On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 02 May 2014, at 05:35, Samiya Illias wrote: > > Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world > views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of > humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to > creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: > http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 > > > > He wrote "I will welcome any objection, I will reply with great efforts or > accept defeat with full grace." . > That is very nice, but he does not give the comment ability on the page. > So .... > > Then he uses the Quran as a literal apparently authoritative source. Only > that is "not playing the fair rule" for that type of argument. > perhaps he makes clear on some other page, but for a cold outsider > logician, that begs many questions. > > I don't know Samiya. I tend to believe that we are locally colony of > cells, and that each cells is itself an older colony of bacteria, and that > those cells are type of colony of molecules, going through some improving > self-stabilizing chemical reaction. > The bible 'Genesis is a wonderful tale, and it might taught us something, > but I don't believe in any literal meaning of it. > > Evolution is not just random mutation and selection, it is an iteration of > simple transformations, and that has mathematical shape (referring to some > arithmetical (at least) truth. Evolution is guided by mathematical > structure like the mandelbrot set, where you can find basically all natural > shapes, from the thunder to fetuses, from river to brains, from forest to > cities, and this surrounding itself everywhere 2 times, 4 times, 8 times, > 16 times, ... (that might help for the measure problem in case the rational > m set is a compact Turing complete set). > > I am afraid that your conception of God might be too much human and > cultural, earthly provincial, I would say, with respect of the possible > absolute whole. > I understand the comfort for the humans in that type of thought, but to > get light on the mind body problem, even with the "comp assumption", we > have to be open for something which might be much more big, and much more > deep. > How do you get that impression? I think that God is unknowable and incomprehensible. The more I study the Quran and the more I learn of research and discoveries on the frontiers of science, the more I'm filled with awe at the Majesty of God. God is above and beyond, greater than anything we can even begin to imagine. > It may be that the comp God "dislikes", eventually, those creatures who > *assert publicly* that God prefers them to other creatures. > Well, that seems to be true. In Quran 62:6, and other places, we read about God's dislike for people claiming preference over others in God's favour. God's mercy extends over all. > You might have some experiences which can give that felling, but the more > that experience is genuine, the less you invoke it, and the more you are > cautious with respect to more and more creatures and type of creatures, I > think. In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of "you", and > a fortiori of God. > We do recognize the existence of other creatures. What do you mean by 'In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of "you", and a fortiori of God.'? Samiya > > Sacred texts can be useful, but only as far as you can see the meaning > behind the poetry, and can abandon them when progressing on your path. If > not they became soon or later an obstacle. > > if you compare with machine's theology, we can say that Sufi, Kabbala and > the mystic christians are less wrong, less influenced by maimonides' > emphasis on the Aristotelian conception. That emphasis was useful for the > development of science, but still "wrong" at the fundamental level. The > sufi people, and the kabbalist have not cut the link with Platonism and the > mystic message. In that direction, things like clay are but theologically > irrelevant dreamy local implementation details. > > In the west, we are wrong on this plato/aristotle branching since the 6th > century. In the middle-east, we are wrong on it since the 11th century, and > in the far east, I don't know, but many doctrines are "comp-theologically > coherent". > By "wrong", I always mean "making a big shift from what is more coherent > with the comp assumption". > > Bruno > > *"A screw has the nature of buddha"* Zen and the Art of Motorcycle > Maintenance" (Robert M. Pirsig) > > > Samiya > > -- > 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.
