> On 28 Apr 2020, at 16:50, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Apr 2020, at 14:36, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> > On 23 Apr 2020, at 06:53, Samiya Illias <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> > >> > If the All-Mighty God accepts me in The Kingdom of The Hereafter, I trust >> > He will explain to us our roles, responsibilities, perks and privileges. >> >> OK. >> >> No it is not OK. Religion is based on the idea that truth is handed down by >> a divine authority. > > > It comes from the insight of the greeks that Truth is an authority we better > should not hide, even if we cannot define it. > > It is related to the fact that you cannot put your hand in the fire, and > relativise what is happening. > > > > Theology and science are in dialectic opposition. Monotheistic religions > present a God that is really nothing more than a mystical form of Orwell's > Big Brother.
Only due to the stealing of theology by “politics”. Monotheism is what made the zoroastrian civilised, and close to democracy, at the time of the Great Cyrus. That was also a time of breakthrough in science and technology; with amazing technic to transport water, notably. You might confuse “theology” (the greek science, at the origin of mathematics and physics, seen as alternative for the ontology fundamental reality) and popular religion transformed into authoritative argument, which comes from the institutionalisation of religion, and brings dogma and Big Brother (note that this one is brought by the materialist religion too, like in the USSR). > The whole business amounts to various enormous scams that control people. > Christianity was the first, where the Hebrew God was co-opted into a Hellenic > form with ideas of that God having been a man who sacrificed Himself to > Himself, was resurrected to meet Himself in heaven, all because the first > humans were deceived by a talking snake. Which has, of course, nothing to do with theology as a science. You will not find mention of talking snake in Pythagorus, Plato, nor Plotinus’ Ennead or Proclus” treatise in Theology. > If that is not a mythic narrative I do not know what is. Science/religion when popular and primitive are based on some myth, always, from Jesus to the Big-Bang. Of course, when doing science we only propose theories and mean of verification. We never know the truth, but we can evaluate the plausibility, by counting the evidence, statistical analysis, etc. > Islam is a bit more straightforward, but Allah as presented in much of the > Koran is an infinite mad defect, a sort of infinitely projected Hitler, who > is ripe to met out vengeance and eternal punishment, and admonishes His > followers to imitate this on Earth. There have been follow on relations, in > particular Mormonism. That is a unique form of madness IMO. > > In many ways I prefer the ideas of Taoism and Buddhism, which like monotheism > reduced many gods to one or a few, but go an additional step further and have > the 0-god. Yes. I analyse this with some details in my paper: Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260. That paper is a sequel to my two other papers(*) > The Tao has features parallel to the quantum vacuum, and with what I am > working with entanglement and gauge theory I think energy and entanglement > form a wholeness that is similar to the "Qi.” I am skeptical. Some analogies are possible, but with mechanism, energy and entanglement comes from the universal machine modes of self-reference, in a manner provably equivalent to Plotinus, once we use the lexicon The One = Arithmetical truth The Noùs = provability The soul = conjunction of provability with truth Intelligible Matter = conjunction of provability with consistency (= physics, quanta) Sensible Matter = conjunction of provability, consistency and truth (= physics, qualia). Gödel and Löb, and Solovay theorem makes this technically transparent, and we get an intuitionist logic for the “knower” (the soul) and quantum logic for Matter, and a sort of quantum intuitionist logic for the sensible realm. > With these at least there is no Orwellian terror being in the sky we have to > fall to our knees before. That idea does not belong to theology, but to dogmatic pseudo-theology invented by Tyran to make people obeying to them. They have used science as well, but it is easier to use the fundamental science, although in the USSR they have used biology for the same purpose. Of course they got “fake biology”. Similarly, when theology brings dogma, it is no more science, and should not even be considered at all (except in sociology of “pseudo”-religion). > > If we humans were really the intelligent life form we pretend to be we would > have gotten rid of the monotheistic beliefs at least a century ago. If the theology was not have been stolen by politics, we would have discovered the universal machine before 1000, and quantum physics before the 12th centenary, I think this is plausible., and we would already been on Mars, and there would be no covid-19 (or no so bad immune reaction to it, as we would not have repeated the mistake of bringing health in the hand of the politics, a toy version of the 529 big error). Read Plotinus, or Proclus, or study directly the G/G* theology of the universal machine. Put the bible on your shell in such a way you forget its existence, as this is to theology what the horoscope is to astrophysics. The problem of those who separated religion/theology from science is that they make science