Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Roger Clough]

 

 

Atheism is wish fulfillment.

 

 

 

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]

See my Leibniz site at

http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:

 

 

Atheism is wish fulfillment.

Yes. Notably. I agree. 

It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian "Matter".

The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[LizR]

To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism" is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote:

To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism" is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them.

Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich.

The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.).

It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians).

Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). 

The real "religious" debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?

Bruno

On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:

 

 

Atheism is wish fulfillment.

Yes. Notably. I agree. 

It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian "Matter".

The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato.

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[Samiya Illias]

Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?"  

We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome. 

[spudb...@aol.com]

Science may never answer the WHY question, but it surely must answer the HOW question. Once we know how, we will likely know why? Right now our ability to understand the universe has been hampered by insufficient tools to observe and analyze what was. But we have become much better over the last 2 decades. What we know is that we have not detected intelligence, anywhere close by. My own personal guesses or at least what I have been toying with is-just by basing it on models scientists know is:

1) God like evolved or arrived as or from a Boltzmann Brain. Technically it fits the bill.

 

2) There likely is an afterlife based on the concept of Storage Area Networks. So the self-same data gets written stored and processed, in two different geographical locations so the programs, processes, and information are preserved. In our case, or life, entire's, case, the local storage that is ourselves, is local, and the other site is non-local. The same could be said of fleas, mollusks, our own gut bacteria, and giraffes. The inspiration for my foolishness, is the combination of the EPR effect combined with the holographic theory. I cannot say of String or Loop hypotheses has anything to do with my toy model?

 

Last, the mentioning of the good, Marquis de Sade, brings this old stage tune to mind, from the play, Marat-Sade. I don't know if this informs our discussion, but the mentioning of Sade caused me to think of Marat-Sade.

 

 Four years he fought and he fought unafraid
Sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed
Marat in the courtroom
Marat underground
Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound

Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest
The business man the bourgeois the military beast
Marat always ready to stifle every scheme  
Of the sons of the ass licking dying regime
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Nov 2013, at 14:35, Samiya Illias wrote:

Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?"  

We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense.

That is not entirely clear to me. In a sense, I can agree, but this is because the natural numbers, and addition and multiplication makes already *sense* to me. From that sense, much more sense can develop. And *we* can add even more sense in some creative way.

There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome. 

That is still an open problem for me (with or without comp). Computationalism, I think, is useful just by showing that this question is difficult, notably to some intrinsic vocabulary problem.

In computer science the notion of goal and purpose is not so hard (Mars Rover's purpose is to send us as many information about Mars from the tools it disposes of, for example). I guess you mean that there should be a universal purpose, but I am not sure it is more than add and multiply.

Interesting question. It is the place where I find both Plotinus and the universal machine quite cryptic. 

It is the question of personhood of "God". With comp (+Theaetetus) you can give a personhood to the inner God, but the outer God is more like the Tao, or the Indra Net, it is "just" (arithmetical) truth yet so far beyond us that .... Well, open problem.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Liz: your precise version (with Bruno's rounding it up) makes me evoid to call myself an atheist:

An 'atheist' requires god(s) to DENY. 

In my (rather agnostic) worldview there is no place (requirement) for supernatural (whatever that may be) 'forces' to control "nature".  

I feel reluctant to draw conclusions about 'nature' (everything - beyond the physicists' view) based upon "what makes sense to us" today. And I would ask Bruno to add to his 'Christian God' concept Allah and the Jewish god(s?) - he mentioned the Hindi ones briefly. All 'gods' are culturally benevolent - preferring the 'good' and 'useful' for the praying ones, e.g. annihilate their enemies, while THE SAME GOD is asked by those same enemies to annihilate the prayee - both hoping to be heard. Here is the societal input:

murder is a sin, unless it is in the interest of society (war) when it is the ultimate heroism (or: if it is to retaliate against the infidel, when it paves the way into heaven.) 

I like Spudboy's argumentation.

Afterlife? I sent a little snap to Brent about two fetuses arguing in the womb 

whether there is life beyond birth? 

Brent replied with Mark Twain's bon mot: 'Since he was in that 'afterlife' world for billions of years before he was born and did not carry any adverse memories from there, he is not afraid to go back after death.' 

It is all in the same imagination where my mistake has its roots when I said "if something "exists" in our mind then it surely DOES exist (there). Accepting (in Bruno's sharp view) the existence of a mind. 

I am adversive to a court-like processing of an 'eternal(???) soul based on a short life-span (maybe only 10 years? or 1 day?) with a verdict similar to how the injustice-systems work in the diverse societal setups and 'imagined' for my belief-system the complexity of 'us' (all living/non living creatures) falling apart at death - maybe into portions only - and joining other complexities not fallen apart.. Elements may stay and act in the new environment - a source of spiritism experienced. It embraces the reincarnation and all ghost stories without the usual explanations that may scare us. No demons haunting. 

Evolution? Not in my views with a connotation of striving for 'better' or 'final'...

Changes occur to comply with given ci5rcumstances and capabilities in RELATIONS (unknown). Whatever can - will survive and the changes - better or worse - go on. If a 'god' pre-planned an evolution, why are we not started with the end-product? Why the zillion extinctions? Why the unfathomable variety? 

(Again a human-logic stance - ha ha). 

My wife, however, embraces the view of 'us' kept by 'zookeepers' in this universe for purposes unknown -  does not share my ignorance and dreams about a 'purpose' of our being here. Not only by nice dreams. 

John Mikes

[meekerdb]

There are variations.  Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist by his political opponents.  And they were correct since he seems to have been a deist, not a theist. 

Do you think there is a difference between believing the God of Abraham does not exist and failing to believe that He does?

Brent

[LizR]

If it was just the Christian God then believers in Odin and the Ancient Romans and Egyptians and so on would all be "atheists" which seems a bit silly!

[meekerdb]

On 11/24/2013 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote:
>
>> To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism" is wrong. But
>> otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them.
>
>
> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to
> me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La
> Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including
> torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the
> origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and
> indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a
> life of rich.
>
> The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is
> a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a
> shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the
> one, God, the universal dream, etc.).
>
> It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other
> conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and
> Indians).
>
> Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the
> first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation
> (a material universe).
>
> The real "religious" debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical
> reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?

That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the existence of god;
first you have to define what you mean by "god" before you can answer whether "god exists"
or not. So what is the definition of "physical reality"? It seems to me that "physical"
only adds the concept of shared/public. But Plato also intended his reality to be shared
and public.

Brent

[LizR]

On 25 November 2013 10:53, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

That isn't a problem at all.  It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by "god" before you can answer whether "god exists" or not. So what is the definition of "physical reality"?  It seems to me that "physical" only adds the concept of shared/public.  But Plato also intended his reality to be shared and public.

It seems quite hard to pin down exactly what physical means, now that we can no longer visualise particles as tiny billiard balls. I think the important point is whether "physical" is fundamental, or derived from something else.  Aristotle would say the former, Plato the latter.

[Richard Ruquist]

So far left out of this discussion is that the physical reality that we observe and derive physical laws for may be only 5% of the universe, the other 95% being comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which are actually just placeholders for the unknown.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[LizR]

It seems unlikely that the nature of dark matter and dark energy will  change the ontological status of matter generally. A materialist, for example, will assume that they are "more of the same" -- but less interactive, at least with our 5%.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 11/24/2013 5:35 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:

Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?"  

We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome.

I have my purposes.  Does that matter to you?  If not then why should some other purpose you don't know about matter to you?

Brent
"All true stories end in death."   
    --- Ernst Hemingway

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/11/24 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote:

To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism" is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them.

Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich.

Both branches of nihilistic economicism , yes

The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.).

Interesting declaration of Gnosticism.

But that platonic idea of the world does is not match very well with what plato says in the Timaeus. Allthough the gnosticists have drawn a lot from Plato.

In the other way, the conception of Aristotle was the traditional idea of the greeks. the greek goods, by the way, where intramundane, not beyond-material, that is sobrenatural, authough "almost" inmortals. So you can accuse the ancient greeks of being aristotelians.

It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). 

Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). 

The real "religious" debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality.

Not only that. Between primitive and not existence, theere are a lot of possiblities

 

Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?

We have no option once our personal survival problems are solved and we have to plan beyond tomorrow. 

We have teleological minds that need to discover a course of history to follow. Otherwise, probably like in any social organism, we will be victims of out own mechanism of sanity-checking and the social apoptosis will prescribe an useful suicide to our disoriented body, in order to avoid being a burden for the other gene-vehicles of the society.

That´s why many disoriented people, specially young ones, risk their lifes in extreme sports (or terrorism): it is the only way to avoid asking oneself for some meaning for their lifes.  The spectacle of people running to the extenuation in massive marathons with "solidary" purposes as a modern form of primitive sacrifice is one of the most bizarre but enlightening things in this "rationalist" modern world. 

--
Alberto.

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 25 November 2013 12:35:50 am AEDT, Samiya Illias wrote:

Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?"  

We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome.                 

But why can't life lack sense and purpose? What logical or empirical law would that break?

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/11/25 Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com>

You implicitly are saying:

1) The only and certain purpose is to act according with the laws. So there is a purpose, although not personal purpose

2)These laws are ultimate causes and conform the matter, make it be, so as such, They are beyond and prior to nature, that is, They are sobrenatural. and 

3)All the Laws are known. 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

[Telmo Menezes]

Yes, and I also suspect that this is why pop culture is so loud.
People of all ages feel this need to be distracted from the abyss. Not
that I find anything wrong in pop culture per se, but making a big
deal about some celebrity wearing a skimpy outfit is one of the many
ways to distract ourselves from the nausea that can come when one
contemplates naked reality. Another impression I have is that Europe
is mostly a post-nausea culture, while the US is a pre-nausea one.
This makes communication hard, despite the fact that we have so much
in common at a more superficial level.

> The spectacle of people running to the
> extenuation in massive marathons with "solidary" purposes as a modern form
> of primitive sacrifice is one of the most bizarre but enlightening things in
> this "rationalist" modern world.

I agree, it's funny. Obviously people could just donate the money
directly to charity, so there is some fundamental need for the
puritanical public display of sacrifice. It also promotes jogging and
healthy living, which is a replacement for conventional religious
notions of purity. It is acceptable under the new dogmas because it is
science-based, but the underlaying religious needs are still the same.

Then you have some funny moments, like when science finds out that
stretching before exercise is actually counter-productive. It's a
bummer, because stretching before a jog is such a wonderful display of
piety, so similar to genuflexion before some altar. I wonder what
they'll replace it with.

Telmo.

