we say and write, probably
could be), and requires either a dualist ontology or a panpsychist idealist
one (although he argues that even if we accept panpsychism, it would still
be a dual-aspect theory since there would be a distinction between
information states and the qualia associated with each one). Have you
read his book The Conscious Mind?
Jesse
On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Roger Clough wrote:
Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two
Dennett never tells us what conscilousness is, because
conciouness rwequires a perceiver, and he hasn't a clue as to what that is,
because that concept is foreign to his materialism.
He's clueless. And famous as well maybe because with that
beard he looks like a philosopher ought to look.
Chalmers is in the same hole as Dennett is
he is also a materialist wuithout a perceiver.
With his long wild hair he may seem to some to
know what he's talking about. But he's also
clueless, which is why we have the hard problem
of consciousnwess
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
gh http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
http://www.avast.com/
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active.
--
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 javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'everything-list@googlegroups.com');
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Babies Have Self-Awareness From The Minute They're Born
Babies Have Self-Awareness From The Minute They're Born http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/babies-self-awareness_n_4323481.html By: By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer Published: 11/21/2013 12:10 PM EST on LiveScience With their uncoordinated movements and unfocused eyes, newborns may seem pretty clueless about the world. But new research finds that from the minute they are born, babies are well aware of their own bodies. Body awareness is an important skill for distinguishing the self from others, and failure to develop body awareness may be a component of some disorders such as autismhttp://www.livescience.com/34704-autism-symptoms-diagnosis-and-treatments.html. But little research has been done to find out when humans start to understand that their body is their own. To determine babies' awareness of their bodies, the researchers took a page from studies on adults. In a famous illusion, people can be convinced that a rubber hand is their ownhttp://www.livescience.com/34776-virtual-body-merges-with-real-body.htmlif they see the hand stroked while their own hand, hidden from view, is simultaneously stroked. These studies show that information from multiple senses — vision and touch, in this case — are important for body awareness, said Maria Laura Filippetti, a doctoral student at the Center for Brain and Cognitive Development at the University of London. [Incredible! 9 Brainy Baby Abilitieshttp://www.livescience.com/14343-amazing-brainy-baby-abilities.html ] To find out if the same is true of babies, Filippetti and her colleagues tested 40 newborns who were between 12 hours and four days old. The babies sat on the experimenter's lap in front of a screen. On-screen, a video showed a baby's face being stroked by a paintbrush. The researcher either stroked the baby's face with a brush in tandem with the stroking shown on the screen, or delayed the stroking by five seconds. Next, the babies saw the same video but flipped upside down. Again, the researcher stroked the infants' faces in tandem with the upside-down image or delayed the stroking by three seconds. Working with babies so young is a challenge, Filippetti told LiveScience. It is challenging just in terms of the time you actually have when the baby is fully awake and responsive, she said. To determine whether the babies were associating the facial stroking they saw on-screen with their own bodies, as in the rubber-hand illusionhttp://www.livescience.com/28694-non-amputees-feel-phantom-limb.html, the researchers measured how long the babies looked at the screen in each condition. Looking time is the standard measurement used in infant research, because babies can't answer questions or verbally indicate their interest. The researchers found that babies looked the longest at the screen when the stroking matched what they felt on their own faces. This was true only of the right-side-up images; infants didn't seem to associate the flipped faces with their own. [See video of the baby experimenthttp://www.livescience.com/41403-newborn-babies-understand-their-bodies-video.html ] The findings suggest that babies are born with the basic mechanisms they need to build body awareness, Filippetti and her colleagues report today (Nov. 21) in the journal Current Biology. These findings have important implications for our understanding of body perception throughout development, Filippetti said. Perhaps more important, she added, becoming more knowledgeable about normal development may help scientists better understand autism and related disorders. Autism research frequently focuses on abnormalities in social developmenthttp://www.livescience.com/41000-autism-infant-eye-tracking.html, Filippetti said, but less is known about how children with autism perceive the self. Next, Filippetti and her colleagues hope to use noninvasive brain imaging to determine how the newborn brain responds to sensory input to build body awareness. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two
