On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't >>> rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing >>> purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for >>> the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and >>> is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle >>> "God"? >>> >> > >> I consider this question equivalent to asking "If there is no elan vital >> found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms >> life?" Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in >> higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind >> of "ancestor worship" (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a >> common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many >> religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top >> of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to >> conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and >> our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out >> the word "life" when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain >> ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not "omnipotent", or >> not "conscious", should we abandon that word and come up with something >> else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some >> thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an >> incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew >> words each time we learned something new. >> >> Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems > ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? > > > Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite, > transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or > for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun? > > > Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate the > strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, > why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite, > transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable. > Those are the properties of the "god" of computationalism: arithmetical truth > If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, > let's just call it goar. And I would remind you that there is not > necessarily a goar. > There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an explaination of. > I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation: > physics->biology->intelligence->consciousness->observation->language->mathematics->physics->... > > That is interesting, but it's not a complete cycle, for the physics or math conceived of by intelligence is not necessarily the true or complete math or physics. > > > We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I would > say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence of many > theories, including most of the everything type theories popular on this > list. > > Hence we *could *say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to > call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a > discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but > space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNA....I'm sure you can > think of a few similar examples. > > > Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as the > "Abrahamic God" and the "comp God" are two explanations (theories) of that > which is responsible for our existance. > > Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be > explained persists. > > > > I think "God" has enough baggage that the answer to John's question > should be "no". Although given the unconscious reification of various > things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral > term for "the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe". > > > Any suggestions? > > (Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could > try "Tao" ... or maybe "Ylem" ?) > > > I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I think > "god" is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any particular > religion. > > > But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that. > Not generally. That is the case only in some specific religions. Jason -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
