On 02 May 2014, at 20:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
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.
All right, but then it is dangerous to identify it with anything
related through words and names.
God does not need any advertizing. If this or that book inspires you
in the research, it is OK, but as a reference or explnation, still as
normative, then, in my opinion, you fall in the theological trap.
I know about neoplatonist attempts to interpret the Quran, but today,
all abramanic religions, including atheism, are under the spell of
aristotelianism, and have also (with the exception of the jewish) get
proselyte, which I think is not coherent with comp possible theologies.
We can reason, and we can know some truth, but we can't correlate
reason with truth, we can only *hope* reason being part of truth.
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.
OK. Nice. But is that not contradict by other verses?
And then I nivite you to translate the Quran in arithmetic. If you can
it might win in the "measure game", even "already", probably in
different shapes that we can't conceive yet, if not, let us look at
"the question of kind Milinda", or other texts, etc.
It is dangerous to focus on one text, and even more dangerous (with
respect to truth searching) to believe that some tradition could be
true one, and other false.
If the Quran really makes you understand that God is unknowable and
incomprehensible, you have to be modest, including about which texts
get closer or not, and not stick to names and rules, even less so
normative behavior.
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.'?
In drugs reports, but also in NDE reports, and in many mystical
reports, the experiencer describes a dissociation between
consciousness and the body/mind. They get apparently awaken to the
fact that their consciousness is the consciousness of God, or cosmic
consciousness, and that what they were usually believing to be
themselves is actually only a windows through which God can observe
itself and recognize itself (or not). But that "you", even more so
when "cosmic", is utterly non nameable, and any way to invoke it can
only rely on the ignorance of its main ineffable feature.
All the Abramanic religion, today, have their neoplanist part sleepy.
Those part insists on personal experience, and the use of reason, and
are more coherent than the aristotelian part, especially beyond earth.
Bruno
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 everything-
[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.
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.