By materialist, he really means atheist or non-Christian. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 12:04:50 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or uninformed description, given that the idea he is best-known for is that the hard problem of first-person qualia can never be solved by materialist explanations (even if the so-called easy problem of explaining third-person behaviors, including everything we say and write, probably could be), and requires either a dualist ontology or a panpsychist idealist one (although he argues that even if we accept panpsychism, it would still be a dual-aspect theory since there would be a distinction between information states and the qualia associated with each one). Have you read his book The Conscious Mind? Jesse On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two Dennett never tells us what conscilousness is, because conciouness rwequires a perceiver, and he hasn't a clue as to what that is, because that concept is foreign to his materialism. He's clueless. And famous as well maybe because with that beard he looks like a philosopher ought to look. Chalmers is in the same hole as Dennett is he is also a materialist wuithout a perceiver. With his long wild hair he may seem to some to know what he's talking about. But he's also clueless, which is why we have the hard problem of consciousnwess Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough gh http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang- mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm
Re: Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two
On 01 Dec 2013, at 18:04, Jesse Mazer wrote: Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or uninformed description, given that the idea he is best-known for is that the hard problem of first-person qualia can never be solved by materialist explanations (even if the so-called easy problem of explaining third-person behaviors, including everything we say and write, probably could be), and requires either a dualist ontology or a panpsychist idealist one (although he argues that even if we accept panpsychism, it would still be a dual-aspect theory since there would be a distinction between information states and the qualia associated with each one). Have you read his book The Conscious Mind? Chalmers is still a weak-materialist, making him non computationalist in the weak sense I propose, but that could explain why he stops at step 3 in the UDA. He is also dualist, and defends, in that book, the Everett interpretation, which is, as well explained by Primas notably, the essence of Everett theory (QM without collapse). Dennett's problem is that it take the problem of matter basically solved, which is not the case, and eventually flirts seriously with the elimination of the person and consciousness. Chalmers is not an eliminativist, but seems to ignore comp and the FPI. Both ignores computer science and the fact that we can already listen to the machines. I have enjoyed Dennett's Brainstorm very much, and in Minds I he get close to the FPI, in his novel Where am I. But his consciouness explained is the billionth physicalist attempt to put the person under the rug. Both the intuitive FPI, and the logic of self-reference illustrates a sort of correctness of the intuition: as it shows that IF Matter exists then the person is an illusion. With comp the person is not an illusion (we have to ask her yes or no) so only Matter can be an illusion. In this list I have sometimes said materialist for weak materialist, to avoid the repetition. A weak materialist is a believer in primitive matter. A materialist in philosophy of mind is for someone who believes only in Matter, and is of course automatically a weak-materialist. Comp+occam is thus inconsistent with both weak materialism (the belief in Matter) and materialism (the belief in only Matter). Bruno Jesse On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two Dennett never tells us what conscilousness is, because conciouness rwequires a perceiver, and he hasn't a clue as to what that is, because that concept is foreign to his materialism. He's clueless. And famous as well maybe because with that beard he looks like a philosopher ought to look. Chalmers is in the same hole as Dennett is he is also a materialist wuithout a perceiver. With his long wild hair he may seem to some to know what he's talking about. But he's also clueless, which is why we have the hard problem of consciousnwess Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough gh This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 November 2013 05:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Liz, I disagree. The atheists say the definition of Earth (God) in the sacred text is an infinite plane (fairy tale). We know there is no infinite plane below us, (we disbelief fairy tales) thus we correct our theory of Earth (God): Earth (God) doesn't exist. That this, the atheists credit some text for the definition of God, and abandon the whole idea, or possible reality, because they find some theory wrong. And by doing so, they continue to credit the authoritative arguments. And in passing they impose implicitly their own theology (Matter). God, in the original platonist theoretical conception is basically the reason/cause of the everything which exists in some or other senses. Atheists says it is Matter. Many atheists believes that there is a material universe, and that it is all there is. Their God, in the platonist sense, is Matter, and they might be true. But you don't need to believe in any fairy tale to doubt Matter, and so the physical universe might have a deeper cause or reason, and indeed with computationalism the cause is just the arithmetical truth, which makes the universal number sharing deep computations, with a measure we can compare with the facts (using Theaetetus' definition of knowledge). If we don't put the theological in perspective, it will be hard to even compare the atheist aristotelian theology (Nature, Mater, is the God) and Platonism: (Nature and Matter emerge from, or emanate from, or is created by, or is the shadow of, or (in comp): is the global FPI first person plural projection, from *something else* (with comp: arithmetical truth). The problem of some atheists and materialist is that they confuse physics and theology. They forget that they *assume* a physical reality. They too commit an act of faith, by making the object of physics the explanation of everything. They reason correctly in the frame of that assumption, but to do theology scientifically, you need to remind that it is an assumption, just to see other rational conception of reality possible. Very clearly put. I do think that atheists believe what I said they believe, mainly because I've read quotes from them saying as much - however you are quite right, they then forget that they have a metaphysical belief. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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/groups/opt_out.
