Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:57, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> Just to clear this up, my above statement was not meant to be an
> argument. I purposefully used the word "entail" rather than "imply". I
> wasn't saying that you cannot believe in some kind of truth without
> believing in the personal God. However is makes sense *from my
> perspective* (of belief in the personal God) that you do not have a
> basis for any truth on which personhood can be based, which *from my
> perspective* (which I *have* been arguing for in general) needs more
> than the impersonal core.
OK. Now, if you accept, if only just for the sake of the argument, the
mechanist hypothesis, then you will see there could be an explanation
why you feel necessary to postulate such a personal God. But then I
must agree this explanation is more coherent with
"theories/philosophies" in which that "God" is so much *personal* that
it looks like the "first person" canonically associated to the machine.
In that case your "personal God" would be the "machine third hypostase"
or "Plotinus universal soul". It is the unameable self (re)defined by
Bp & p.
>
>>
>> The card records facts. To judge them historical is already beyond my
>> competence. Why the bible? Why not "the question of king Milinda" ?
>>
>
> My approach on the Everything List has been to argue for the necessity
> of the personal God as the ultimate basis for Everything.
See just above.
> If someone
> wants to research the historical record sufficiently to convince
> themselves one way or another about the Bible or Jesus' resurrection,
> that's great, and I can give them some sources, but it's probably too
> contingent for this List.
Perhaps. The problem is that I just cannot take an expression like
"Jesus is the Son of God" as a scientific proposition. It could be
true, it could be false without me seeing a way to resolve it. On the
contrary, I can find in the talk by Jesus general pattern which makes
sense, and, indeed, 2/3 of Christian theology is probably compatible
with the comp hyp. Somehow, any literal interpretation of *any* text
(even PA's axioms !) should be considered with systematic suspicion.
> But I do have response to your comment on
> universal-ness below.
> <snip>
> I agree I was too loose in my use of hypercomputation as an analogy.
> Actually the direction of the "spanning" was downward, going from G*
> (celestial) to G terrestial, described by the Greek work kenosis
> (emptying). This does not mean that God the Father (the personal
> fulfillment of the first hypostase), or the Holy Spirit (...second
> hypostase) discontinued to exist, but that the Logos became flesh and
> dwelt among us, so that we could see his grace and truth. Again, this
> does not mean that we cannot believe and seek truth, and have a feeling
> that we are on the right track, without a relationship with the
> personal God. This means that the ultimate source of all truth made
> himself known to us on a human level and solved the problem of evil.
Again this can have some symbolic sense. Literaly it is enough I know
just one suffering Dog to feel uneasy with the idea that the concrete
(not the theological) problem of evil is solved.
>
> Death itself is the ultimate effect of evil: separation/isolation from
> everything and everyone. Jesus proved his divinity by raising
> *himself* from the dead.
A very big advance in modern and serious parapsychology is that humans
are easily fooled by humans. How could you say Jesus has proved
something? Even if someone appear and can change water in wine and
makes miracles etc. I would not take this as a proof. Remember I even
think there is just no proofs concerning any reality. Proofs belongs to
theories. Facts does not prove. Facts confirms or refute beliefs
(theories).
>
>> For any belief I have I try to figure out if I would have had that
>> belief in completely different context. "Jesus" or "Nagarjuna" does
>> not
>> survive such a test. For example I would not have believed in Jesus in
>> the case I would have born in the time of Plato, nor would I believed
>> in Euler would I have born on a different planet, but it make sense
>> that I would have believed in the content of their message. This
>> forces
>> us to make the argument the most universal possible, the less
>> culturally influenced.
>>
>
> I am not saying that God's communication is an exhaustive communication
> of all truth, i.e. all facts (scientific, historic, etc.) that it is
> possible for us to know. It was a message saying, "I am here. I love
> you. I am your source of meaning. Here is my hand to rescue you from
> darkness/meaninglessness and death/isolation. Your
> meaning/relationships are actually, ultimately, based on something:
> Me."
But how could I know if jesus was not refering to the universal "me",
in which case I can make sense of what he said both relatively to Plato
or Plotinus theory and with the comp hyp. If Jesus meant literally
himself, then, well I wait someone can even address a theory in which
such literal truth can make sense.
>
> I am not building an argument from the ground up to everything (see my
> last comment below). This thing has been handed down to me, I admit,
> but it can be investigated by anyone interested. So I can't make the
> argument up the way I want it.
>
> Accordingly, regarding universal-ness, the personal God would have to
> communicate this message to us with a means specific to this planet.
> (I don't know what he has done for other planets.)
During a very long time people have been burned alive for daring to
talk on other planet.
> We would not really
> be able to believe him if he did not become one of us (we would just
> say, "You don't know about my experience as a human"). To truly
> communicate with a human, you have to be a human. He became one human,
> took on human death, and proved his divinity by raising himself from
> death, and then the message was spread by those who believed in him.
It is a cute story, but how could we be *sure* it was not a collective
hallucination? I recall that I take already the appearance of a
physical universe as a sort of collective (all machine) hallucination.
I am not saying that Jesus' resurrection was such an hallucination, but
are you willing to be scientific on this, meaning are you prepared to
doubt any axiom of your theory?
>
> In a similar manner as "I don't know about other planets", I would say
> I ultimately don't know about other people (first person pov and all
> that), what it means for them to believe in the personal God's love for
> them. All I know is the way I've heard it (Jesus being the personal
> God's hand to us). To try to worry and orchestrate how all of that
> works for everyone would be going way above my competence. But this
> doesn't negate the truth of the personal God.
To be clear, with comp there is a personal God, which is the unnameable
self all enough correct machine have in themselves.
