> On 24 May 2019, at 00:37, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 12:35:39 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote: > I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about God. > I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate the > subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only keep my > duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn therefrom. > This page contains links to various aspects of God, which are being theorised > in your various posts: matter, energy, consciousness, soul, etc. > https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html > <https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html> > > There are similar ideas in Christianity. God chooses who is to have paradise, > which raises a curious conundrum. If there are those not chosen and they die > eternally or suffer in flames eternally then it means God has effectively > selected them for that fate. If this is the case then ultimately God creates > many humans just so they can suffer eternally. Such a God makes Adolf Hitler > look benevolent by comparison. > > I read a translation of the Koran right after the 9/11 attacks. It is heavily > marinated with eschatology with flames and suffering. In fact it is far more > than what exists in the New Testament, which itself is pretty threatening > along these lines. > > A related issue, say with whether God is good, was discussed between Socrates > and Euthyphro 4 centuries before Christianity and 1000 years before Islam. > The question is whether God is good because he is inherently so and has no > choice in matter, or whether God is good because He chooses that. In the > first case this is a limitation on God's free will, which limits his > omnipotence. In the second case if God has the choice to be good, then what > is good, ethically right or morally pure is something outside of God and thus > God is not omnipresent with all things.
OK. > > In fact this sort of thing is the type of paradox that always emerges with > the matter of God. God is then an infinite unknowable and anything we try to > define as God or to label as His character runs into contradictions. For > this reason the topic is not appropriate for science or a related subject > where proof, evidence, measurement and empiricism are used. That is the mistake. When discovering that Earth is not flat was also considered as a contradiction, but in science, we never abandon a concept because it leads to a contradiction: we improve the theory, we change the concept, keeping the most of it, but attempting to make it coherent. There are always problem with the notion of “all” (like, the set of all sets cannot be set, the Number of the numbers cannot be a number (Plotinus), etc.). > > The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New Testament > are mythic narratives meant to bring meaning to various aspects of inner > mental space or psychology. I am not sure about the Koran, maybe there are > similar currents. While we can't disprove the existence of God, we can > illustrate how certain ideas about God do not match a scientific > understanding of the world. God exists by definition for the ancient greeks. The question was “could God be the physical universe” or is God something else responsible for the (only apparent perhaps) physical universe. For some Platonist, like Xeusippes, the question was almost the question “is physics or mathematics” the fundamental science?”. > Also much of these things involve magical thinking. OK. But with mechanism, the concept of “ontological real matter” becomes magical thinking, like the Vitalism of the biologist some century ago. The problem of not letting theology in science is that it confines it in tradition which will opposed science and religion, leading to a social schizophrenia. > Jesus turning water into wine is really much the same idea as Cinderella's > fairy godmother turning mice and a pumpkin into a carriage drawn by a team of > horses. It's magical thinking. It is myth and legend. It is “religion” for the maternal level, in which “politicians” confined it, so as to be able to take control on people, and usually steal their money. It is anti-religious, and anti-science. Religion is the only goal, Science is the only mean. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/380546c4-e260-4315-9061-ee07c3f2ec33%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/380546c4-e260-4315-9061-ee07c3f2ec33%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/40FF8DFB-0B06-446F-B270-D61C5BA74A68%40ulb.ac.be.