[meekerdb]

On 11/24/2013 1:44 PM, LizR wrote:
> If it was just the Christian God then believers in Odin and the Ancient Romans and
> Egyptians and so on would all be "atheists" which seems a bit silly!

Interestingly, the Romans called early Christians "atheists" because they didn't believe
in the Roman pantheon.

But I think there is a real distinction between deists, who believe in a God who just
creates the universe and then takes not further part in it, and theists who believe in a
God who insists on being worshiped and answers prayers and performs miracles.

Brent
"All those canes, braces and crutches, and not a single glass eye, wooden leg, or toupee!"
--- Anatole France, on seeing the objects cast off by visitors to Lourdes.

[meekerdb]

Why wouldn't the "something else" just be physical too.  In my view "physical" just means "part of our shared experience", stuff we can define to one another ostensively.  If numbers exist they are just as physical as spacetime or the Higgs field.  The interesting thing to me about Bruon's theory is that he proposes to explain the first person, not-sharable experiences in terms to proof relations.  I don't think they can be separated from the sharable "physical" part of the world; but I applaud the effort.

Brent
A physicist goes off to a conference. After a week his suit’s gotten  soiled and crumpled, so he goes out to look for a dry cleaner. Walking down the main street of town, he comes upon a store with a lot of signs out front. One of them says “Dry Cleaning.” So he goes in with his dirty suit and asks when he can come back to pick it up. The mathematician who owns the shop replies, “I’m terribly sorry, but we don’t do dry cleaning.” “What?” exclaims the puzzled physicist. “The sign outside says  ‘Dry Cleaning’!” “We do not do anything here,” replies the mathematician. “We only sell signs!”
   --- Alain Connes, in Changeux

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Nov 2013, at 21:08, John Mikes wrote:

Liz: your precise version (with Bruno's rounding it up) makes me evoid to call myself an atheist:

An 'atheist' requires god(s) to DENY. 

In my (rather agnostic) worldview there is no place (requirement) for supernatural (whatever that may be) 'forces' to control "nature".  

Especially that the idea that God controls everything might be a prejudice or simplification. Most serious theologians, confesional or not, are convinced by St-Thomas that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent, and today good argument exists that God cannot be even just omniscient. So Abramanic theologian can concentrate on some limit toward omniscience, and if we restrict ourselves to arithmetic, this leads to an interesting "non computational theory", which still can play some key role in what machines can discover when looking inward (in the 3p and 1p ways).

But the East and the neoplatonists provided less "Abramanic" God(s). the most "non Abramanic God" is the inner God, which is a local incarnation of the "outer God". It is the God who lost Itself in his creation, and indeed get quickly to what it cannot control (like the FPI), which will constitute Matter (*the* Indeterminate, in both Aristotle and Plato, according to Plotinus). 

I am so much agnostic that I find the statement 'God does not exist" mainly impolite, as you never really know to whom you talk.

I feel reluctant to draw conclusions about 'nature' (everything - beyond the physicists' view) based upon "what makes sense to us" today. And I would ask Bruno to add to his 'Christian God' concept Allah and the Jewish god(s?) -

Hmm... At the level of generality we are, we can simply by saying that they are probably the same God. 

John, as a scientist I am an agnostic, although I have to admit that if we apply Theaetetus' definition of the knower to aritmetical or mechanical provability, we can interpret the self-referential discourse of the machine as an implicit act of faith.

What I mean is that, as a scientist I have to remain agnostic on God, but "less agnostic" on the fact that machine's might believe "correctly" in some God, in a very large sense of "transcendental unknown truth".

he mentioned the Hindi ones briefly. All 'gods' are culturally benevolent - preferring the 'good' and 'useful' for the praying ones, e.g. annihilate their enemies, while THE SAME GOD is asked by those same enemies to annihilate the prayee - both hoping to be heard.

Venezuelans, who discovered Tobacco, smoked to invoke the Canabo Gods , which are the Gods of Anger, that you invite to annihilate your enemies, with caution as they can annihilate you in the process.

Are those Gods *Good*? Well, in case your enemies are *Bad* that might be helpful.

Here is the societal input:

murder is a sin, unless it is in the interest of society (war) when it is the ultimate heroism (or: if it is to retaliate against the infidel, when it paves the way into heaven.) 

You kill one man, you are a murderer.

you kill thousands of men, you are a great soldier.

You kill all men, you are a a God.

(according to a french poet)

You know my God, John. It is just "truth". Not the one we might know, but the one that we might be able to search, under the lamps.

I like Spudboy's argumentation.

Afterlife? I sent a little snap to Brent about two fetuses arguing in the womb 

whether there is life beyond birth? 

Brent replied with Mark Twain's bon mot: 'Since he was in that 'afterlife' world for billions of years before he was born and did not carry any adverse memories from there, he is not afraid to go back after death.' 

It is all in the same imagination where my mistake has its roots when I said "if something "exists" in our mind then it surely DOES exist (there). Accepting (in Bruno's sharp view) the existence of a mind. 

I am adversive to a court-like processing of an 'eternal(???) soul based on a short life-span (maybe only 10 years? or 1 day?) with a verdict similar to how the injustice-systems work in the diverse societal setups and 'imagined' for my belief-system the complexity of 'us' (all living/non living creatures) falling apart at death - maybe into portions only - and joining other complexities not fallen apart.. Elements may stay and act in the new environment - a source of spiritism experienced. It embraces the reincarnation and all ghost stories without the usual explanations that may scare us. No demons haunting. 

Some says that if you don't love their God you are sent in Hell. But how can we love a God spontaneously in that case. It like a confession under torture: it is invalid (like all argument based on authority).

God, the scientific notion, is the "reality" we hope for, which I call truth, not knowing if that exists or make sense. That's why I search.

Evolution? Not in my views with a connotation of striving for 'better' or 'final'...

Hmm... "evolution" is just a way to be locally satisfy, this means in general a life with some quality, usually related to a promise of such life, or better, for your kids. There is no "better", but there is an expansion and exploration of physical and non physical realities (like the arithmetical reality).

Changes occur to comply with given ci5rcumstances and capabilities in RELATIONS (unknown). Whatever can - will survive and the changes - better or worse - go on. If a 'god' pre-planned an evolution, why are we not started with the end-product? Why the zillion extinctions? Why the unfathomable variety? 

Logicians can explain why an unfathomable (by humans, but also by all consistent or correct machines) variety appears in arithmetic.

After Gödel, Platonia, to make sense, cannot be perfect. There are infinite branches of self-correcting procedures with uncomputable limits. 

(Again a human-logic stance - ha ha). 

My wife, however, embraces the view of 'us' kept by 'zookeepers' in this universe for purposes unknown -  does not share my ignorance and dreams about a 'purpose' of our being here. Not only by nice dreams. 

I think your wife has a good intuition, at least with respect to computationalism. It is consistent that some of our possible descendant kept their ancestor experiences emulated in their machines, and other one, in this coherent dreams, for purpose unknown. 

And with comp, consistency is enough to belong to the indeterminacy domain. (Indeed, there are a priori too much dreams, and we have to understand the presence of some arithmetical renormalization (like the []<>p should provided for those who followed a bit of the "machine's interview")).

With comp, many infinities can be useful fictions for the machine, where the "use" might be related with universal self study of the "Universe" or "God".

There are reasons why arithmetical truth can lead to infinite ladders of machines first person surprises (good and bad).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 11/25/2013 4:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/11/25 Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com>

On 25 November 2013 12:35:50 am AEDT, Samiya Illias wrote:

Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?"  

We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome.                 

But why can't life lack sense and purpose? What logical or empirical law would that break?

You implicitly are saying:

1) The only and certain purpose is to act according with the laws. So there is a purpose, although not personal purpose

2)These laws are ultimate causes and conform the matter, make it be, so as such, They are beyond and prior to nature, that is, They are sobrenatural. and 

3)All the Laws are known.

Wow!  You sure can pack a lot into two questions, Stathis.

Brent

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 25 November 2013 23:17, Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/11/25 Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 November 2013 12:35:50 am AEDT, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>> Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical
>> reality?"
>>
>> We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to
>> be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome.
>>
>> But why can't life lack sense and purpose? What logical or empirical law
>> would that break?
>
> You implicitly are saying:
>
> 1) The only and certain purpose is to act according with the laws. So there
> is a purpose, although not personal purpose
> 2)These laws are ultimate causes and conform the matter, make it be, so as
> such, They are beyond and prior to nature, that is, They are sobrenatural.
> and
> 3)All the Laws are known.

I'm saying that there is no logical reason why there should be any
purpose to life. What "purpose" means is pretty vague but I take it as
something over and above your (1). Atheists may find "purpose" in,
say, living a happy life or contributing to society, but there is no
logical reason for those things to happen either.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

[LizR]

A purpose to life presupposes something like God. Only sentient beings have purposes, at least if the word is being used in its generally accepted sense. Wiktionary gives...

1. An object to be reached; a target; an aim; a goal.
2. A result that is desired; an intention.
3. The act of intending to do something; resolution; determination.
4. The subject of discourse; the point at issue.
5. The reason for which something is done, or the reason it is done in a particular way.

[meekerdb]

All things I do. 

So why does purpose presuppose something like God?  In fact I don't see that something like God could add or subtract from my purposes - although He might affect my methods and whether or not I realized my purposes.

Brent

[LizR]

On 26 November 2013 15:31, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

All things I do.  

So why does purpose presuppose something like God?  In fact I don't see that something like God could add or subtract from my purposes - although He might affect my methods and whether or not I realized my purposes.

Because we were talking about the purpose of life, not the purposes of living beings.  For life to have a purpose, one must assume that it (or the universe) has been designed to fulfill some function. At least that is what (imho) it would mean for life or the universe to have a purpose.

[meekerdb]

OK.  But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose.

Brent
The more we learn about the universe the more it seems pointless.
   --- Steven Weinberg

[Samiya Illias]

OK.  But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose.

Brent
The more we learn about the universe the more it seems pointless.
   --- Steven Weinberg

Perhaps that is why we need to explore and evaluate the 'divinely revealed / inspired' books, in search of the point and purpose. 

There is too much 'precision-engineering' and 'order' in the observable / measurable 'chaos' to be 'self-evolved'. 

If there is a God behind all this, then perhaps there is much more we do not know about than just dark matter. 

Samiya 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[meekerdb]

On 11/25/2013 10:36 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

OK.  But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose.

Brent
The more we learn about the universe the more it seems pointless.
   --- Steven Weinberg

Perhaps that is why we need to explore and evaluate the 'divinely revealed / inspired' books, in search of the point and purpose.

We don't know there are any such books, or any reason why there should be.  Of course there are books that some people claim are the word of God, the same people who want to tell you how to eat your food, how to dress, how to treat your slave,...  In other words, ignorant tribal lords.

