Roger,
You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the
existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set
of monads.

The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of
nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is.
They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP.
Richard

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
> with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
> concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
> what the meaning of anything is. Period.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/21/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *From:* Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57
> *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection
>
>  Roger,
>
> Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,�
> however at differing levels of information integration,
> in the "universal燙YM monad爏ubspace".
>
> Belief can also be a product of science.
> I believe science.
> Richard
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Bruno Marchal
>> �
>> According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that
>> trust
>> does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have nothing to do with
>> it,
>> at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.�
>> �
>> �
>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/20/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10
>> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked
>> semanticfield(mind).
>>
>>   On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
>> > suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If
>> > it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not
>> > governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is
>> > reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone.
>>
>> I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The
>> reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by
>> self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the
>> > human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics
>> > and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope
>> > in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists
>> > when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between
>> > both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division.
>>
>> But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from
>> their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different.
>> And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already
>> reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between
>> woman and man, east and west, yin and yang.
>>
>> Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny
>> appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other
>> pole.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian
>> > movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the
>> > fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics.
>> >
>> > So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever.
>>
>> I concur.
>>
>>
>>
>> > When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and
>> > within new organization.
>>
>> Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the
>> level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative
>> arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all).
>>
>>
>>
>> > The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by
>> > makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic
>> > school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over
>> > the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the
>> > URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But
>> > also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries
>> > out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a
>> > greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever.
>>
>> OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and
>> religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs
>> leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense
>> for short term goal, like it makes sense to "obey" to orders in the
>> military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run.
>>
>> And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the
>> long run, or we will disappear, like the dinosaurs. Natural selection
>> can select good things for the short terms, and throw them away later.
>> What will not disappear is science and religion. Religion and
>> spirituality will be more and more prevalent, and play a role of
>> private goal, and science will be more and more understood as the best
>> tool to approximate that spiritual goal. I think.
>>
>> To fight fundamentalism in religion, theology should go back to the
>> academy (which like democracy is the worst institution except for all
>> others!).
>>
>> 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@googlegroups.com.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
>> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> 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@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> 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@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>  --
> 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@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to