|
|
Re: Matheology § 055
Posted:
Jul 3, 2012 12:55 AM
|
|
On Jul 2, 8:47 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <873510cd-9ac4-4058-96d2-854321ccb...@qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 9:29 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <26e074b3-7f7e-441b-9436-6d93c03b0...@km7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Without making SOME assumptions, one cannot do any mathematics at all,
> > > nor much of anything else, and every such assumption counts as an axiom.
> > > --
>
> > God lets the integers, the infinity of them.
>
> But you must have assumed a god, since clearly there is no proof of one.
>
> > Re: Dedekind's "the integers are the work of God."
>
> Again assuming a god.
>
> > So is the
> > continuum of reals and everything else.
>
> Again assuming a god.
>
>
>
> > So, why would you make God have axioms to have reason?
>
> Why do you make the assumption of a god?
>
>
>
> > The Bible, Upanishads, Dao De Ching, Norse mythology and generally as
> > a regular theme in most creation and origin mythoi, as it were: these
> > generally start with rationalizations of the void. That satisfies a
> > lot in thinking. The very first things these do is answer "where does
> > anything besides nothing come from and what is it."
>
> But your "godidit" still requires the assumption of a god.
>
>
>
> > Natural unit equivalency function: "About 4,190 results (0.17 seconds)
>
> Anything under a million Google results makes it sheer fantasy.
> --
Well, I'm a universalist, I see "God" in everything, generally evenly
distributed throughout.
As well then, in terms of for example our discussions of omnipotence,
there is quite a shared conception of what God is, or G-d if you'd
care to respect what you call him by aversion, or Him, for a proper
generic pronoun. Then, it's not an imposition but a parlance.
Why would you make nothing have a God? Why would he?
All those stories, words, for their import, start that way. That's
the lead-in to all that follows.
Maybe, maybe that's the fundamental philosophical question: of
nothing.
That said I'm a technical philosopher and our thoughts into Being and
Nothing reflect for us the most deep of meanings, for which we can
thank the schools of thought, here Eastern and Western.
So, you can argue with Dedekind or the church about it, and I really
don't follow you so much that I thought of you as agnostic or atheist,
here it's well relevant that there's quite a well-developed school of
his study.
Nothing does it. If you'd like: God.
Just another sign to a green pasture: there's nothing.
No, in as to the relevance of philosophy to our science of it, here
that's for the technical philosopher.
Nothing: reality.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
Conscious Man
|
|