There is too much 'precision-engineering' and 'order' in the observable / measurable 'chaos' to be 'self-evolved'.

How do you know that?  Maybe it isn't self-evolvled; maybe it's selected by our existence as the kind of universe in which we can evolve and exist and speculate.

If there is a God behind all this, then perhaps there is much more we do not know about than just dark matter.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Brent

[Samiya Illias]

What do you mean by 'selected by our existence'? 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[meekerdb]

On 11/25/2013 10:58 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

What do you mean by 'selected by our existence'?

If, as seems likely, there are infinitely many universes, then the weak anthropic principle dictates that we will find ourselves in one in which the physics is such that we could evolve.

Brent

[Samiya Illias]

So the physics of our Universe is fine-tuned to our evolution ? 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[meekerdb]

No, as Steven Weinberg pointed out there will be many more universes which marginally support intelligent life as compared to those which are highly adapted to it.

Brent

[LizR]

On 26 November 2013 17:51, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 11/25/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 November 2013 15:31, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

All things I do.  

So why does purpose presuppose something like God?  In fact I don't see that something like God could add or subtract from my purposes - although He might affect my methods and whether or not I realized my purposes.

Because we were talking about the purpose of life, not the purposes of living beings.  For life to have a purpose, one must assume that it (or the universe) has been designed to fulfill some function. At least that is what (imho) it would mean for life or the universe to have a purpose.

OK.  But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose.

...which was my original point. Thank you :)

[LizR]

On 26 November 2013 20:19, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

So the physics of our Universe is fine-tuned to our evolution ? 

No, according to the Weak Anthropic Principle, the physics of our universe should only be adequate - that is, it should allow us to evolve but not in any way favour the existence of life. We should (according to the WAP) expect to find ourselves in a vale of tears, living lives that are "nasty, brutish and short" (although there is a self-selection argument that we will also find ourselves near the peak of population for our species). We should expect most places in our universe to be hostile to life (and probably most times in the history of the universe to be hostile to life, as well).

Curiously enough, observation appears to support exactly what the WAP predicts.

[Alberto G. Corona]

I would say that there are only two kinds of explanations:

1 - What we see is so improbable, so everything must exist. only we live in one exceptional corner. UDA, Multiverses etc. That include botlzman whales

2- What we see is so improbable 

2013/11/26 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

--
Alberto.

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/11/26 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

I would say that there are only two kinds of explanations:

1 - What we see is so improbable, so everything must exist. only we live in one exceptional corner. UDA, Multiverses etc. That include Boltzmann whales

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/quotes?item=qt0351054 

2- What we see is so improbable And the mental phenomena is so inexplicable and unique that probably a mind is responsible of this improbability

2013/11/26 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

So the physics of our Universe is fine-tuned to our evolution ? 

Sent from my iPhone

On 26-Nov-2013, at 12:04 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 11/25/2013 10:58 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

What do you mean by 'selected by our existence'?

If, as seems likely, there are infinitely many universes, then the weak anthropic principle dictates that we will find ourselves in one in which the physics is such that we could evolve.

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

--
Alberto.

[LizR]

Yes, and with comp #2 becomes a serious possibility since minds automatically exist due to arithmetical realism.

[Alberto G. Corona]

All of this demonstrate how little we know about what we are.

I have some interesting hints about all of this I think. And I have to formally demonstrate that, and sorry for the pedantry but, as I said frequently, according with evolutionary game theory, the collective sacrifices are needed for the coordination of societies that are not formed by clones, like the human society. Such sacrifices can be in the course of informal (celebrations)  or formally recognized as sacrifices in religious rites. 

That is in our instincts and we naturally arrange our behavior to do so. It is very interesting what happens we invite friends to a celebration. We sacrifice our time and money and dedicate out attention to the others mutually. Even the mutual perception of happiness being together assures everyone that the others prefer to be with us and invest their effort with us. 

Probably, the less formal the sacrifices are, the less efficient are, and the sacrifice higher. I suspect that in really bad times and when the traditional rites have been forgotten, and people does not trust the formal institutions, the only alternative are human sacrifices. That happens in marginal groups of modern societies. We have to investigate these matters urgently.

2013/11/25 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>

--
Alberto.

[meekerdb]

On 11/26/2013 1:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/11/26 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

I would say that there are only two kinds of explanations:

1 - What we see is so improbable, so everything must exist. only we live in one exceptional corner. UDA, Multiverses etc. That include Boltzmann whales

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/quotes?item=qt0351054 

2- What we see is so improbable And the mental phenomena is so inexplicable and unique that probably a mind is responsible of this improbability

How probable is a mind that is "responsible" for all this.  That seems to just push the improbability off in the "unknown unknowns".

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

Yes , but in a certain way, it is to reduce two mysteries to one by saying that there is a relation between both. That does makes sense,  since an essential part of the mind work is to create improbable things.

2013/11/26 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

[Bruno Marchal]

But we don't know that. There is no logical reason there shouldn't be
a purpose to life, universes and consciousness.
And there might be deep reason, yet arithmetical reasons, why we can
live happy lives.
Like they might be also reasons that it might not yet be as simple as
some would like to thought.

Bruno





>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou

>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[Alberto G. Corona]

Concerning the pre nausea and post nausea, I think that a post nauseam society is burning their last fuel, like a star  burn heavier and heavier elements until it implodes.  In this case, following the game-theoretical logic that I mentioned, 

the "naked reality" comes from the disbelief in their common beliefs rites and sacrifices and cellebrations, so the post-nauseans have to construct auxiliary myths around which to create new institutions, offer public sacrifices in order to construct mutual trust and coordinate. These new myths are more and more diverse and fragmentary and often the sacrifices consist into offending the myths of the others in public demonstrations. The increase of distrust make these demonstrations more violent. Finally the fragmentation proceed until the only ties are the hard ones: brotherhood and neighbourhood, that is:  the tribal wars for  the blood and the land. 

2013/11/25 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>

--
Alberto.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

 > Atheism is wish fulfillment.

To some extent that is true. Imagine for a moment what it would be like if a Christian God did exist, it would be far worse than living in North Korea! Here we have an all powerful demon addicted to flattery who can read your every thought and will torture you, not for a long time, but for ETERNITY if you take even one small step out of line or break just one of his many many rules, and they include thought crimes. To make matters worse you're not even sure exactly what all His rules are, the "experts" violently (and I do mean violently) disagree, so you never know if you're going to be tortured or how to avoid it. This seems pretty depressing to me and not at all moral. I'll take an indifferent universe  over a sadistic one any day.

I call your attention to a quotation from Charles Darwin, a better man by far than the son of God even if you ignore his enormous scientific ability. I would certainly much rather have Darwin as my next door neighbor than a vindictive pompous ass like Jesus Christ. 

In spite of the objections of his very religious but loving wife, he wrote this in his 1876  autobiography :
            
        "Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but at last was               
         complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have                
         never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion                
         was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish     
         Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text                
         seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would              
         include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be        
         everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

John K Clark

[meekerdb]

On 11/26/2013 9:28 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Yes , but in a certain way, it is to reduce two mysteries to one by saying that there is
> a relation between both.

It's a common move in philosophy and even in speculative science. Penrose saw that
consciousness and quantum gravity are both mysteries and so wrote a book about how that
combined them into one. But it's not generally successful and having two mysteries is not
evidence they are related.

> That does makes sense, since an essential part of the mind work is to create improbable
> things.

Improbable things get created all the time without minds.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife,

Those are 2 separate ideas and there is no reason they must be linked.  There could be a God and no afterlife or a afterlife and no God; or neither could exist or both could.

> which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp)

To hell with "comp"!

 John K Clark

 

 

[meekerdb]

But would a "purpose to life" make any different to *your* purposes. It seems that people
are asking for some outside source to inject them with purpose that will be theirs. That
is like wanting to be part of some movement or team - a natural desire for a social animal
- except they want it to be a transcendent team, the best team that anyone can be on,
better than everyone else's team.

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

but personal purpose must be metaphisical. I mean transcendental, beyond our own. Except in the case of people in the edge, that are concerned with its own survival. 

you can not find meaning working every morning for a society if your society has not a purpose,a plan itself for going along. 

The need for an ultimate, transcendental purpose is so strong that every people gets depressed (even to suicide, Boltzmann for example) by the idea of a the thermal end of the Universe, even knowing that this end is unimaginably ahead in time.  I find no better example of how purpose, long term planning for survival and transcendence are related in the human mind with quite practical consequences.

2013/11/26 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@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.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Nov 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/24/2013 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:

On 25 November 2013 10:53, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

That isn't a problem at all.  It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by "god" before you can answer whether "god exists" or not. So what is the definition of "physical reality"?  It seems to me that "physical" only adds the concept of shared/public.  But Plato also intended his reality to be shared and public.

It seems quite hard to pin down exactly what physical means, now that we can no longer visualise particles as tiny billiard balls. I think the important point is whether "physical" is fundamental, or derived from something else.  Aristotle would say the former, Plato the latter.

Why wouldn't the "something else" just be physical too.  In my view "physical" just means "part of our shared experience", stuff we can define to one another ostensively.  If numbers exist they are just as physical as spacetime or the Higgs field.  The interesting thing to me about Bruon's theory is that he proposes to explain the first person, not-sharable experiences in terms to proof relations.  I don't think they can be separated from the sharable "physical" part of the world; but I applaud the effort.

Thanks. 

But I agree with you that the sharable part and the non sharable part cannot be separated. They are dualities, even "octalities" appearing naturally when universal numbers look inward. The physical plays a role in consciousness and shared consciousness (dialog). Just that both consciousness and physical appearances emerges from some simpler laws, like

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz)

From this I can understand why numbers or combinators can get (FPI-)trapped in infinite "very solid dreams", operated by universal quantum-linear-symmetrical laws.

I don't know if there is a physical universe, but I know that universal numbers cannot avoid the beliefs in physical universe, and that they are correct in that belief (!), but wrong to believe them ontological or primitive. The coupling consciousness/realities is an arithmetical sort of Galois connection. It generalized the MWI on arithmetic or on any universal system.

Bruno

Brent
A physicist goes off to a conference. After a week his suit’s gotten  soiled and crumpled, so he goes out to look for a dry cleaner. Walking down the main street of town, he comes upon a store with a lot of signs out front. One of them says “Dry Cleaning.” So he goes in with his dirty suit and asks when he can come back to pick it up. The mathematician who owns the shop replies, “I’m terribly sorry, but we don’t do dry cleaning.” “What?” exclaims the puzzled physicist. “The sign outside says  ‘Dry Cleaning’!” “We do not do anything here,” replies the mathematician. “We only sell signs!”
   --- Alain Connes, in Changeux

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[meekerdb]

On 11/26/2013 10:03 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> but personal purpose must be metaphisical. I mean transcendental, beyond our own.

