Re: Believing ...
Here is the post I was searching! Le 21-mars-07, à 18:01, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 20-mars-07, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/20/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) 1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and agnosticism. Of course (cf Brent's comment) we are on the verge of a purely vocabulary discussion. If you define God by a big white male sitting on a cloud, there is a case of comparing God and Santa Klaus. If you define god by ultimate meaning or ultimate theory of everything including persons and feeling, quanta and qualia, ..., or even more generally by god = truth about us, then it is different. Now most religions accept or even define God by its transcendance and unnameability, A god defined solely by that would not be accepted by any of the major religions, except perhaps Bhuddism which doesn't include gods. The Abrahamic religions add that God is a person, is beneficient, is demanding, and answers prayers. These are defining characteristics of theism. Which is why I was careful to specify a theist God. The etymology of atheist implies that it is this religion of theism that is not believed. Perhaps. Theology has been a scientific field during one millenium, until it has been transformed into a political power, which has systemically use some repression precisely against anyone thinking freely in that field. The problem is that many atheist continues that tradition by taking for granted the theology of Aristotle, like if doubt were not allowed. IMO Atheism and theism are are almost faithfully mirroring each other. They take for granted a notion of nature/matter, and they both put under the rug the very fundamental question. making truth an elementary lobian machine/entity's God, and this is enough for coming back to serious theology. Serious theology for Bruno seems to be that of Paul Tillich: God is whatever you consider fundamental. To me that seems like an attempt at theological jujitsu to convert atheists by redefining words. I disagree. But OK, I am probably not enough clear. I associate to each machine M a theology. I define it by the set of all true propositions about machine M, including experiences and many unprovable truth. By Science about and by a machine M, I mean what a machine can prove about herself. The pure theology of machine M is then given by the difference between theology on M and Science by M. I don't consider the fundamental has being theological per se, like Tillich. It is more the difference between what a machine can (correctly) prove and what a machine can (correctly) bet. It is relate with a sense of uncommunicability. having said this, you can guess that our theology cannot be scientific. But with comp a sort of miracle occurs. A machine having rich axiom can study scientifically the whole theology of a simpler machine, and then can lift it on herself in a betting way. So I can study the complete theology of Peano Arithmetic (the machine! not to be confused xith Arithmetical truth: the non effective set of true arithmetical proposition). Then I can hope comp is true for me, and I can hope the PA theology could apply to me. So with comp there is both a scientific theology and a non scientific one. The trick is just make clear when you apply the comp hyp, and when you reason about simpler machine than you. Of course, in a nutshell: the modality science is given by the modal logic of self-reference G. And theology is given by the modal logic G*. The gap between truth about a machine and provability by that machine already illustrates the necessity of distinguishing the scientific and religious discourse of machines. Pure theology can be (re)defined by truth minus science. Then, lobian theology is controlled by the G/G* mathematical gap, and their intensional (modal)
Re: Believing ...
Le 21-mars-07, à 22:18, John Mikes a écrit : Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is rfeductionistic in this sense.. I agree: SCIENCE should be as you identified it. Thanks for telling. I thought, a bit naively perhaps, that after Descartes and Popper, say, it was part of common knowledge that science, properly understood, is an arrow from doubts to ... more and more doubts, and cannot, thus, be reductionist. You know, people like Leibniz and even the young Hilbert thought that a machine could exist capable of answering, at least in principle, all question about numbers, actually all question about machine as well, including herself. Now we know that we can interview machine as powerful as we want, as far as they remain self-referentially correct, they remain extraordinarily modest. If you ask to such a machine if she will ever say a bullshit, well, the young one crash immediately (transforming herself into a universal dovetailer btw), the older one answer that either they will say a bullshit, or that they ... might say a bullshit(*). Bruno (*) For the modalist: I will prove a falsity or it is consistent that I will prove a falsity Bf v DBf(same as Dt - ~BDt). With the older modal notation: []f v []f (same as t - ~[]t ) B = [] = Godel purely arithmetical provability predicate (Beweisbar) D = = ~B~= ~[]~ Recall that, as Aristotle already got, ~B = D~ and ~D = B~ (in the alethic mode: not necessary p = possible not p ; not possible p = necessary not p. See my older modal posts. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Bruno, those 'idealistic' definitions from Leibnitz and Descartes are not experienced in - - what is called usually as science. Look at the Laws of physics, does engineering doubt them? The statements of 'logic', arithmetic, etc. etc. are all believed as FIRM laws. Now that is what I call 'reductionist = to consider a topical limited cut from the totality for the relevant (?) observations WITHIN such (what I call: model), and draw conclusions if there were nothing else to consider. That is what Academia (tenure-Nobel) does and what - as I wrote - most editing companies accept for publication. This is close to what young minds get brainwashed into in college education. e.g. Physics 101 etc. (Neurology not exempted). Absolutely different from what you and I said. No 'flexible mind' allowed. I hope you accept my terms for 'reductionist science' G, John - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:36 AM Subject: Re: Believing ... Le 21-mars-07, à 22:18, John Mikes a écrit : Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is rfeductionistic in this sense.. I agree: SCIENCE should be as you identified it. Thanks for telling. I thought, a bit naively perhaps, that after Descartes and Popper, say, it was part of common knowledge that science, properly understood, is an arrow from doubts to ... more and more doubts, and cannot, thus, be reductionist. You know, people like Leibniz and even the young Hilbert thought that a machine could exist capable of answering, at least in principle, all question about numbers, actually all question about machine as well, including herself. Now we know that we can interview machine as powerful as we want, as far as they remain self-referentially correct, they remain extraordinarily modest. If you ask to such a machine if she will ever say a bullshit, well, the young one crash immediately (transforming herself into a universal dovetailer btw), the older one answer that either they will say a bullshit, or that they ... might say a bullshit(*). Bruno (*) For the modalist: I will prove a falsity or it is consistent that I will prove a falsity Bf v DBf(same as Dt - ~BDt). With the older modal notation: []f v []f (same as t - ~[]t ) B = [] = Godel purely arithmetical provability predicate (Beweisbar) D = = ~B~= ~[]~ Recall that, as Aristotle already got, ~B = D~ and ~D = B~ (in the alethic mode: not necessary p = possible not p ; not possible p = necessary not p. See my older modal posts. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007 7:44 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Le 20-mars-07, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/20/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) 1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and agnosticism. Of course (cf Brent's comment) we are on the verge of a purely vocabulary discussion. If you define God by a big white male sitting on a cloud, there is a case of comparing God and Santa Klaus. If you define god by ultimate meaning or ultimate theory of everything including persons and feeling, quanta and qualia, ..., or even more generally by god = truth about us, then it is different. Now most religions accept or even define God by its transcendance and unnameability, making truth an elementary lobian machine/entity's God, and this is enough for coming back to serious theology. The gap between truth about a machine and provability by that machine already illustrates the necessity of distinguishing the scientific and religious discourse of machines. Pure theology can be (re)defined by truth minus science. Then, lobian theology is controlled by the G/G* mathematical gap, and their intensional (modal) variants. Talking or acting or doing anything in the name of God leads to inconsistency and most probably suffering. In the scientific (= doubting) discourse, we can use use the term God like we can use the term first person, but we cannot talk *in* those names. 2) I don't know that atheists are much more likely to believe in a material universe than other people. I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception. Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is just a pagan notion of god. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Le 20-mars-07, à 17:07, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) I disagree. Those are definitions consistent is usage, but so are atheist: one who doesn't believe that God (meaning the god of theism) exists. agnostic: one who believes it is impossible have any knowledge as to whether God exists. Those are also common usages and align more closely with the etymology of the words. Even searching in most web dictionaries I don't find such definitions, except in parentheses with remark like some also use the term in such or such way. 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, What contradiction is that? It is the epistemological contradiction which follows the UDA reasoning. It is not an ontic contradiction because science can never refute anything ontological. But it is a logical contradiction between comp, materialism and even very weak form of Occam razor, like the contradiction in believing in both thermodynamic and invisible horses pulling cars. or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) To say one shouldn't reifying matter seems like saying one shouldn't anthropomorphize people. Things made of matter, tables and chairs, exist paradigmatically. That there may be some deeper, more fundamental explanation of tables and chairs hardly makes them go away. Of course. I was talking about primitive or reifed matter, not about gluons or elephants. Must go for now, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
