On 5/4/2012 11:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.05.2012 23:45 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not saying that science and religion are on an equal footing, but
I think it's a just-so-story to account for it by assuming that
religion must be easier to master and therefore more attractive.
Who has mastered religion? Are there any 'laws of religion' and
theorems, any experimental results (well a few which tend to show
religion is imaginary). Is the Pope an exemplar of clear thinking and
I have already mentioned about Colligwood. He starts with a statement that God exists
and analyses what are hidden assumptions (absolute presuppositions) that makes sense for
such a statement. Then he considers a statement that there are physical laws and again
he analyses what are hidden assumptions (absolute presuppositions). His conclusion was
that the absolute presuppositions in both cases are quite close to each other.
I have ordered his book and when I read it, I could report more on this subject. Right
now some findings are here
One needs to consider what it would mean for the contrary to be true. What would it mean
for the universe to NOT be mathematical? Would it mean events are self contradictory?
Yet that is exactly what has happened if QM in it's MW interpretation is true. Yet we
have accommodated it in a rational mathematical description that includes randomness.
Aristotle, and many later thinkers, would have denied QM as impossible by pure reason.
When faced with contradictions scientists change their descriptions.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at