Beyond my what?...beyond my purpose. That would be incoherent.

> Except in the case of people in the edge, that are concerned with its own survival.

Why is survival special? People are often more concerned with other values more than

survival.

>
> you can not find meaning working every morning for a society if your society has not a
> purpose,a plan itself for going along.

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society. Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm
here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

>
> The need for an ultimate, transcendental purpose is so strong that every people gets
> depressed (even to suicide, Boltzmann for example) by the idea of a the thermal end of
> the Universe, even knowing that this end is unimaginably ahead in time. I find no
> better example of how purpose, long term planning for survival and transcendence are
> related in the human mind with quite practical consequences.

Certainly caring about the future had evolutionary advantages for an intelligent, social
species. But people are no better at imagining an infinite immortality than an end of the
world. They are only comforted by keeping them fuzzy.

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/11/26 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

On 11/26/2013 10:03 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

but personal purpose must be metaphisical. I mean transcendental, beyond our own.

Beyond my what?...beyond my purpose.  That would be incoherent.

Yes. beyond your purpose. 

Except in the case of people in the edge, that are concerned with its own survival.

Why is survival special?  People are often more concerned with other values more than survival.

Then they are not concerned with their own survival. These people are in constant danger of death. 

you can not find meaning working every morning for a society if your society has not a purpose,a plan itself for going along.

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

You can work for yourself. and there may be a number of them. even there may be a number of special psychopaths that do an overall good to the society forced by some market forces. But a society of work--for-themselves can not survive. It is naturally corrupt. Therefore that is not in our nature. It may work for some, for it will not work for most of us.

The need for an ultimate, transcendental purpose is so strong that every people gets depressed (even to suicide, Boltzmann for example) by the idea of a the thermal end of the Universe, even knowing that this end is unimaginably ahead in time.  I find no better example of how purpose, long term planning for survival and transcendence are related in the human mind with quite practical consequences.

Certainly caring about the future had evolutionary advantages for an intelligent, social species.  But people are no better at imagining an infinite immortality than an end of the world.  They are only comforted by keeping them fuzzy.

Brent

 

It is not necessary that everyone imagined or suffer for that. Just a few sensible and influential people makes the difference in moralizing or demoralizing the entire society. There is a specialization in which people short term oriented trust other more long term and so on until the "priests" of the times, who have the trust in looking the very long term path and tell what they see to the rest.

--
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+unsubscribe@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.

[meekerdb]

On 11/26/2013 11:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/11/26 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

On 11/26/2013 10:03 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

but personal purpose must be metaphisical. I mean transcendental, beyond our own.

Beyond my what?...beyond my purpose.  That would be incoherent.

Yes. beyond your purpose. 

Except in the case of people in the edge, that are concerned with its own survival.

Why is survival special?  People are often more concerned with other values more than survival.

Then they are not concerned with their own survival. These people are in constant danger of death.

Of course everybody is in danger of death, but I don't think it significantly greater because I have children I would sacrifice my life for.

you can not find meaning working every morning for a society if your society has not a purpose,a plan itself for going along.

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

You can work for yourself. and there may be a number of them. even there may be a number of special psychopaths that do an overall good to the society forced by some market forces. But a society of work--for-themselves can not survive. It is naturally corrupt. Therefore that is not in our nature. It may work for some, for it will not work for most of us.

A false dichotomy.  Values don't have to be all-or-nothing.  Some people enjoy helping others.  Some people (usually artists) enjoy creating for themselves (which is why Nietzsche admired artists).  But the shades in between are more common.

The need for an ultimate, transcendental purpose is so strong that every people gets depressed (even to suicide, Boltzmann for example) by the idea of a the thermal end of the Universe, even knowing that this end is unimaginably ahead in time.  I find no better example of how purpose, long term planning for survival and transcendence are related in the human mind with quite practical consequences.

Certainly caring about the future had evolutionary advantages for an intelligent, social species.  But people are no better at imagining an infinite immortality than an end of the world.  They are only comforted by keeping them fuzzy.

Brent

 

It is not necessary that everyone imagined or suffer for that. Just a few sensible and influential people makes the difference in moralizing or demoralizing the entire society. There is a specialization in which people short term oriented trust other more long term and so on until the "priests" of the times, who have the trust in looking the very long term path and tell what they see to the rest.

Whether they are sensible or not, they may be influential.

Brent

[LizR]

On 27 November 2013 06:39, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

But we don't know that. There is no logical reason there shouldn't be a purpose to life, universes and consciousness.

No logical reason, but there's no obvious sign that there is one.

 

And there might be deep reason, yet arithmetical reasons,  why we can live happy lives.
Like they might be also reasons that it might not yet be as simple as some would like to thought.

In my opinion "purpose" implies a goal, which implies that one outcome has been selected from a number of possibilities. This implies a conscious choice was involved, which is why I said something like God would be required to give the universe a purpose. Without that element of choice you can't have a goal / aim / purpose, and you "just" have  inevitability, the inexorable results of the laws of physics (which aren't purposeful in any meaningful sense, as far as I know).

I would say that any "purpose" that exists within arithmetic would be of the "laws of physics" kind, it would be a logical inevitability, rather than something consciously selected.

(Perhaps...)

[LizR]

On 27 November 2013 07:22, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

"What has posterity ever done for me?"

This is an evolutionary choice between being a loner or a herd animal. Some predators tend to be loners, a lot of prey tend to be herd animals. Humans appear to be prey - we generally do a poor job of surviving long term without the protection of society.

Much as I like George Carlin, he wouldn't last long without the help of "all those other people" he's being dismissive of (or was he being ironic, to make a point? Sometimes it's hard to tell out of context). No one works for themselves in practice, though a lot of people would like to think they do, while happily accepting the benefits of living in a society - clean water, food, lack of predators, shelter etc. It should be a reciprocal arrangement.

[meekerdb]

On 11/26/2013 1:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 November 2013 07:22, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

"What has posterity ever done for me?"

This is an evolutionary choice between being a loner or a herd animal. Some predators tend to be loners, a lot of prey tend to be herd animals. Humans appear to be prey - we generally do a poor job of surviving long term without the protection of society.

Wolves and orcas are 'herd' animals too.

Much as I like George Carlin, he wouldn't last long without the help of "all those other people" he's being dismissive of (or was he being ironic, to make a point?

I take his point to be that people need to have some intrinsic purpose and values.  To just help other people assumes those other people are going supply the purposes and values, so altrusim can't be a fundamental value.

Brent

Sometimes it's hard to tell out of context). No one works for themselves in practice, though a lot of people would like to think they do, while happily accepting the benefits of living in a society - clean water, food, lack of predators, shelter etc. It should be a reciprocal arrangement.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[LizR]

On 27 November 2013 11:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 11/26/2013 1:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 November 2013 07:22, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

"What has posterity ever done for me?"

This is an evolutionary choice between being a loner or a herd animal. Some predators tend to be loners, a lot of prey tend to be herd animals. Humans appear to be prey - we generally do a poor job of surviving long term without the protection of society.

Wolves and orcas are 'herd' animals too.

You did notice that I said "some" predators, right? Some prey animals are loners, too. My point was that humans work better in groups, and that they individually would find it hard to surivive in the wild. That still seems valid to me. Humans are social animals, and the reason they are is that this helps them survive against predators (if you'll excuse me speaking teleologically rather than spelling out the evolutionarily correct version).

Much as I like George Carlin, he wouldn't last long without the help of "all those other people" he's being dismissive of (or was he being ironic, to make a point?

I take his point to be that people need to have some intrinsic purpose and values.  To just help other people assumes those other people are going supply the purposes and values, so altrusim can't be a fundamental value.

I don't think many people "just" help others. I assume most people who want to help others do so either because some nurturing instinct has been "subverted", or at least redirected, or because they recognise that humans are more likely to survive as a society than as a group of loners (the latter would be called an "ideological" reason I think).

That is, I assume it's down to one form or another of enlightened self interest, rather than "pure altruism" (with the exception of a few saints, perhaps).

[meekerdb]

On 11/26/2013 2:49 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 November 2013 11:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 11/26/2013 1:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 November 2013 07:22, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

"What has posterity ever done for me?"

This is an evolutionary choice between being a loner or a herd animal. Some predators tend to be loners, a lot of prey tend to be herd animals. Humans appear to be prey - we generally do a poor job of surviving long term without the protection of society.

Wolves and orcas are 'herd' animals too.

You did notice that I said "some" predators, right?

Sure.  But you inferred that humans are prey animals.  That seems very doubtful.  Even Australopithecus was apparently a hunter (c.f. Robert Audrey "African Genesis").  Chimps and baboons sometimes hunt.  I think humans are a lot more like wolves than like antelopes.

Brent

[LizR]

Only if you ignore most of the women and children, and some of the men. (Most of hunter-gatherers'  food is vegetables, with the odd bit of meat.)

As far as I know we aren't specialised in any of the way that predators are (teeth, digestion etc), hence we have to use weapons, cooking etc. So if we're predators, it's through technology rather than evolution.

But in any case, however you classify them, humans still can't survive very easily on their own in the wild, and are much better adapted to living in social groups of around 100 or so members.

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All of this demonstrate how little we know about what we are.

Yes, I think most societies underestimate how much they don't know.
It's easy to spot this looking back in History, but it's more rare to
be able to see the pattern and realise that this is probably still the
case. Future generations will probably find most of our current
beliefs naive, the same way that we find ancient believes naive.

> I have some interesting hints about all of this I think. And I have to
> formally demonstrate that, and sorry for the pedantry but, as I said
> frequently, according with evolutionary game theory, the collective
> sacrifices are needed for the coordination of societies that are not formed
> by clones, like the human society.

I have little doubt about this. There is the empirical evidence from
social insects, for example. Female ants are super-sisters (closer
than us to being clones), meaning that they share more DNA than mammal
sisters. This, in turn, translates into more altruistic behaviours and
an almost clockwork-like society.

I think an important point here is that we are wired to be
sufficiently altruistic for a tribal society. The agricultural
revolution was only 12K years ago, which is very recently at an
evolutionary time scale. The level of altruism that we are evolved for
doesn't feel like a sacrifice. Most people won't feel that sharing
food with friends is a sacrifice. In fact, it is even a pleasure.

But then, with the agricultural revolution, social complexity started
increasing much faster than biological evolution can keep up with.
This is why almost nobody finds pleasure in paying taxes. It's a too
abstract form of altruism.