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 30 November 2013 12:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks for the explanations. Ok, I think I now understand why dark matter is the best hypothesis. It is, to date. Neverthless, you would have been quite correct had it been the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that you were trying to explain, rather than the anomalous rotation of galaxies observed in 1933 by Fritz Zwicky. Pre-Einstein, various theories were advanced to explain the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury (relative to what Newtonian gravitation predicted it should have been) including hidden matter - an undetected planet (called Vulcan, as Trekkies and Dr Who fans will appreciate) and an odd mass distribution inside the Sun. But in that case, it turned out that the best answer WAS to modify gravity. So far DM has remained the top explanation even as more phenomena involving it have been discovered (garvitational lensing for example). Some of its characteristics are now fairly well measured; its nature remains unexplained... which makes life interesting for particle physicists and cosmologists. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. I agree. People underestimate the complexity that can arise from multiplying simple behaviours by many entities. Here's a beautiful example: http://vimeo.com/16256894 Everything here is the outcome of the behaviours of simple agents following simple rules in reaction to their local environment. This example has two types of agents: preys and predators. If we consider the fantastic number of ways in which molecules can aggregate and interact, it's possible to imagine how something like this can scale up to the complexity of the human body. Under some such environment, when replicators emerge, evolutionary processes take over and thus begins the climb up mount improbable. I never found a proponent of interventionist gods who seemed to grasp what's possible with simple rules and building blocks. This does not explain consciousness, of course. There are enough deep mysteries to existence as is. Telmo. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Nice video! Yes even Fred Hoyle fell down on understanding what's possible with simple rules and a large number of iterations. On 2 December 2013 10:59, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. I agree. People underestimate the complexity that can arise from multiplying simple behaviours by many entities. Here's a beautiful example: http://vimeo.com/16256894 Everything here is the outcome of the behaviours of simple agents following simple rules in reaction to their local environment. This example has two types of agents: preys and predators. If we consider the fantastic number of ways in which molecules can aggregate and interact, it's possible to imagine how something like this can scale up to the complexity of the human body. Under some such environment, when replicators emerge, evolutionary processes take over and thus begins the climb up mount improbable. I never found a proponent of interventionist gods who seemed to grasp what's possible with simple rules and building blocks. This does not explain consciousness, of course. There are enough deep mysteries to existence as is. Telmo. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 November 2013 03:58, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Atheists say: Prove to me your existence and I will trust you. God says: Trust me and I will prove to you my existence. Agnostic says: Trust me, neither of you can prove or show the other anything at this point :-) 2) What did the Buddhist say to the atheist pizza chef? Make me one with everything! And the atheist pizza chef did. LOL! And I only say that when I actually do. (And I'm at work) -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Agnosticism should be the religion of the state. On 2 December 2013 11:33, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. Ok, but here I think government is meant as some pre-existing complexity. While the laws of physics are simpler than their outcome, the christian god is more complex that its outcome. And, rephrasing what Liz said, we never found any evidence of higher complexity downstream. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. I would say that it's society that can't live without myths, and we can't live without society. Since we have no agency over society but we depend on it for survival, we must be part of a super-organism. Some of our behaviour has to be molecule-like, but our human minds want to feel they are in control. So we post-rationalise. We haven't found a way for society to work without dominance, so we rationalise this dominance in increasingly sophisticated ways. In democracy, the dominated are accomplices in keeping the illusion, because they want to reap the benefits of being subservient without having to signal subservience. The voting ritual makes this possible. Breaking such illusions is a very dangerous proposition, as we've seen in Europe in the first half or the 20th century (early republicanism broke the monarchy illusion but quickly degrading into fascism -- fascism had more powerful binding myths to offer, and a lesson had to be learned). Of course, as you point out, republics come with a myth set of their own. Modern law is a very sophisticated, if perverse system. Many laws are not meant to be followed. They are used to post-rationalise punishment for breaking unwritten rules that nobody wants to acknowledge but all want to enforce. Telmo. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