> To the last question, yes. However, I think that Godel's
> axiomatization also applies to an impersonal god. The axioms for a
> personal God would have to include all three persons as I outlined with
> the four hypostases. This is for reasons similar to the reasoning of
> the hypostases, with the added axiom that the ultimate One is personal
> and that the three persons somehow communicate and love one another.
> This is the basis on which there can be communication and love among
> other persons. In a way, communication and love are on a par with
> truth on the ontological scale. This is an important point.
I agree, but it is even because I agree that I am afraid your
interpretation of Jesus and "witness" interpretation sound too literal
and could help those who want to abandon the theological baby with the
criminogenic human pseudo religious behavior.
Influence by comp I would add that the "personal God" is so much
personal that the enlightened person will never mention It. Personal
God are personal. Of course we can talk about such "personal things" in
a list where the very notion of person is addressed. personal stuff are
not scientific, but this does not forbid 3-talk on such "personal
things", once we agree enough on some axioms etc.
>
>>
>> >
>> > I agree, words are not enough. Here again, the primary
>> communication
>> > of love was not words e.g. a command to love, but the actually
>> > expression by the action of incarnation and giving his life and
>> death.
>>
>>
>> In a story. I can appreciate symbolically.
>> If you want Jesus playing a personal role in our 3-person approach,
>> just pray Him to make a 3-person communicable sign.
>>
>
> This goes back to his death and resurrection, which opened up the way
> again for our relationship with the personal God.
... as far as "I" am Jesus. If not, I could argue that the message has
not even been delivered to me. Got an atheist education ... I stop
believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early childhood.
I was astonished that my cousins stop to believe in Santa Klaus but
kept they belief is Jesus.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> I am not sure, because we can bet. We can make act of faith. We can
>> >> learn from our mistakes, we can change our minds and still keeping
>> >> faith, faith corrected by reason and experiences can only grow.
>> Only
>> >> "bad or wrong faith" (generally based on wishful or fearful
>> thinking)
>> >> can fear to be "corrected".
>> >> A bit like it is more easy for a parent to "punish" his child when
>> the
>> >> parent "truly" loves it.
>> >
>> > But this hope is without an ultimate basis. Real hope has an
>> ultimate
>> > basis.
>>
>>
>> All the lobian point is that as far as the word "real" means
>> something,
>> we cannot use it and still keep the scientific attitude (humility,
>> modesty).
>>
>
> This goes back to comp's taking arithmetic truth as the basis for
> "reality". I am saying that this kind of truth is not broad enough for
> Everything.
This is coherent with "non-comp". No machine can be sure "arithmetical
truth" is not broad enough. After Godel we know that we cannot unify
completely arithmetical truth in any axiomatizable theory. It *is* big.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Knowledge is personal. Without an ultimate personal basis, we
>> cannot
>> > expect or hope for more, because we have nothing to begin with.
>>
>> I make it plain that S4Grz1, alias the arithmetical first person (the
>> solipsist topos of "conscience & m canisme), alias the third
>> hypostase,
>> is a good candidate for the ultimate personal basis. Here you should
>> appreciate. In a way it vindicates both Nargarjuna and Jesus, with the
>> same proviso that their "stories" (Jesus resurection, Nagarjuna
>> reincarnation) should not be taken literally (by adults).
>>
>
> Yes, because for instance if Jesus' story is taken literally, and he
> claimed to be the Son of God and proved it by raising himself from
> death, then this would contradict the impersonal basis of comp.
If this annoy you just put the third hypostase (the first person, the
universal soul) "above" the 0-person. This is just a tiny nuance,
unless you are sure by your literal interpretation of Jesus.
>
> Also, Nagarjuna did not claim to be God in human form, and he did not
> prove it.
And that is the reason I am able to trust him.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Again, the "sacred text" by itself is not sufficient. The proof is
>> in
>> > God's actual act of love toward us. For us, love is expressed in
>> > meeting our need, which was our being lost and dead, separated (by
>> > evil, by definition) from truth, meaning and life.
>>
>> You refer to personal things. If you are lucky enough to be blessed by
>> Love, it is ok, especially if it inspire you to work toward a
>> communciable theory. But nobody can use such reference in a theory.
>> Even, and I would say especially in a "theological" theory.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> This is just my argument again: Without a personal God, we don't have a
> basis for these personal things. I am not trying to develop a theory
> from the ground up (upward emanation). My argument is just presenting
> the problem and lack of solution, and then saying that the answer has
> been given from the top down (downward emanation). St. Paul reasoned
> with the Greeks about the problem (meaninglessness, evil, etc.) in the
> same way, and then simply proclaimed the "good-news" answer. The only
> way he could proclaim it from their context was by saying that he
> noticed they had an altar with the inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.
> This reminds me of the One or 0-person. He then said, "Now what you
> worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." Then he
> went on to tell them about the personal God. You can read what he said
> in Acts 17:24-31 here:
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:22-31;
> &version=31;
>
> In this configuration of Everything, our part is not to build
> everything from the ground up (which is required if there is no one "up
> there" to give us anything), but to just look at the evidence for what
> God did to show us he exists and has solved our problem of inescapable
> meaninglessness and death, and believe.
>
> This doesn't mean that, if we believe that God is our ultimate source
> of meaning, we don't need to do anything for any purpose whatsoever.
> On the contrary, it gives both *consistent* and *complete* meaning to
> what we do and it takes away our need to spend our lives in fear of
> meaninglessness and isolation/death.
If that helps you it is ok. But, as others have illustrated, it seems
such believes are not necessary. Now the main the point is that if you
don't allow *possible* (re)interpretation of you theory, it would
prevent progress. Science = Doubt. Factual things like "Jesus is the
son of God" or "there is a primary physical universe" are scientific
statement only as far as we can conceive them as being false (or better
refutable, but I am not sanguine about this).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jan 01 2007 - 10:54:13 PST