> Such sacrifices can be in the course of
> informal (celebrations) or formally recognized as sacrifices in religious
> rites.
>
> That is in our instincts and we naturally arrange our behavior to do so. It
> is very interesting what happens we invite friends to a celebration. We
> sacrifice our time and money and dedicate out attention to the others
> mutually. Even the mutual perception of happiness being together assures
> everyone that the others prefer to be with us and invest their effort with
> us.
>
> Probably, the less formal the sacrifices are, the less efficient are, and
> the sacrifice higher. I suspect that in really bad times and when the
> traditional rites have been forgotten, and people does not trust the formal
> institutions, the only alternative are human sacrifices. That happens in
> marginal groups of modern societies. We have to investigate these matters
> urgently.

This is an interesting point. Formality allows us to make sacrifices
that are recognised by others, thus creating some safety for
ourselves. You make a sacrifice, but if you find yourself in need
later, the formal rituals created a context where people feel the need
to reciprocate. I think churches play this role very well. Mormons,
for example, have a very formal society. In certain mormon areas,
everyone feels responsible for all the kids, people will help new
families and so on. This is interestingly similar to tribal behaviours
pre-agriculture.

At our current gigantic scales this breaks. You hear the complain all
the time: "I pay my taxes, who can they do this to me?". But there's
no one listening. Not because most people are evil, but just because
there is literally no one listening. Of course the Internet is
creating non-geographical locality (or post-geographical, as William
Gibson likes to put it). I bet most people in this list see it like a
tribe to some degree. There's a lot of conflict, but we would probably
be genuinely sad if one of us died. That stuff is wired in us from
pre-agriculture.

Telmo.

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/11/27 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>

Paying taxes I do not find to fit with an intuitive notion of sacrifice, I mean it is not experienced as sacrifice because the money is not a natural (i.e. ancestral) possession towards we have a natural way to evaluate the gain of loss of it.  Moreover it can not be made evident to the other people in a public event, that is the essence of the rite or celebration, in which mutual trust is created.

Probably the sacrifice of a marathon in a public event is much more fulfilling for this purpose than money. When, In a celebration, I spend money to make my friends happy, it is my time and my effort what constitutes my sacrifice, not the money. Women usually do not appreciate the amount of money spent by the husband in a gift, but the overall  continuous personal effort invested on her. The sons of parents that do not spend time with them have the same psychological problems, no matter the amount of money the parent spend in material goods for them or either if they are rich or poor.

Probably this is because the evaluation of sacrifice of the other is hardwired to consider some kind of goods that actually were present in the ancestral environment: personal effort, and personal pain mainly. or some goods that were a product of  personal effort: the blood of hunted animals or other basic posessions like the own blood, or some symbols that represent them, wit decreasing levels of realism. For example an animal bough   for a certain amoun of money(but not the same amount of money as such)

To understand the mechanism by which sacrifices work for social coordination is the key:  By making a clear and evident personal sacrifice in a public celebration is a sign of proclamation of commitment to the comunity because, if the individual does not reciprocate because it is too much burden, it has to change to other comunity and he have to perform a second sacrifice for the other comunity. So he will have no incentives to do defect.

It is like the insurance companies (or by the way, the state run taxation and services system): There is an initial payment, a periodic payment and a payment if you want to leave. You can not receive the services of your insurance company immediately. You either have to pay more at the beginning or you have to pay a number of times before using the services. If you leave, depending on the services you demanded, you have to pay a penalty.  Religious celebrations and sacrifices are the same, but at the instinctive (emotional) level. It is regulated by unconscious coordination mechanisms, while the insurance companies uses the same game theoretical logic (I can bet that insurance companies use game theory a lot), but it is perfectly conscious and rational. not instinctive. I have no emotional attachment to the other clients of my insurance company. 

A country is something in the middle. But the emotional attachment for your country is not a consequence of the money you pay in taxes for the education system. It is because your cellebrations and memorials and the history books, you read and all the things that you find easy to do with the people of your country and not so well with other people. 

The dynamic of religion  and sacrifice becomes clear when compared with an insurance company: when trust grows and the people don´t lie to the insurance company the payments become lesser and lesser. When the distrust increase, and the demand of payment grows by liars or wrongdoers, the payments grows until the payment is comparable to the service. That is, if the clients have a false accident of total loss  every year,, the company will demand the price of a car every year. if you kill people and expect that the group will help you with their lifes from the probable vengeance, it is expected that your group demand for you to kill one of your children in public or to kill two enemies or to take prisioners for killing them in the altar or some equaly horrendous. Otherwise the game theoretical equilibrium will not work to stabilize the group cooperation. That`s what happens in ancient and modern tribes.

--
Alberto.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife,

Those are 2 separate ideas and there is no reason they must be linked.  There could be a God and no afterlife or a afterlife and no God; or neither could exist or both could.

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. 

We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed. 

I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth (the one that we can search about us, or hope or fear, in life and afterlife, whatever it is).

Bruno

> which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp)

To hell with "comp"!

 John K Clark

 

 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[Bruno Marchal]

It might. I am totally neutral on "purpose to life" in this setting.
It might be a Devil's diabolical trap, in which case it would
contradict "my" purpose, indeed.

> It seems that people are asking for some outside source to inject
> them with purpose that will be theirs. That is like wanting to be
> part of some movement or team - a natural desire for a social animal
> - except they want it to be a transcendent team, the best team that
> anyone can be on, better than everyone else's team.

That might be wishful thinking, which should be avoid when we treat
the matter with the scientific attitude. But I think you put the
finger of what is religion can be for many people. It is a sort of
(wishful) generalization of family, which might have some sense, or not.

Bruno

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Nov 2013, at 19:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

but personal purpose must be metaphisical. I mean transcendental, beyond our own. Except in the case of people in the edge, that are concerned with its own survival. 

you can not find meaning working every morning for a society if your society has not a purpose,a plan itself for going along. 

I am not sure. Simple happiness ,, for one self and those we care, might be a sufficient purpose, and it might have a metaphysical meaning (which might, or not, elude us).

Searching the truth might also be a purpose, even if it does not lead to happiness, and which can also have a metaphysical meaning.

The need for an ultimate, transcendental purpose is so strong that every people gets depressed (even to suicide, Boltzmann for example) by the idea of a the thermal end of the Universe,

I think Boltzmann depressed only by the harassment from some colleagues. Cantor also suffered a similar fate.

even knowing that this end is unimaginably ahead in time.  I find no better example of how purpose, long term planning for survival and transcendence are related in the human mind with quite practical consequences.

Hmm... You might search a better example, or give reference. 

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Nov 2013, at 20:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/11/26 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

On 11/26/2013 10:03 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

but personal purpose must be metaphisical. I mean transcendental, beyond our own.

Beyond my what?...beyond my purpose.  That would be incoherent.

Yes. beyond your purpose. 

Yes, we can conceive that.

Perhaps the whole universe is only a by product of some gods, or just computers, attempting to solve a diophantine equation.

Or as I said, a devil opportunity for sending creature to hell, ...or an attempt by our far away descendants to emulate their past to see what did gone wrong in some period, etc.

If the purpose is above us, there might be an infinity ladder of purposes, and a lot can be conflicting, ...

With comp, the UD Argument shows that it is something like that below our substitution level ...

We have partial control above, and the purpose of acting might be private or non communicable.

Comp is consistent with the idea that the universal purpose consists in infinite self-contemplation together with harm reduction, given that it is a creative process which emulation is described by the consequence of Robinson arithmetic, and that we can already know glimpses of extatic atemporal state (by diverse brain self-perturbation technics, like meditation, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, oxygen deprivation, or less dangerously the (illegal) drugs.

Above a treshold of provability (Löbianity) you develop a taste for the surprises, and then you are happy, as arithmetic contains transfinite ladders of "surprises" everywhere, and in between vast lands to explore ..., and the purpose might be to recognize ourself again, and again. 

With comp there can be a continuum of realities between hell and heaven, and Truth is no guaranty of heaven, nor local lies a guaranty to hell, as it will depend on the contexts possible, but there is a notion of moral peace with oneself possible. It might be part of some intrinsic arithmetical internal purpose. 

We just don't know, as machine or number theology is still in its infancy (to say the least). But we can formulate theories and questions the machines.

So, in such technically precise possible sense, such questions make sense.

Except in the case of people in the edge, that are concerned with its own survival.

Why is survival special?  People are often more concerned with other values more than survival.

Then they are not concerned with their own survival. These people are in constant danger of death. 

Yes. Like terrorists, soldiers, many heros, who will sacrifice their life for an idea (fanatics) or for saving the life of others (hero).

If we feel something like a purpose above us, we put our life and others in danger, even if it is the purpose of concrete safety of those we care about. 

Likewise, if we refuse to put our life in danger, we might put in peril some value we find being more important than us, like freedom or democracy, or "our" existence, for example.

you can not find meaning working every morning for a society if your society has not a purpose,a plan itself for going along.

Suppose you work for yourself instead of society.  Or as George Carlin put it, "If I'm here for other people, what are those other people here for?"

Lol.

You can work for yourself. and there may be a number of them. even there may be a number of special psychopaths that do an overall good to the society forced by some market forces. But a society of work--for-themselves can not survive. It is naturally corrupt. Therefore that is not in our nature. It may work for some, for it will not work for most of us.

Hmm.... Yes, there is a "natural corruption". The same with planes. But with planes there are maintenance systems, and with democracies, despite the good ideas existed already, we have seen that the adding of some "axiom" can corrupt and prevent the use of those old good idea, and so we must rethink its maintenance system.

I have only one explanation for prohibition: gangsterism. Natural corruption is not a fatality, we must just be aware of the disease, and cure it. No need of violence, witnessing (and patience) and asking question is enough.

Like, "where does the idea that hemp should be illegal come from?"

Like "how did building seven felt?"

It seems to me that the shadow of the answer to the common roots of those happenings appears  already in this video (1976) on JFK assassination. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxUl4SL5U8A

The need for an ultimate, transcendental purpose is so strong that every people gets depressed (even to suicide, Boltzmann for example) by the idea of a the thermal end of the Universe, even knowing that this end is unimaginably ahead in time.  I find no better example of how purpose, long term planning for survival and transcendence are related in the human mind with quite practical consequences.

Certainly caring about the future had evolutionary advantages for an intelligent, social species.  But people are no better at imagining an infinite immortality than an end of the world.  They are only comforted by keeping them fuzzy.

Brent

 

It is not necessary that everyone imagined or suffer for that. Just a few sensible and influential people makes the difference in moralizing or demoralizing the entire society.

Keep in mind that "theology" is still a taboo domain. That is natural. It is a hot subject. The scientific attitude is hard to maintain because we are naturally attempted to wishful (or fearful) thinking. Then it is easily exploited by others, as a mean of control and money (and power) stealing. 

