On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 09-Oct-2014, at 8:06 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause >>> or purpose for everything? >>> Also, what do you think of this: >>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html >>> >>> >> >> Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy >> with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that >> the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are >> created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with >> God) inventing their own purpose? >> >> --Stathis Papaioannou >> >> Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be >> speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe >> God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be >> purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. >> Samiya >> > > Concerning the goal you set yourself, of illustrating factual equivalence > of Qu'ran with scientific perspectives today, here is one, which I don't > share on many levels (a bit condescending at times, but at least he singles > out what seem to be pertinent issues), but that I can understand and relate > to on a few: > > http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm > > The very idea "factual accuracy of Qu'ran" is framed to be a major means, > and common meme in arguing for "recruitment" (propaganda danger), > something, I think we can agree, a transcendental being of any sort, > wouldn't need unless they had psychological issues and needed to see a > doctor or shaman, in which case...:-) > > I hope this addresses some of your concerns as most here have little > experience with content. PGC > > I have read the link and see your drift. Though I disagree with the points > made in it, and have addressed some of them already in my blog, however, I > do not think you wish me to discuss/refute the arguments here. > My wishes are beside the matter. It's you that claims this kind of correctness in Qu'ran, making it the basis of your reasoning and exchanges on this list and your blog, if I recall correctly. It's not even off-topic in this thread, as scientists apparently care about religion as this example shows, especially when a claim to facts and valid reasoning is made. Or you could start another thread. That would be ok. And no, I am not uncomfortable with you refuting arguments. Quite the contrary, if it is done in a fashion that doesn't invoke faith authoritatively, a discourse climate that is open to inquiry and critical examination, without confusing criticism/disagreement with personal attack, then no problem. >From here at least, we can verify a perspective that contrasts with yours, which is better than making sense of your claims exclusively, as we are not native readers, culturally. That is, if you care in the end about demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course. PGC -- 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.