Liz, There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From wiki-dark matter - 3.1 Galaxy rotation curveshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_rotation_curves - 3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Velocity_dispersions_of_galaxies - 3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_clusters_and_gravitational_lensing - 3.4 Cosmic microwave backgroundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Cosmic_microwave_background - 3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Sky_surveys_and_baryon_acoustic_oscillations - 3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurementshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Type_Ia_supernovae_distance_measurements - 3.7 Lyman-alpha foresthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Lyman-alpha_forest - 3.8 Structure formationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Structure_formation On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 November 2013 12:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks for the explanations. Ok, I think I now understand why dark matter is the best hypothesis. It is, to date. Neverthless, you would have been quite correct had it been the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that you were trying to explain, rather than the anomalous rotation of galaxies observed in 1933 by Fritz Zwicky. Pre-Einstein, various theories were advanced to explain the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury (relative to what Newtonian gravitation predicted it should have been) including hidden matter - an undetected planet (called Vulcan, as Trekkies and Dr Who fans will appreciate) and an odd mass distribution inside the Sun. But in that case, it turned out that the best answer WAS to modify gravity. So far DM has remained the top explanation even as more phenomena involving it have been discovered (garvitational lensing for example). Some of its characteristics are now fairly well measured; its nature remains unexplained... which makes life interesting for particle physicists and cosmologists. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
To add to my last comment, the article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/ mentions that Leibniz was among those philosophers who distinguished between necessary and contingent truths, and only granted God the power to change contingent ones. Here's a relevant bit from the article: Consider the way Leibniz distinguishes necessary and contingent truths in §13 of the *Discourse on Metaphysics*. The one whose contrary implies a contradiction is absolutely necessary; this deduction occurs in the eternal truths, for example, the truths of geometry. The other is necessary only *ex hypothesi* and, so to speak, accidentally, but it is contingent in itself, since its contrary does not imply a contradiction. And this connection is based not purely on ideas and God's simple understanding, but on his free decrees and on the sequence of the universe. (A VI iv 1547/AG 45) So, what's wrong with adopting Tegmark's solution which takes our universe as a Platonic mathematical structure, so that all truths about it are necessary ones too? Then there would be no need for a creator God, though one might still talk about a sort of Spinoza-esque pantheist God (especially if one also prefers panpsychism as a solution to the metaphysical problem of the relation between consciousness and third-person objective reality) On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Jesse Mazer wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
Thanks, that's an impressive list. I'd be rather surprised if bolt-on extras to GR can explain all those. On 2 December 2013 12:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From wiki-dark matter - 3.1 Galaxy rotation curveshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_rotation_curves - 3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Velocity_dispersions_of_galaxies - 3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_clusters_and_gravitational_lensing - 3.4 Cosmic microwave backgroundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Cosmic_microwave_background - 3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Sky_surveys_and_baryon_acoustic_oscillations - 3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurementshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Type_Ia_supernovae_distance_measurements - 3.7 Lyman-alpha foresthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Lyman-alpha_forest - 3.8 Structure formationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Structure_formation On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 November 2013 12:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks for the explanations. Ok, I think I now understand why dark matter is the best hypothesis. It is, to date. Neverthless, you would have been quite correct had it been the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that you were trying to explain, rather than the anomalous rotation of galaxies observed in 1933 by Fritz Zwicky. Pre-Einstein, various theories were advanced to explain the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury (relative to what Newtonian gravitation predicted it should have been) including hidden matter - an undetected planet (called Vulcan, as Trekkies and Dr Who fans will appreciate) and an odd mass distribution inside the Sun. But in that case, it turned out that the best answer WAS to modify gravity. So far DM has remained the top explanation even as more phenomena involving it have been discovered (garvitational lensing for example). Some of its characteristics are now fairly well measured; its nature remains unexplained... which makes life interesting for particle physicists and cosmologists. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 2 December 2013 12:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: To add to my last comment, the article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/ mentions that Leibniz was among those philosophers who distinguished between necessary and contingent truths, and only granted God the power to change contingent ones. Here's a relevant bit from the article: Consider the way Leibniz distinguishes necessary and contingent truths in §13 of the *Discourse on Metaphysics*. The one whose contrary implies a contradiction is absolutely necessary; this deduction occurs in the eternal truths, for example, the truths of geometry. The other is necessary only *ex hypothesi* and, so to speak, accidentally, but it is contingent in itself, since its contrary does not imply a contradiction. And this connection is based not purely on ideas and God's simple understanding, but on his free decrees and on the sequence of the universe. (A VI iv 1547/AG 45) So, what's wrong with adopting Tegmark's solution which takes our universe as a Platonic mathematical structure, so that all truths about it are necessary ones too? Then there would be no need for a creator God, though one might still talk about a sort of Spinoza-esque pantheist God (especially if one also prefers panpsychism as a solution to the metaphysical problem of the relation between consciousness and third-person objective reality) I am of the same opinion, that reality is probably in some sense emergent from logically necessary truths - however, possible objections include: The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) doesn't make testable predictions (Tegmark claims it does, about the gerenicity of the universe we should expect to find ourselves in, but there have been objections that this isn't quantifiable, etc). Various objections by materialists - for example, they have been known to object that there aren't resources available in the universe to do the maths and similar level confusions. This tends to come down to I don't believe it! (usually expressed as something like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence etc, but that's what they mean). These need not concern us *too* much, because they are basically religious objetions - they don't like their metaphysical premises being questioned. The MUH doesn't address the nature of consciousness. Tegmark describes consciousness as (somethnig like) what data feels like when it's being processed but this bit of hand-waving fails to explain qualia etc. Bruno will perhaps have more to say on this. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'? On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, that's an impressive list. I'd be rather surprised if bolt-on extras to GR can explain all those. On 2 December 2013 12:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From wiki-dark matter - 3.1 Galaxy rotation curveshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_rotation_curves - 3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Velocity_dispersions_of_galaxies - 3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_clusters_and_gravitational_lensing - 3.4 Cosmic microwave backgroundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Cosmic_microwave_background - 3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Sky_surveys_and_baryon_acoustic_oscillations - 3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurementshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Type_Ia_supernovae_distance_measurements - 3.7 Lyman-alpha foresthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Lyman-alpha_forest - 3.8 Structure formationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Structure_formation On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 November 2013 12:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks for the explanations. Ok, I think I now understand why dark matter is the best hypothesis. It is, to date. Neverthless, you would have been quite correct had it been the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that you were trying to explain, rather than the anomalous rotation of galaxies observed in 1933 by Fritz Zwicky. Pre-Einstein, various theories were advanced to explain the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury (relative to what Newtonian gravitation predicted it should have been) including hidden matter - an undetected planet (called Vulcan, as Trekkies and Dr Who fans will appreciate) and an odd mass distribution inside the Sun. But in that case, it turned out that the best answer WAS to modify gravity. So far DM has remained the top explanation even as more phenomena involving it have been discovered (garvitational lensing for example). Some of its characteristics are now fairly well measured; its nature remains unexplained... which makes life interesting for particle physicists and cosmologists. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories. Although it looks like it's actually bolt-on extras to Newtonian gravitation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND On 2 December 2013 14:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'? -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