Then with comp we get that Truth is in the head of all universal machines, and if the people are too much lazy to look in their head, they can interview the machines. We are at the beginning so that involves some math (and thus pencil and paper). But that is very temporary.

There is a specialization in which people short term oriented trust other more long term and so on until the "priests" of the times, who have the trust in looking the very long term path and tell what they see to the rest.

OK. When they do their job. 

Today some of them molest children, or let that happen and perpetuated due to what seem a quite faithless fear of the scandal.

They could have reacted more seriously, by a big decision, like the right to marry for the priests, or to get some help. They act like mafiosi. The clergy is no exception. Many institutions aggravate their case by hiding scandal.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Nov 2013, at 22:14, LizR wrote:

On 27 November 2013 06:39, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

But we don't know that. There is no logical reason there shouldn't be a purpose to life, universes and consciousness.

No logical reason, but there's no obvious sign that there is one.

I am not sure. But of course "sign" are very subjective. The very possibility of contemplation seems to me to be a sign of some universal purpose. 

The outer god might no have a purpose (it I just truth), but the inner god, who is really the outer God, but amnesic and incognito, can have a universal purpose, notably to remind "who" he/she/it is. 

That helps to enjoy things for themselves, instead of faking enjoyment to impress the others or be member of a club. It helps to relatoivize our identity, making us able to love and recognize different creature (but humanity contains the opposite, like humans not recognizing other humans). 

I am an optimist. If humans does not develop science (which is 99,9998% spiritual), then the spiders will. 

I do think there is a universal purpose. But I am not that sure if the humans will or not missed it.

 

And there might be deep reason, yet arithmetical reasons,  why we can live happy lives.
Like they might be also reasons that it might not yet be as simple as some would like to thought.

In my opinion "purpose" implies a goal, which implies that one outcome has been selected from a number of possibilities.

Not if the purpose/goal consists in exploring all possibilities.

This implies a conscious choice was involved,

Why? It could be an instinct, or the result of the universal persistent state of non satisfaction of the universal machine. 

Woody Allen get a nice remark on life, said by an elderly woman in some miserable hospice. She talked about the her quite small portion soup, and said that life is like that soup, it taste bad, and there is not enough.

The universal purpose might be harm reduction and augmentation of satisfaction in the hide-and-seek play that God plays with Itself. 

which is why I said something like God would be required to give the universe a purpose.

Of course. May be the purpose of the universe has nothing to do with our own purpose, like if the universe was just a lamp that God created to find the key of the paradise (because he lost them). But you see I doubt this. I am open for more simple universal purpose, which develops together with the multi-dialog between the universal machines/numbers. 

Without that element of choice you can't have a goal / aim / purpose, and you "just" have  inevitability, the inexorable results of the laws of physics (which aren't purposeful in any meaningful sense, as far as I know).

To simplify Plotinus, the outer God (the ONE) is unstable. By a sort of excess of love it realizes all the ideas, and this makes the ONE becoming very multiple. It is the shift between the TRUTH "point of view" (from no-where, the 0th person point of view) into what actually can the universal number know about themselves. That's the NOUS of Plotinus, I suggest, and then the Soul, Plotinus third hypostases (can be obtained by the Theaetetus idea), as the conjunct of truth and the actual assertion/representation by the machine. 

I would say that any "purpose" that exists within arithmetic would be of the "laws of physics" kind,

Yes. But in comp the laws of physics are not entirely computable, even if still described by an arithmetical relations. Most arithmetical relations are not computable, and the FPI explains without magic why we are confronted with some of those non computable relations. 

That makes, from the scientific points of view, the question of "transcendent purpose" just very difficult. 

it would be a logical inevitability, rather than something consciously selected.

I think it can be both. For a reason akin to my feeling that free-will makes sense in deterministic context, even without FPI and "1p" determinacy.

(Perhaps...)

Difficult subject, no doubt about that :)

Bruno

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[Bruno Marchal]

Humans are wolves *and* muttons.

We are also incredible colonies of "protozoa" and "bacteria".

Eventually the universal beings know that they are who they believe to be. Personal identity is personal matter. Some people will recognize themselves in the wolf, other in the mutton, and that's good as the recognizance can help to change the roles.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife

I can conceive of a afterlife without God too.

> it means you can conceive a non Christian God,

Yes.

> which is nice

Certainly nicer than the Christian God who is the most unpleasant  character in all of fiction.

> but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. 

I don't see how. I can conceive of Harry Potter too but that doesn't mean I think it likely he exists, although the probability that Mr. Potter really exists would be far greater than the probability the Christian God exists. 

> We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is very unclear,

The only reason its unclear is that your meaning of the word G-O-D is very very unclear; and the reason for that is you've fallen in love with the English word G-O-D even though you've abandoned the idea behind it. For some reason that I don't fully understand you just want to make the following sound with your mouth "I believe in God" and it doesn't matter what the sound means.

> I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth

The Greeks believed it was true that Poseidon existed and was the brother of Zeus. I don't. 

  John K Clark

[meekerdb]

On 11/27/2013 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife,

Those are 2 separate ideas and there is no reason they must be linked.  There could be a God and no afterlife or a afterlife and no God; or neither could exist or both could.

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.

How does being able to conceive a non-Christian God contradict being an atheist??  I can conceive many different gods that I don't believe in.

We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed.

It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'.

I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth (the one that we can search about us, or hope or fear, in life and afterlife, whatever it is).

Except nobody here is speaking Greek.  And the Greeks had plenty of gods that had nothing to do with truth; in fact they were given to deception.

Brent

[LizR]

Noun

atheism (plural atheisms)

1. (narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
4. (loosely, uncommon) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

(Wikipedia)

Quantum immortality would be a form of afterlife without a god or gods.

A multiverse in which creatures aribtrarily close to gods are guaranteed to exist somewhere would be gods without an afterlife (or at least without one provided by the gods, depending on whether a multiverse implies (1))

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Nov 2013, at 20:04, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife

I can conceive of a afterlife without God too.

> it means you can conceive a non Christian God,

Yes.

> which is nice

Certainly nicer than the Christian God who is the most unpleasant  character in all of fiction.

It really depends on which Christians, which can be very different from one culture to another. 

But I can relate with your feeling. Some "christian God" are very antipathetic, like the one who promise hell if you just don't love him, which I think makes it impossible to be loved.

> but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. 

I don't see how. I can conceive of Harry Potter too but that doesn't mean I think it likely he exists, although the probability that Mr. Potter really exists would be far greater than the probability the Christian God exists. 

> We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is very unclear,

The only reason its unclear is that your meaning of the word G-O-D is very very unclear; and the reason for that is you've fallen in love with the English word G-O-D even though you've abandoned the idea behind it.

Already Plato used it in two different sense, which are hard to relate. The God of the Timaeus is quite different from the God of the Parmenides. 

I use God for any transcendental reality, which implies some experience, and some faith, if only in our sanity.

For some reason that I don't fully understand you just want to make the following sound with your mouth "I believe in God" and it doesn't matter what the sound means.

You can replace the term "God" by the term "Reality" or "Truth". The problem is that most people take a reality fro granted, but in the comp theory that is probably a sort of illusion. To believe in a reality is akin to believe in its own consistency, and this asks for a cautious type of act of faith. 

Machines' theology is very close to Plotinus or Proclus theology, and I am just using the same word, which is rather standard in the scholars writing, and among the non-confessional philosophers.

> I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth

The Greeks believed it was true that Poseidon existed and was the brother of Zeus. I don't. 

It is the fate of theories: to be wrong. It is not a reason to abandon an idea, but it is a reason to attempt to correct it. And the greeks already corrected their own theory many times. 

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/27/2013 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife,

Those are 2 separate ideas and there is no reason they must be linked.  There could be a God and no afterlife or a afterlife and no God; or neither could exist or both could.

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.

How does being able to conceive a non-Christian God contradict being an atheist??  I can conceive many different gods that I don't believe in.

Can you conceive a God in which you do believe?

That was for John Clark who defined once God by the Christian God.

Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God.

We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed.

It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'.

But "theist" is not clear. Some identify "God" with the God of their own culture. In science, we try to get a concept as independent of human and culture as possible. 

I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth (the one that we can search about us, or hope or fear, in life and afterlife, whatever it is).

Except nobody here is speaking Greek.  And the Greeks had plenty of gods that had nothing to do with truth; in fact they were given to deception.

I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).

It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared.  We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?

Bruno

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/

[Samiya Illias]

Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).

It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared. We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?'
------------

The God of Abrahamic faiths is the Deity. We believe that He is the only God from time immemorial. All prophets preceding Abraham also spoke of the same God. Unfortunately, over ages most belief systems degenerate into a pantheon of gods 'in the image of humans'.
The God I believe in is the majestic, indescribable, unimaginable, majestic Creator and Sustainer of everything.
Unfortunately, instead of focussing on and understanding God's message of love and justice, people misunderstand the warnings of not qualifying for Heaven and blame / reject a God who warns of Hell as the consequence of injustice.
Rejecting God won't make any difference to God or His plan. We need Him and His guidance, not the other way round!

Samiya


Sent from my iPhone

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/28 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).

It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared.  We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?'
------------

The God of Abrahamic faiths is the Deity. We believe that He is the only God from time immemorial. All prophets preceding Abraham also spoke of the same God. Unfortunately, over ages most belief systems degenerate into a pantheon of gods 'in the image of humans'.
The God I believe in is the majestic, indescribable, unimaginable, majestic Creator and Sustainer of everything.
Unfortunately, instead of focussing on and understanding God's message of love and justice, people misunderstand the warnings of not qualifying for Heaven and blame / reject a God who warns of Hell as the consequence of injustice.
Rejecting God won't make any difference to God or His plan. We need Him and His guidance,

I don't... that doesn't mean I'm immoral and deserve Hell... if there was an all loving god, it wouldn't allow for hell and evil... this problem as a name "the problem of evil" and it has no satisfying answer if such god truly exist. Anyway, I absolutely don't need any faith in any sort of personified god to live.

Quentin

 

not the other way round!

Samiya


Sent from my iPhone

On 28-Nov-2013, at 6:52 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).
>
> It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared.  We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 lost in time, like tears in rain.

[Samiya Illias]

Quentin wrote: ' if there was an all loving god, it wouldn't allow for hell and evil..'

Why do we need courts and jails and police on Earth if its such an unloving thing to do justice?

Samiya

Sent from my iPhone

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/28 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

Quentin wrote: ' if there was an all loving god, it wouldn't allow for hell and evil..'

Why do we need courts and jails and police on Earth if its such an unloving thing to do justice?

Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings.... and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil...