BRUNO: I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception. Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is just a pagan notion of god. Bruno - I cannot offer myself as the example you missed so far, because - as I explained - I do not consider myself conform to MY definition of an atheist. Theists do beluieve in primitive matter, created by their God. The previous Pope even undersigned to the Big Bang (some version). * Being a he you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do not ' believe. What I find logically not so repugnant - as either the reductionist science fables nor the religious hearsay - is a 'story' and I call it my NARRATIVE to just speak about an origination of our world and uncountable others in a less nausiating way. And yes, you may call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. Not sitting as an old man on cloud. John M : Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:25 AM Subject: Re: Believing ... Le 20-mars-07, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/20/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) 1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and agnosticism. Of course (cf Brent's comment) we are on the verge of a purely vocabulary discussion. If you define God by a big white male sitting on a cloud, there is a case of comparing God and Santa Klaus. If you define god by ultimate meaning or ultimate theory of everything including persons and feeling, quanta and qualia, ..., or even more generally by god = truth about us, then it is different. Now most religions accept or even define God by its transcendance and unnameability, making truth an elementary lobian machine/entity's God, and this is enough for coming back to serious theology. The gap between truth about a machine and provability by that machine already illustrates the necessity of distinguishing the scientific and religious discourse of machines. Pure theology can be (re)defined by truth minus science. Then, lobian theology is controlled by the G/G* mathematical gap, and their intensional (modal) variants. Talking or acting or doing anything in the name of God leads to inconsistency and most probably suffering. In the scientific (= doubting) discourse, we can use use the term God like we can use the term first person, but we cannot talk *in* those names. 2) I don't know that atheists are much more likely to believe in a material universe than other people. I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception. Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is just a pagan notion of god. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Le 21-mars-07, à 15:48, John M a écrit : BRUNO: I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception. Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is just a pagan notion of god. Bruno - I cannot offer myself as the example you missed so far, because - as I explained - I do not consider myself conform to MY definition of an atheist. Theists do beluieve in primitive matter, created by their God. The previous Pope even undersigned to the Big Bang (some version). * Being a he you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do not ' believe. What I find logically not so repugnant - as either the reductionist science fables nor the religious hearsay - is a 'story' and I call it my NARRATIVE to just speak about an origination of our world and uncountable others in a less nausiating way. And yes, you may call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. Not sitting as an old man on cloud. John M OK then, except that I think that you confuse science and scientism or fake science. I just don't see how science can be reductionist. Science is opening the eyes and doubting what we see. When a scientist thinks he knows the truth (or acts like he/she was thinking that) then he looses his scientific attitude. Be it in biology, astronomy, theology or even in astrology, or whatever. In science, like in conscience, public lack of doubt is akin to madness. This is provable (indeed it is a form of Godel second incompleteness theorem) for machines or lobian entities. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 20-mars-07, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/20/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) 1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and agnosticism. Of course (cf Brent's comment) we are on the verge of a purely vocabulary discussion. If you define God by a big white male sitting on a cloud, there is a case of comparing God and Santa Klaus. If you define god by ultimate meaning or ultimate theory of everything including persons and feeling, quanta and qualia, ..., or even more generally by god = truth about us, then it is different. Now most religions accept or even define God by its transcendance and unnameability, A god defined solely by that would not be accepted by any of the major religions, except perhaps Bhuddism which doesn't include gods. The Abrahamic religions add that God is a person, is beneficient, is demanding, and answers prayers. These are defining characteristics of theism. Which is why I was careful to specify a theist God. The etymology of atheist implies that it is this religion of theism that is not believed. making truth an elementary lobian machine/entity's God, and this is enough for coming back to serious theology. Serious theology for Bruno seems to be that of Paul Tillich: God is whatever you consider fundamental. To me that seems like an attempt at theological jujitsu to convert atheists by redefining words. The gap between truth about a machine and provability by that machine already illustrates the necessity of distinguishing the scientific and religious discourse of machines. Pure theology can be (re)defined by truth minus science. Then, lobian theology is controlled by the G/G* mathematical gap, and their intensional (modal) variants. Talking or acting or doing anything in the name of God leads to inconsistency and most probably suffering. What difference does in the name of make? That seems to attribute magic power to phrases. In the scientific (= doubting) discourse, we can use use the term God like we can use the term first person, but we cannot talk *in* those names. 