I should have said that by ad hoc I mean with no, or little, theoretical justification. That is, adjusting the threoy to fit the data, but with for no compelling theoretical justification. On 2 December 2013 15:42, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories. Although it looks like it's actually bolt-on extras to Newtonian gravitation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND On 2 December 2013 14:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'? -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) IMO John Moffat has a much better mod-gravity theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506021.pdf wiki-Moffat: He proposes a variable speed of lighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light approach to cosmological http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology problems, which posits that *G http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant*/ *c* is constant through time, but *G* and *c* separately have not been.in the early universe, in which the speed of light was 1030 times faster than its current value. Richard: That would say that the fine structure constant was different in the early universe, which agrees with observations of the Keck telescope. However, more recent observations in the southern hemisphere indicates the the fine structure constant varies monotonically north to south and not as a function of time. I have used those observations to hypothesize that the Calabi-Yau compact space particles are numerable and a basis for computationalism in my string cosmology papers. But he has done much more- read his wiki. On a personal note John Moffat was a consultant one summer in the MIT Lincoln Lab group that I worked in in the late 1960s. But I am not sure it's the same John Moffat. On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I should have said that by ad hoc I mean with no, or little, theoretical justification. That is, adjusting the threoy to fit the data, but with for no compelling theoretical justification. On 2 December 2013 15:42, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories. Although it looks like it's actually bolt-on extras to Newtonian gravitation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND On 2 December 2013 14:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'? -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? IMO John Moffat has a much better mod-gravity theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506021.pdf That VSL idea sounds familiar, I may have heard of that before. I would imagine it solves the horizon problem and does away with the need for inflation in the early universe; if he can also sort our dark matter and dark energy he's doing rather well, all he needs after that is an acid test that will distinguish his theory from GR (much as the 1919 eclipse was supposed to have been the acid test for GR vs Newtonian gravity) and he can claim his Nobel (if he hasn't got one already). In fact, I'm fairly sure we have the Magueijo book somewhere. (When do I get my ansible?) -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
Moffat even does away with renormalization. The acid test was to be the fine structure constant being time dependent. But that was not repeatable for a south hemisphere telescope whose name I forget. The two Keck Telescopes were built at Litton ITEK in Lexington, MA where I worked for a few years. They had cornered the market for spaceborne spy satellites. But after the Berlin Wall came down the US govt decided they did not need ITEK any more and ITEK was sold to Perkin Elmer who screwed up the Hubble Space telescope. Most of us lost our jobs instead of moving to Connecticut. It was the last physics research job I had. On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? IMO John Moffat has a much better mod-gravity theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506021.pdf That VSL idea sounds familiar, I may have heard of that before. I would imagine it solves the horizon problem and does away with the need for inflation in the early universe; if he can also sort our dark matter and dark energy he's doing rather well, all he needs after that is an acid test that will distinguish his theory from GR (much as the 1919 eclipse was supposed to have been the acid test for GR vs Newtonian gravity) and he can claim his Nobel (if he hasn't got one already). In fact, I'm fairly sure we have the Magueijo book somewhere. (When do I get my ansible?) -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
On 12/1/2013 12:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: but there is no known proof (or even an argument offered by materialists) that matter cannot be explained in terms of something simpler. Of course not. That would the point the it's fundamental. The point of Jason if I may, is that there is no way to explain numbers without assuming them... but there are ways to explain matter without assuming it. I'm not convinced of either of those points. And as I noted to be explained does entail that something cannot be fundmental, only that it might not be. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. That's right, I'm agnostic with respect to the question of whether there could be a god(s). But I'm still an atheist because I'm pretty sure there's not theist god. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. It's not what you wrote. You wrote: If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife, it means you can conceive a non Christian God, which is nice, but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. ... Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God. So you claimed that conceiving of a non-Christian God makes it more difficult to believe in the non-existence of God (by which I think you mean to fail to believe in the existence of God). And then you agree that one *must* concieve of a God (or anything else) in order to fail to believe in its existence. As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 3:32 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: As such, you should restrain from using that word, it's useless. What term would you suggest? What about ultimate reality ? Because that's what you say it means... It's neutral, does not have all the connotations linked with the word god... and eventually, that's what you want to convey. Quentin Not only that, it abbreviates to UR. But it should be used in lower case, ur, so as to avoid the implication it is a proper noun. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. Scientists don't believe in things. They only hypothesize them. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Using God for the ultimate reality, it seems to me, can in the long run enlarge the listening and the understanding of what the machines are already telling us. Not as much as using ultimate reality for ultimate reality. One must suspect you have some hidden agenda to avoid plain speaking. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying gravity. Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras) Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian) Or rather Einsteinian, I don't think Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational lensing? Sure it does, but only half as strong as GR. Brent IMO John Moffat has a much better mod-gravity theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506021.pdf That VSL idea sounds familiar, I may have heard of that before. I would imagine it solves the horizon problem and does away with the need for inflation in the early universe; if he can also sort our dark matter and dark energy he's doing rather well, all he needs after that is an acid test that will distinguish his theory from GR (much as the 1919 eclipse was supposed to have been the acid test for GR vs Newtonian gravity) and he can claim his Nobel (if he hasn't got one already). In fact, I'm fairly sure we have the Magueijo book somewhere. (When do I get my ansible?) -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/1/2013 9:11 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. That's what you say you believe. But is there any reason I should believe it? 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 10:30 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Evolution is designed, it's a simple consequence of random variation and it's consequences for reproduction. That's why it's a good explanation - it doesn't just push the question off onto another mystery. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Actually Crick designed the perfect means for DNA replication (I think that was it) without any errors long before it was established empirically. When experimenters finally discovered how nature did it, it turned out that nature's method produced occasional errors. So the system of evolution is not perfectly designed. Should not it follow that there is no god.? On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02 Dec 2013, at 00:13, Jesse Mazer wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot make 17 into a composite number. God obeys to logic, and nobody is interested in an inconsistent God. This does not really limit his power, in fact without being consistent, God would become trivial. For the same reason, everythingers can believe only in all possible *consistent* things, and consistency is the modal possibility in provability logic. The cul-de-sac world still make inconsistency consistent, without introducing an inconsistent reality. That's part of the explanation of the mind in comp, and an explanation of why a travel near inconsistency is possible, and that's probably part of the computationalist job. You don't have world satisfying false (which would be an inconsistent reality, stretching a little bit the vocabulary), but we do have world (for G), in which we have provable(false), indeed that the syntactical way to say we are in a cul-de-sac world. and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. But that speculation cannot make sense if we assume that we are machine. Indeed if we are machine, our first person experience are distributed in the mathematical (actually arithmetical is enough) structure, and the physical reality is not a mathematical structure among others, but a mathematical (biological, psychological, theological) phenomenon, which makes us (us = the universal machine) believe in some big universal machine. This predicts that below our level of substitution, we must see the trace of parallel universe, and this is confirmed by (Everett) theory, as as far as it works which seems to be the case until now. Tegmark still use an Aristotelian identity theory (mind-body) which is incoherent with computationalism. That is why he must speculate. Once we assume comp, there is no need to speculate on a mathematical universe, as the universe does not exist per se, but has to be a persistent and invariant mind construct of all universal machine/ number, and this in a completely testable way, as the beliefs in laws of physics should all be extracted from (Robinson) Arithmetic. The mathematical hypothesis was already a theorem in the comp theory. Tegmark missed the FPI, which breaks the Aristotelian identity thesis, and eventually breaks the whole Aristotelian theological paradigm of the (weak) materialists (the materialism of the believer in primitive matter). It is a bit weird, as Tegmark interprets correctly QM (with respect to comp) and Everett QM already break the aristotelian identity thesis, imo. Bruno On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