Quentin

 

Samiya

Sent from my iPhone

On 28-Nov-2013, at 8:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if there was an all loving god, it wouldn't allow for hell and evil..

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Samiya Illias]

Quentin wrote: 'Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings.... and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil...'

So if the Loving, Omnipotent and Omniscient Being tells us that this world's life is but a trial, that free-will has been given so that those who will willingly submit, be honest, just and kind, and whatever we suffer, we will be fully compensated for all injustices and wrongs...
You see, free will works both ways! And life comes with consequences... eternal consequences!

Samiya

Sent from my iPhone

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/28 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

Quentin wrote: 'Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings.... and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil...'

So if the Loving, Omnipotent and Omniscient Being tells us that this world's life is but a trial, that free-will has been given so that those who will willingly submit, be honest, just and kind, and whatever we suffer, we will be fully compensated for all injustices and wrongs...
You see, free will works both ways! And life comes with consequences... eternal consequences!

Well if you want... but let me appreciate it for the BS it is... thanks.

Quentin

 

Samiya

Sent from my iPhone

On 28-Nov-2013, at 8:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings.... and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil...

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 >>  the Christian God who is the most unpleasant  character in all of fiction.

> It really depends on which Christians, which can be very different from one culture to another. 

I know some people who call themselves Christian but who are nevertheless very nice people, but that can only happen because they don't take their religion as seriously as some, most Muslims for example. Instead they go through the Bible and embrace the stuff they regard as moral, like being kind to your fellow human beings, and ignoring the stuff they regard as immoral, like God engaging in genocide in the Old Testament and Jesus approving of eternal damnation in the New Testament. The Bible is such a big chaotic mess of contradictory moral advice that no matter what your personal views of ethics are you can be certain to find a passage in that book that you like; and that tells me that morality has nothing to do with religion in general or the Bible in particular. 

 

> I use God for any transcendental reality,

What's the difference between reality and transcendental reality? There must be a difference, otherwise if you told be "I believe in God" I would have received no new information about you that I didn't already have because I already knew that anyone smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time believes in reality.

 

> which implies some experience, and some faith

Yes I understand all that, I know that faith is required to believe in God, but what I don't understand is why that is supposed to be a virtue.

>> For some reason that I don't fully understand you just want to make the following sound with your mouth "I believe in God" and it doesn't matter what the sound means.

 > You can replace the term "God" by the term "Reality" or "Truth

That is true, you can replace the term "God" by the term "Reality" or "Truth,, but you don't.  And the reason you don't is not profound and has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics or philosophy; you don't because for some mysterious reason you've fallen in love with the sound your mouth makes  when it pronounces the word "G-O-D".  There is no other reason.

> The problem is that most people take a reality fro granted,

Well I take the reality of reality for granted, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

 

> but in the comp theory that is probably a sort of illusion.

A illusion is a perfectly real subjective phenomenon, and the above beautifully illustrates what I mean when I say that I have no idea what in hell your homemade word "comp" means even though you've been talking about it for years.

  John K Clark

[Samiya Illias]

Sure, but before being judgemental and throwing it out of the window, do read the Books of the Abrahamic faiths. Perhaps one of them will pleasantly surprise you :) 

Samiya 

Sent from my iPhone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:43, LizR wrote:

Noun

atheism (plural atheisms)

1. (narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
4. (loosely, uncommon) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

(Wikipedia)

Quantum immortality would be a form of afterlife without a god or gods.

Let us call  a "god" something we might have faith in, but cannot prove its existence. OK?

Quantum immortality, and the many comp immortalities,  necessitates the belief in some infinity, OK?

Can we prove the existence of an infinity?

In my opinion, 0 is already a Goddess, and 1 a God, and 2 a Goddess, and cetera.

Can you prove the existence of the number 0? (without assuming them all, or some other Turing universal axiom)

You need all of them to make sense of "immortality". (If *that* makes sense and/or immortality of who exactly?).

A multiverse in which creatures aribtrarily close to gods are guaranteed to exist somewhere would be gods without an afterlife (or at least without one provided by the gods, depending on whether a multiverse implies (1))

Mortality is as much conjectural than immortality, and it depends on what "value" you identify with, or of your ability to recognize yourself in others.

God(s) are more than just infinities, of course, there are often related to good, fair,  juste, etc. (or their contrary). 

(and let us forget about omniscience and omnipotence as it makes not much sense, except in pointing on some tradeoff possible).

Like Cantor showed for the infinite (naming multiplies it), God(s) inherit(s) the inherent feature of the "infinite", and math does put light on this. 

In math and physics, most infinities are "numbers", as being programmable or generable relatively to a universal system (computer, PA, ...). But in computer science, like in number theory "infinities" of many different orders appear all the time. Sometimes we are able to get rid of them, but that by itself is seen as a wonderful achievement, obtained after a lot of work.

The "god" of comp is the one which resurrects you in the computation emulating you at the correct level hopefully. And the problem is that such a god resurrects you infinitely often in the truth of infinitely many computations leading to a complex relative truth object in arithmetic. And the resurrection does not need more magic than the assumption that a brain is Turing emulable. 

But this does not dispense us from the need of the "infinities", if only to understand why the machines can get crazy about them.

Finites and infinities fertilize each other.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 11/28/2013 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/27/2013 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife,

Those are 2 separate ideas and there is no reason they must be linked.  There could be a God and no afterlife or a afterlife and no God; or neither could exist or both could.

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.

How does being able to conceive a non-Christian God contradict being an atheist??  I can conceive many different gods that I don't believe in.

Can you conceive a God in which you do believe?

That was for John Clark who defined once God by the Christian God.

Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God.

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.

We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed.

It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'.

But "theist" is not clear.

My point exactly.

Some identify "God" with the God of their own culture. In science, we try to get a concept as independent of human and culture as possible. 

I use "God" in the greek sense of Truth (the one that we can search about us, or hope or fear, in life and afterlife, whatever it is).

Except nobody here is speaking Greek.  And the Greeks had plenty of gods that had nothing to do with truth; in fact they were given to deception.

I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).

Christianity, specifically Aquinas and Augustine, tried to merge Greek philosophy into the Jewish Messianic religion of Christianity.  But the abrahamic religions owe far more to the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Zoroastrian religions than to Greek.

It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared.  We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?

Well for one thing, we can point to the Earth and say "That."  Shall we just correct our theory of Vulcan and instead of it being a planet identical to Earth but which is always behind the Sun it will be a conceptual planet that has no observable effects but which we will say it exists in the mathematical way: It satisfies some propositions.  Then we can keep the word "Vulcan" and persecute whoever denies its existence.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 11/28/2013 6:29 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
> Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).
>
> It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared. We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?'
> ------------
>
> The God of Abrahamic faiths is the Deity. We believe that He is the only God from time immemorial. All prophets preceding Abraham also spoke of the same God. Unfortunately, over ages most belief systems degenerate into a pantheon of gods 'in the image of humans'.
> The God I believe in is the majestic, indescribable, unimaginable, majestic Creator and Sustainer of everything.

Too bad he can't sustain his religions.

Brent

[Colin Geoffrey Hales]

Religion? There's a Tim Minchin video for that. It'll cure you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
or maybe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

cheers
colin

[LizR]

On 29 November 2013 03:29, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent).

It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared.  We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?'

Atheists think that's exactly what we have done, just as we correct our notions of Santa Claus as we grow up.

[LizR]

On 29 November 2013 09:19, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> 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.

Hey, what's that about Amaterasu? She obviously exists!

(Admittedly we tend to call her "the Sun" nowadays :-)

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol!

Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist:

Footnote to Howl

By Allen Ginsberg

Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!

Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel!

The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy!

The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy!

Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels!

Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas!

Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes & drums!

Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets!

Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles!

Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria & Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul!

Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch!

Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss!

Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity!

Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul!

                                                                                                            Berkeley 1955

I believe both Brent and Allen. And the Sun... Dunno much about their existence though. PGC

[LizR]

But if everything's holy... well, you know the rest.

[Samiya Illias]

I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! 

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/29 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own.

And how is it easier for a god to happen on its own.... it is as absurd, between the two, god hypothesis is just a gap of explanation and the easiest to dismiss.

Quentin

--

[Samiya Illias]

How is it 'easiest to dismiss'? 

Samiya 

Sent from my iPhone

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/29 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

How is it 'easiest to dismiss'? 

Because it is an assumption you add... so keep it simple is easier, so as it adds nothing, and explain nothing about "how can something exists on its own"... well it's easy to dismiss.

Quentin

[Samiya Illias]

Simple? It takes intelligence and knowledge to write computer program, build a machine, and so on. How can we conclude that the software of life, the creation of the Universe / multiverse, all just happened on its own, and for no purpose? 

Consider the following: 

“Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of Night and Day – there are indeed Signs for men of understanding .” (Qur’an 3:190)

It is He Who has created hearing, sight and minds for you. What little thanks you show! (Qur'an 23:78)

We shall show them Our signs in the Universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is the witness of all things? [Quran 41:53] 

We created human from a mingled drop to test him, and We made him hearing and seeing. (Qur'an 76:2) 

Regards, 

Samiya 

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/29 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

Simple? It takes intelligence and knowledge to write computer program, build a machine, and so on. How can we conclude that the software of life, the creation of the Universe / multiverse, all just happened on its own, and for no purpose? 

Ask the same thing about god, and you have still an unsolved problem and you have explained nothing at all. god is useless as an hypothesis about the world.

Quentin

[Samiya Illias]

Yes, I know we cannot answer that, but that is due to our lack of knowledge and comprehension of God, and not because God is useless or does not exist. God's presence is perceivable through His  creation! Denying God won't change anything, but we may miss out on something critically important, to our own detriment and loss. 

Samiya 

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/11/29 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com>

Yes, I know we cannot answer that, but that is due to our lack of knowledge and comprehension of God, and not because God is useless

It is.

 

or does not exist.

The god you talk about (the christian's one) with the long beard, certainly does not exist.

 

God's presence is perceivable through His  creation!

Nope...

 

Denying God won't change anything,

Same thing doing the opposite.

 

but we may miss out on something critically important, to our own detriment and loss. 

In french I would say... nawak !

