On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 2014-04-04 19:05 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>: > > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than >>>>>> 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding >>>>>> it. >>>>>> Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the >>>>>> scriptures >>>>>> in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy >>>>> in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got >>>>> the >>>>> science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word >>>>> of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded >>>>> in >>>>> this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that >>>>> they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore >>>>> bad. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are you called if you are willing to test god? >>>> A believer? >>>> >>> >>> Rational. >>> >>> >>> Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop >>> a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some >>> assumption. >>> >>> In the case of "God", there is one more difficulty, which is the >>> difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise >>> enough to make a test meaningful and interesting. >>> >>> With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in >>> mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God >>> makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory). >>> >>> About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it >>> seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the "creation", the >>> universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such >>> texts. It is too much "easy" to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and >>> for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did >>> just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always >>> divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also >>> the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for "some" God. >>> "Alice in Wonderland" too. >>> >> >> Why Alice in Wonderland? >> > > To know that, you have to follow the white rabbit. > :) > > > >> >> >>> >>> I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like >>> an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some >>> text divine, but to put "divine" on the front looks close to blasphemous to >>> me (doubly so when true). >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> 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/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