into a sort of religion, and they believe things like “scientist knows that there is physical universe” which is a nonsense. Many people claiming that they have no religion today believes without knowing that they are just espousing Aristotle Theology: the belief that God is basically the physical reality. But there are no evidence at all for this. It is a confusion between evidence for laws about measurable numbers relation, and evidence for doing a physical ontological commitment. It is a confusion between physics and metaphysics. Bruno > > <Qi.png> > > > > LC > > > > >> Religion claims to have the ultimate truth, or THE TRUTH, > > > Only when a tyran steal the domain to those who can remain serious and modest > on the complex foundational issues. > > Dont confuse god, the object of theological study, and god, the object of > naïve popular fairy tales, especially when it is mixed with state and > politics. (The genuine blasphemy). > > Yes, I know that we have to backtrack about 1500 years to find serious > studies, but if you study the history of religion, you can understand that > serious theologian have continue to exist, although usually hiding their > theories, or presenting them in a way so that they are not immediately send > at stake. > > > > >> and we are supposed to wait patiently for a great day of revelation. > > > Religion has something to do with personal experience, which are usually > forbidden once the religion is stolen by politics, let us say. > > > > > >> For most of us this will come after death, where if we have done all the >> right things, according to various scriptures, > > Of course in science there is no scripture, except papers and treatises. > > > >> we will come to know the ultimate Truth and live in eternal bliss. > > Of course those terms must be defined before we conclude anything, and such a > conclusion would only be conditional on some theory. For example, if we > assume mechanism, we cannot assume consistently materialism. (That is not > entirely obvious, but I got this in the 1970s, at a time where most people > told me that this was not original, and indeed that was understood by the > greeks already). > > > > >> For those who are errant they get to spend eternity in a pit of endless fire >> where they suffer until the end of time --- but somehow this God still loves >> us. > > > That god is omniscient and omnipotent, which is logically impossible. Since > St-Thomas, even the (educated) christians does not take any of this > literally. I am aware that American Evangelist does, or at least fall they > do, but apparently it is used only for making the people offering planes and > money to the boss. The con-artistry is just obvious. > > You can use such argument to defeat the literalist. Scared-text literalism is > only a tool for propagating atheism. > > > >> >> I don't know about anyone else, but I call this a big hustle. These >> religions were schemes concocted by various religious and political con-men >> as a way people could be controlled and society choreographed according to >> the wishes of an ecclesiastical class. > > > Absolutely. That is why I insist that theology comes back at the academy, > where doubts, critics, alternate theories, and research are encouraged. > > > >> Both Christianity and Islam suffer from this problem, they are huge >> social-psychological cons played against people, and where these schemes >> have a lot of staying power. They are sorts of neural-brain memes that >> lodges themselves in minds and are difficult to remove. > > > Like all propaganda. It is to theology what astrology is to astronomy. > > > >> >> I read a translation of the Koran after 9/11. I would say my general comment >> is that if this were first published now, with crisp new copies available at >> bookstores and Amazon, the reviewers would be calling it the screed of a >> complete lunatic. > > > What is lunatic is to read such text like if there were scientific attempt to > understand things. Before Al Ghazali, many muslims were quite open to this, > and that is why they decide to come back to the greeks and translated their > text, leading to science, but they will not benefit from it, as the dark > mixing with power will come back and prevail. > > > > > >> The Mecca Koran, which is thought to have been written when Muhammed was in >> Mecca with his few followers, is relatively inoffensive and reads a bit like >> Psalms or Proverbs. The second Medina Koran was allegedly written after they >> got their butts kicked out of Mecca, and this part is pure insanity. > > OK. > > >> >> We really should be done with these silly things. > > It is easy. Let us stop claim that science has solved the ontological > problem, like materialist do (believer in primary mater). > > > > >> These are based on mythic narratives concerning ideas from the ancient world. > > That is not entirely true. Hypatia taught mathematics and theology in > Alexandria, still around 300/400. But we can see the radicals taking > position, and she will be murdered by them. > > You just cannot compare Plotinus and Proclus to the reading of any > sacred-fairy tales book. Those scared text are honorable witnessing of the > past, but no-one would claim they even address the problem. > > > > >> They may have made sense then, but really some education and thought should >> indicate how utterly ineffective monotheist religion is as telling us >> anything really meaningful or useful. > > Monotheism is the religion view of monism. At least Einstein