Quentin

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/11/27 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > All of this demonstrate how little we know about what we are.
>>
>> Yes, I think most societies underestimate how much they don't know.
>> It's easy to spot this looking back in History, but it's more rare to
>> be able to see the pattern and realise that this is probably still the
>> case. Future generations will probably find most of our current
>> beliefs naive, the same way that we find ancient believes naive.
>>
>> > I have some interesting hints about all of this I think. And I have to
>> > formally demonstrate that, and sorry for the pedantry but, as I said
>> > frequently, according with evolutionary game theory, the collective
>> > sacrifices are needed for the coordination of societies that are not
>> > formed
>> > by clones, like the human society.
>>
>> I have little doubt about this. There is the empirical evidence from
>> social insects, for example. Female ants are super-sisters (closer
>> than us to being clones), meaning that they share more DNA than mammal
>> sisters. This, in turn, translates into more altruistic behaviours and
>> an almost clockwork-like society.
>>
>> I think an important point here is that we are wired to be
>> sufficiently altruistic for a tribal society. The agricultural
>> revolution was only 12K years ago, which is very recently at an
>> evolutionary time scale. The level of altruism that we are evolved for
>> doesn't feel like a sacrifice. Most people won't feel that sharing
>> food with friends is a sacrifice. In fact, it is even a pleasure.
>>
>> But then, with the agricultural revolution, social complexity started
>> increasing much faster than biological evolution can keep up with.
>> This is why almost nobody finds pleasure in paying taxes. It's a too
>> abstract form of altruism.
>>
>> > Such sacrifices can be in the course of
>> > informal (celebrations) or formally recognized as sacrifices in
>> > religious
>> > rites.
>> >
>> > That is in our instincts and we naturally arrange our behavior to do so.
>> > It
>> > is very interesting what happens we invite friends to a celebration. We
>> > sacrifice our time and money and dedicate out attention to the others
>> > mutually. Even the mutual perception of happiness being together assures
>> > everyone that the others prefer to be with us and invest their effort
>> > with
>> > us.
>> >
>> > Probably, the less formal the sacrifices are, the less efficient are,
>> > and
>> > the sacrifice higher. I suspect that in really bad times and when the
>> > traditional rites have been forgotten, and people does not trust the
>> > formal
>> > institutions, the only alternative are human sacrifices. That happens in
>> > marginal groups of modern societies. We have to investigate these
>> > matters
>> > urgently.
>>
>> This is an interesting point. Formality allows us to make sacrifices
>> that are recognised by others, thus creating some safety for
>> ourselves. You make a sacrifice, but if you find yourself in need
>> later, the formal rituals created a context where people feel the need
>> to reciprocate. I think churches play this role very well. Mormons,
>> for example, have a very formal society. In certain mormon areas,
>> everyone feels responsible for all the kids, people will help new
>> families and so on. This is interestingly similar to tribal behaviours
>> pre-agriculture.
>>
>> At our current gigantic scales this breaks. You hear the complain all
>> the time: "I pay my taxes, who can they do this to me?". But there's
>> no one listening. Not because most people are evil, but just because
>> there is literally no one listening. Of course the Internet is
>> creating non-geographical locality (or post-geographical, as William
>> Gibson likes to put it). I bet most people in this list see it like a
>> tribe to some degree. There's a lot of conflict, but we would probably
>> be genuinely sad if one of us died. That stuff is wired in us from
>> pre-agriculture.
>
>
> Paying taxes I do not find to fit with an intuitive notion of sacrifice, I
> mean it is not experienced as sacrifice because the money is not a natural
> (i.e. ancestral) possession towards we have a natural way to evaluate the
> gain of loss of it.

Fair enough.

> Moreover it can not be made evident to the other people
> in a public event, that is the essence of the rite or celebration, in which
> mutual trust is created.
>
> Probably the sacrifice of a marathon in a public event is much more
> fulfilling for this purpose than money. When, In a celebration, I spend
> money to make my friends happy, it is my time and my effort what constitutes
> my sacrifice, not the money. Women usually do not appreciate the amount of
> money spent by the husband in a gift, but the overall continuous personal
> effort invested on her. The sons of parents that do not spend time with them
> have the same psychological problems, no matter the amount of money the
> parent spend in material goods for them or either if they are rich or poor.
>
> Probably this is because the evaluation of sacrifice of the other is
> hardwired to consider some kind of goods that actually were present in the
> ancestral environment: personal effort, and personal pain mainly. or some
> goods that were a product of personal effort: the blood of hunted animals
> or other basic posessions like the own blood, or some symbols that represent
> them, wit decreasing levels of realism. For example an animal bough for a
> certain amoun of money(but not the same amount of money as such)
>
> To understand the mechanism by which sacrifices work for social coordination
> is the key: By making a clear and evident personal sacrifice in a public
> celebration is a sign of proclamation of commitment to the comunity because,
> if the individual does not reciprocate because it is too much burden, it has
> to change to other comunity and he have to perform a second sacrifice for
> the other comunity. So he will have no incentives to do defect.
>
> It is like the insurance companies (or by the way, the state run taxation
> and services system): There is an initial payment, a periodic payment and a
> payment if you want to leave. You can not receive the services of your
> insurance company immediately. You either have to pay more at the beginning
> or you have to pay a number of times before using the services. If you
> leave, depending on the services you demanded, you have to pay a penalty.
> Religious celebrations and sacrifices are the same, but at the instinctive
> (emotional) level. It is regulated by unconscious coordination mechanisms,
> while the insurance companies uses the same game theoretical logic (I can
> bet that insurance companies use game theory a lot), but it is perfectly
> conscious and rational. not instinctive. I have no emotional attachment to
> the other clients of my insurance company.
>
>
> A country is something in the middle. But the emotional attachment for your
> country is not a consequence of the money you pay in taxes for the education
> system. It is because your cellebrations and memorials and the history
> books, you read and all the things that you find easy to do with the people
> of your country and not so well with other people.
>
> The dynamic of religion and sacrifice becomes clear when compared with an
> insurance company: when trust grows and the people don´t lie to the
> insurance company the payments become lesser and lesser. When the distrust
> increase, and the demand of payment grows by liars or wrongdoers, the
> payments grows until the payment is comparable to the service. That is, if
> the clients have a false accident of total loss every year,, the company
> will demand the price of a car every year. if you kill people and expect
> that the group will help you with their lifes from the probable vengeance,
> it is expected that your group demand for you to kill one of your children
> in public or to kill two enemies or to take prisioners for killing them in
> the altar or some equaly horrendous. Otherwise the game theoretical
> equilibrium will not work to stabilize the group cooperation. That`s what
> happens in ancient and modern tribes.

You make a number of interesting points and I don't really disagree
with anything.

Telmo.

>>
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> > 2013/11/25 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Alberto G. Corona
>> >> <agoc...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2013/11/24 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism"
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at
>> >> >> least
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> far as I understand them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not
>> >> >> making
>> >> >> much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> french
>> >> >> philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do
>> >> >> what
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> only
>> >> >> one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political
>> >> >> materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and
>> >> >> indeed
>> >> >> both
>> >> >> are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich
>> >> >> life
>> >> >> with a
>> >> >> life of rich.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Both branches of nihilistic economicism , yes
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in
>> >> >> Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a
>> >> >> reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the
>> >> >> universal
>> >> >> dream, etc.).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Interesting declaration of Gnosticism.
>> >> > But that platonic idea of the world does is not match very well with
>> >> > what
>> >> > plato says in the Timaeus. Allthough the gnosticists have drawn a lot
>> >> > from
>> >> > Plato.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the other way, the conception of Aristotle was the traditional
>> >> > idea
>> >> > of
>> >> > the greeks. the greek goods, by the way, where intramundane, not
>> >> > beyond-material, that is sobrenatural, authough "almost" inmortals.
>> >> > So
>> >> > you
>> >> > can accuse the ancient greeks of being aristotelians.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism),
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like
>> >> >> with the
>> >> >> antic greeks and Indians).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the
>> >> >> same
>> >> >> conception of the creation (a material universe).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The real "religious" debate is about the primitive or not existence
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> physical reality.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Not only that. Between primitive and not existence, theere are a lot
>> >> > of
>> >> > possiblities
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > We have no option once our personal survival problems are solved and
>> >> > we
>> >> > have
>> >> > to plan beyond tomorrow.
>> >> > We have teleological minds that need to discover a course of history
>> >> > to
>> >> > follow. Otherwise, probably like in any social organism, we will be
>> >> > victims
>> >> > of out own mechanism of sanity-checking and the social apoptosis will
>> >> > prescribe an useful suicide to our disoriented body, in order to
>> >> > avoid
>> >> > being
>> >> > a burden for the other gene-vehicles of the society.
>> >> >
>> >> > That´s why many disoriented people, specially young ones, risk their
>> >> > lifes
>> >> > in extreme sports (or terrorism): it is the only way to avoid asking
>> >> > oneself
>> >> > for some meaning for their lifes.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and I also suspect that this is why pop culture is so loud.
>> >> People of all ages feel this need to be distracted from the abyss. Not
>> >> that I find anything wrong in pop culture per se, but making a big
>> >> deal about some celebrity wearing a skimpy outfit is one of the many
>> >> ways to distract ourselves from the nausea that can come when one
>> >> contemplates naked reality. Another impression I have is that Europe
>> >> is mostly a post-nausea culture, while the US is a pre-nausea one.
>> >> This makes communication hard, despite the fact that we have so much
>> >> in common at a more superficial level.
>> >>
>> >> > The spectacle of people running to the
>> >> > extenuation in massive marathons with "solidary" purposes as a modern
>> >> > form
>> >> > of primitive sacrifice is one of the most bizarre but enlightening
>> >> > things in
>> >> > this "rationalist" modern world.
>> >>
>> >> I agree, it's funny. Obviously people could just donate the money
>> >> directly to charity, so there is some fundamental need for the
>> >> puritanical public display of sacrifice. It also promotes jogging and
>> >> healthy living, which is a replacement for conventional religious
>> >> notions of purity. It is acceptable under the new dogmas because it is
>> >> science-based, but the underlaying religious needs are still the same.
>> >>
>> >> Then you have some funny moments, like when science finds out that
>> >> stretching before exercise is actually counter-productive. It's a
>> >> bummer, because stretching before a jog is such a wonderful display of
>> >> piety, so similar to genuflexion before some altar. I wonder what
>> >> they'll replace it with.
>> >>
>> >> Telmo.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bruno
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Atheism is wish fulfillment.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Yes. Notably. I agree.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist,
>> >> >>> together
>> >> >>> with the belief in the Christian "Matter".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate
>> >> >>> between Aristotle and Plato.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>> To post to this group, send email to
>> >> >>> everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >> To post to this group, send email to
>> >> >> everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >> To post to this group, send email to
>> >> >> everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To post to this group, send email to
>> >> > everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

[Samiya Illias]

Just for the record, I do not personify God. It would be simply speculative and unfair of us to imagine any form of God. 

All I know is how He briefly introduces Himself as the 'noor' or 'spiritual light' of the heavens and earth. (Quran 24:35) 

Samiya 

Sent from my iPhone

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

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.

PGC

[Bruno Marchal]

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.

Bruno

PS (I will probably comment in the random order)

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/