On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote: >>> >>> Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the >>> list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it >>> occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it >>> was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, >>> giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded >>> into the wisdom your father was studting.) I am not a Bible-scholar, >>> consider the >>> >>> Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) >>> people - then the >>> Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding >>> Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), >>> while >>> >>> some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran >>> as the work of Allah. >>> >>> We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS >>> restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. >>> Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. >>> What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite >>> complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly >>> understood. >>> >>> >>> That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the >>> perspective of the universal numbers. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we >>> don't. >>> >>> >>> Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know. >>> >>> >>> >>> We don't know what is good, or bad, >>> >>> >>> I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but >>> basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look >>> at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the main >>> things I think all the mammals knows the difference between good (like >>> eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, burning, >>> etc.). >>> Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad >>> divides into the good bad, and the bad bad. >>> Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in >>> addition to those we (think) we know. If there is a 'Godly' teleology, our >>> human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, >>> but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God. >>> >>> >>> Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God? >>> Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying? >>> >> >> No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply. >> [3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of >> the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are >> signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or >> sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the >> heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this >> aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the >> punishment of the Fire. >> >> Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider the >> following verses about him: >> *[*2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): >> My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not >> believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at >> ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline >> unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they >> will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. >> >> [6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall*]* (Remember) when Abraham said unto his >> father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in >> error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and >> the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night >> grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He said: This is my Lord. But when it >> set, he said: I love not things that set. And when he saw the moon >> uprising, he exclaimed: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless >> my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. And >> when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater! >> And when it set he exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that ye >> associate (with Him). >> >> >> OK, that is a bit of platonism. Truth is beyond all representations, and >> the physical might be a representation, in fact an unknown sum on >> infinities of representations. >> >> >> >> >> PS: in 6:76, the word that's translated as star I think should be >> translated as planet. >> >> And I think the following verses partially address the question John >> Mikes hesitates to ask: >> [33:72-73 Translator: Pickthall] Lo! We offered the trust unto the >> heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and >> were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a >> fool. So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women, and >> idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men and >> believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. >> >> >> >> But is it not idolatrous (I ask) to pretend that one book got it all, and >> all others are wrongdoers constructions? >> > > I do not believe or state any such thing. I keep affirming that many books > and many prophets came throughout the ages. > And I do not worship the Quran. I worship Allah (The Deity) who sent the > Quran for our guidance, and because it is from Allah and for our guidance, > I take it very seriously. I also respect other scriptures as from God, but > as they have suffered human alterations, I rarely use them and when I do, I > cross-check with what the Quran says about the same topic, simply because > the Quran has not suffered change. What's idolatrous about that? > > >> Human are easily credulous. They can believe that the best medicinal >> plant is a dangerous product which has to be made illegal! >> >> You can use the Quran as a guide to the truth, but you cannot equate it >> with the truth, you can't appropriate the truth, only share experiences, >> and, if only to be able to listen genuinely to others, you need to be able >> to doubt, perhaps not the root of your belief, but the shape the beliefs >> can take for some possible other believers or hopers. >> > > Of course > However, for a muslim the instruction is: [Quran 2:157 Sahih International]: The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. > > >> >> Some truth go without saying. Some truth become falsities once asserted. >> The theological is full of things like that. >> > > You keep asserting that. Some day I might understand what you mean by it > :) > > Samiya > >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> Samiya >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all - changes >>> are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not. >>> >>> >>> In the big picture, I agree. from inside, the frontier between the >>> deterministic and the non deterministic is infinitely complex. >>> >>> >>> I don't repeat the chorus: who created the Creator? >>> >>> >>> A swarm of numbers. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> (Again a point way beyond our mental capabilities). >>> >>> >>> To be sure, yes, to grasp as a possible theory, it is different. You >>> can't use an argument for something beyond our mental capabilities as a >>> refutation of a theory. This would no more be agnosticism, but use of a >>> metaphysical principle to discard a class of theories, without argument. >>> >>> The point being here that numbers can see their own limitations, and >>> grasp that truth extends properly their justifiability abilities. >>> >>> >>> >>> Human science works on theories - explanations of the unexplained - >>> axioms - necessary conditions for the theories to work - and consequences - >>> reduced to the level of the up-to-date functioning of our mental capablity. >>> Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. >>> >>> >>> Absolutely so :) >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> I find it remarkable that your Quran-quote extendes to geography >>> discovered way after (into?) Hedzhra also the cosmology formulated during >>> the recent times and chemistry of the last 100 years (ozon?) - maybe they >>> are included only in the paraphernalia. >>> I would love to read about the other animals as well including >>> non-terrestrials. >>> >>> Have a good time, and forgive my interruption >>> >>> John Mikes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM, 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> Samiya >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:30 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/8/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in >>>>>> the question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for >>>>>> this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not >>>>>> "one's >>>>>> reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you know that? How could you know that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I read the interview. For example >>>>>> >>>>>> *D.G.: I’m not a believer, so I’m not in a position to say. First of >>>>>> all, it’s worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges >>>>>> don’t >>>>>> come from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest >>>>>> case for believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a >>>>>> benevolent >>>>>> God could allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils >>>>>> like >>>>>> devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always >>>>>> been >>>>>> a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of >>>>>> responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like >>>>>> me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, >>>>>> figured out how to accommodate themselves to it.* >>>>>> >>>>>> It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism. If he >>>>>> were referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths >>>>>> there >>>>>> would be no "problem of evil" for that god. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and >>>>>> evil related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person >>>>>> perspective yet understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to >>>>>> justify and be confronted with that very problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But under computationlism it's not a problem. The is no presumption >>>>>> that a computable world is morally good by human standards. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Under computationalism, all possible worlds and all possible >>>>> observers exist and there's nothing God can do about it. God can no more >>>>> make certain observers or observations not exist than make 2 + 2 = 3. >>>>> However, a benevolent theistic god under computationalism (with access to >>>>> unlimited computing resources) could nonetheless "save" beings who existed >>>>> in other worlds by continuing the computation of their minds. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You say "could" as though he had a choice, meaning He's not part of >>>>> the computable world and is not one of the "all possible observers". >>>>> Seems >>>>> to me that he will have to both save everyone and also torture everyone in >>>>> hell. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> >> 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.