was aware of > that, and explained that without it, he would not even have searched for a > his general relativity theory. > > Monotheism is the grandmother of the theory of of everything, or of the > insight we should unify our knowledge in a coherent way. The theism aspect is > in the modesty, which enforces a constant listening to a ll arguments, even > the most critical, especially the most critical (unless refuted of course). > > > > >> It is a load of nonsense. We do not sit with slack jaw waiting for some >> great Santa Claus or fairy godmother to come and reveal ALL to us. Instead >> we think, observe, measure, rethink and … , repeat, in order to know what is >> truthful within the limits and tentative certitude of science. > > There is no certitude in science. Just hypotheses/theories and degrees of > plausibility. It does not matter so much in applied natural science, but it > matters a lot in applied fundamental science, notably by understanding that > in religion only the con men claims some truth. > > By leaving theology in the fairy tale literature, we give power to the tyran > and to argument of authority in religion, but also we make science looking > like if it was an alternative to religion, that is, we make science itself > into a pseudo-religion. > > That separates eventually the whole human science from exact science, and > that makes them both inhuman and inexact. > > The problem is not God. The problem is that some people conclude that God > does not exist when they find a contradiction in some theory of God. That > would be like a scientists along that Earth does not exist, because the idea > of infinitely many turtles does not make sense. > > In science we very rarely abandon a concept. We just improve it through new > theory. > > I the greek theology, the starting God was the natural numbers, then the > world of ideas, and then Aristotle added a physical primary universe. Today, > se know or should know that such a primary physical universe is contradicted > by Mechanism (even with just the amount of mechanism necessitate to make > sense of Darwin). > Here the problem is that those who claim to not have a religion appears to > believe in Aristotle theology, the belief in a primary physical universe. > This, as I have explained here, is just not working at all, unless you > eliminate consciousness from the picture. > > Unfortunately, there are still many people who are confusing the strong > evidences for the physical laws with evidences for a primary physical > universe, or for physicalism. That’s just wrong. That confuses physics and > metaphysics. That is Aristotle act of faith in his metaphysics, and a sort of > anti-platonic provocation, and misunderstanding. Of course people love it, as > they love ontological commitments, as it seems reassuring I guess, but that > is the kind of pseudo-religious wishful thinking that is not tolerated when > we work with the scientific attitude. > > We will leave the Middle-Age when theology is back, probably as an option in > advanced mathematical logic and computer science (even non-mechanist position > can be get more precise ny making precise the digital mechanist position. We > know that the modal logic G and G* remains sound, but some can lose > completeness, like “being true in all *transitive* models of ZF”. (Being true > in *all* models of ZF is just provability for which G and G* are complete in > their respective roles). > > Bruno > > > > >> >> LC >> >> >> > He didn’t create this world without purpose, >> >> >> So let us search the purpose, and try theories. The notion of purpose is not >> an easy notion. >> >> >> >> > I’m sure there is a greater purpose to our eternal life! >> >> >> So let us do the research work, as this is not obvious, although a pleasant >> idea (but that is reason to be careful on this, especially when we are still >> on the terrestrial plane, where modesty is not so much an option). >> >> When you assume a greater purpose you need to take into account that some >> people will borrow an ersatz greater purpose for terrestrial use, and that >> this can eventually hide for long the genuine higher purpose of the higher >> self. The machine already understand that some (religious) truth go only >> without saying. >> >> Those who trust the great Goddess leaves the advertising to Her.The genuine >> mystic stays mute, or propose some theory and reason conditionally. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com >> > >> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com>. >> > >> > <image0.jpeg> >> > >> > >> > >> >> On 23-Apr-2020, at 6:05 AM, [email protected] <> wrote: >> >> >> >> So, if you have pleased, the All-Mighty, and are ushered in to Janah, and >> >> you are given permission, what would you do for your first year there? >> > >> > -- >> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com >> > >> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com>. >> > >> >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cbc25a-b75e-4c9f-8600-343a09d8e0af%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cbc25a-b75e-4c9f-8600-343a09d8e0af%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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8db5b9f8-00e2-459d-b60d-d47702f76c3c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8db5b9f8-00e2-459d-b60d-d47702f76c3c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > <Qi.png> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7F071A77-B3D1-4BB4-AA61-9F761394923A%40ulb.ac.be.