2) I don't know that atheists are much more likely to believe in a material universe than other people. I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception. Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is just a pagan notion of god. I can appreciate that the fundamental thing (if there is one) must be unameable and god-like (omnipresent)...but not God-like (person, answer prayers, beneficient) and not God. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Thanks, Bruno, The 'truth' was missing from my post. there was a technical mistake: from my sentence as mailed: Being a he you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do not ' believe. What I find logically not so repugnant - one word disappeared in the mailing process. Originally I wrote: Being a he you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do not ' believe in T R U T H (that was in RED). - then came a new par: . What I find logically not so repugnant - etc. etc. Maybe the red insert was not well accepted by the computer-god. * The reductionist dichotomy is semantic: I called 'science' (the reductionst) the conventional historic 'gathering of information as humanity could' and identified it earlier as a model-view of a boundaries-enclosed topical cut out from the totality. Reductionist science (sic) observes events WITHIN the topical boundaries and draws conclusions applied many times BEYOND them.(what I find false). Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is rfeductionistic in this sense.. I agree: SCIENCE should be as you identified it. John On 3/21/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 21-mars-07, à 15:48, John M a écrit : BRUNO: I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few exception. Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is just a pagan notion of god. Bruno - I cannot offer myself as the example you missed so far, because - as I explained - I do not consider myself conform to MY definition of an atheist. Theists do beluieve in primitive matter, created by their God. The previous Pope even undersigned to the Big Bang (some version). * Being a he you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do not ' believe. What I find logically not so repugnant - as either the reductionist science fables nor the religious hearsay - is a 'story' and I call itmy NARRATIVE to just speak about an origination of our world and uncountable others in a less nausiating way. And yes, you may call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. Not sitting as an old man oncloud. John M OK then, except that I think that you confuse science and scientism or fake science. I just don't see how science can be reductionist. Science is opening the eyes and doubting what we see. When a scientist thinks he knows the truth (or acts like he/she was thinking that) then he looses his scientific attitude. Be it in biology, astronomy, theology or even in astrology, or whatever. In science, like in conscience, public lack of doubt is akin to madness. This is provable (indeed it is a form of Godel second incompleteness theorem) for machines or lobian entities. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
On 3/20/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) 1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and agnosticism. 2) I don't know that atheists are much more likely to believe in a material universe than other people. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Bruno, a different reflection from Stathis's, but similarly not a counter-argument First off: George Carlin is a comedian and his humorous remarks are not subject to be discussed in a serious argumentation. I like him - at least the old Carlin. * to your #1: :your atheist has got to believe in the existence (maybe only as a valid topic) something to deny it. To speak about it in a yes/no fashion. He had to accept that it is a topic. This is why I formulated an atheist needs a god to deny. * to your #2: Not to believe in something is IMO not implying to believe in something else. Anything else. Not even 'generally'. Example: a solipsist. Or a 'comp' pantheist. (Caution: this word just appeared without consideration, I do not argue for its reasonable application). Agnostic IMO is just pointing to the lack of well defined knowledge about ANYTHING, not restricted to god or religion, as it earlier was used. I consider myself a 'Science-Agnostic because the ideas I take for most acceptable have no firm(?) foundations. * to the reply of Stathis - reading:: - 1) Do you believe we should also be agnostic about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If so, should the balance of belief in these entities (i.e. belief for/against) be similar to that in the case of God? I ask in all seriousness as you are a logician and there *is* a huge difference, logically if not practically, between atheism and agnosticism. 2) I don't know that atheists are much more likely to believe in a material universe than other people. Stathis Papaioannou - I consider his #1 - AS: asantaclausist or atoothfairyist - not 'agnostic' - like: atheist. (Unless you believe in 'something like that' to exist). An agnostic is not sure but does not deny the existence FOR SURE. The difference, as I feel, between I don't know and I no that no - as I take Bruno's emphasis. (And I try to use only my own common sense logic). With StP's #2 I agreed above. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Believing ... Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit : Brent Meeker quoted: Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel. --- George Carlin Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist has indeed a rich belief system: 1) he believes that God does not exist (unlike an agnostic who does not believe that God exists: that makes a huge difference) I disagree. Those are definitions consistent is usage, but so are atheist: one who doesn't believe that God (meaning the god of theism) exists. agnostic: one who believes it is impossible have any knowledge as to whether God exists. Those are also common usages and align more closely with the etymology of the words. 2) he generally believes in a material or Aristotelian Universe (despite its contradiction with comp, What contradiction is that? or with QM, or with some physically reproducible facts, and despite any proof or argument beyond the Aristotelian Matter reification.) To say one shouldn't reifying matter seems like saying one shouldn't anthropomorphize people. Things made of matter, tables and chairs, exist paradigmatically. That there may be some deeper, more fundamental explanation of tables and chairs hardly makes them go away. Brent Meeker Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Well, Brent, this was a post that requires multiple replies (marked JM) and a longer reflection (with my apologies). * ...individuals within that belief system will have a variety of views. Some will have some views in conflict with the belief system. JM: right. Some are converted to Islam as well. * ...they may simply stop thinking about it and rely on faith ... JM: my late brother in law did not 'dare' to die because he - catholic and an excellent natural scientist - lived in sin (had a 2nd marriage) and was afraid of Hell. In my wordset an atheist requires a god to deny and agnosticism may be an irrelevant mindset 'who cares'. * About my 'opinion' Big Bang: I wrote it several times, in varied detail, that Hubble was a genius thinking of the redshift as an optical equivalent to Dopler, marking an expanding universe, but it was not scrutinized before the scientific establishment took it for granted. Lookiong for 'other' explanations was seen as heretic and unscientific. Since 1922(Hubble) - 3 generations of scientists were brainwashed into that, (including you and me) and literally millions of experiments were carried out for *proving* it only. If a result was 'not good' it was rejected (alternate (oppositional) opinion of mine landed a quip in a friendly discussion (1997) without any further word from an MIT cosmologist: HOAX). As I said: I owe myself the distinctions of the extenf of a 'belief system'. One may be a western natural scientist and have an unusual 'belief' imbedded in it, what does not make one so 'obtuse'. The applied math is so reassuring. The fact that the regression counted backwards linearly and it was detected that the 'moves' in cosmology go nonlinearly (call it chaotic?) (e.g. many body interactions) - but more importantly: that the physical connotation was recognising in the vastly different (concentrated into a miniaturized?) universe quite similar 'laws' to our present (expanded?) world, leading to hard to swallow paradoxes - is a basis for my disbelief. Then marvellous ideas were invented (assumed?) to solve the controversial math: inflation in the first place, and others, what makes me call the cosmological Big Bang view a scientific narrative. However: mathematically/theoretically proven. Even new theories added and adjusted. The starting point still remains: did the spectra shift to a lower frequency by receding lightsources, or (guessably) by passing magnetic/electric/or else(??) fields that slow down the (observable/registrable) 'frequency' in our model of light? Or by some effects yet to be discovered, not fitting into our conventional (historic) model of the 'physical wiorld'? I consider Hubble of similar importance to the DeCusa-Copernicus duo in their establishing (changing?) a geocentric physical worldview into a heliocentric - for the coming generations - it was also temporary and later on gave place to a wider informatics. That's all, not any denigration for people with a more conventional 'scientific' basis. I even value the practical results of reductionist scientists (I am one of them). Trying to step out from the quantized reductionist model-view and its (beyond model) conclusions makes me a scientific agnostic and renders my 'talk' vague. I feel we are not there (yet) and I try a different path from the UD or comp etc. ways, with less founding, eo ipso struggling in a scientifically (=math) not so convincing train of thoughts. The quantized physical edifice of the world (in applied math) is very impressive, results in technology admirable at today's level of our expectations. When it comes to fundamental understanding (elimination of the paradoxes at least to our limited mental capacity), lately, new ideas emerged. One proof is this list. Its present lines don't represent a monopoly. Academic tenure or a Nobel prize do not mean the ultimate 'truth'. Science is not even a democratic vote. And I love the humor of G. Carlin. So what else is new? Have a good day John - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Believing ... John M wrote: Brent, as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception: I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system', but this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners - or many religious faithfuls can argue among themselves. I never tried to speculate about identifying what constitutes a 'different belief system', but 'system' must be more than just shades of individual differentiation in the details. John M If you don't mean something individual by belief system, but rather some general summary of what a group of people think, then individuals within that belief system will have a variety of views. Some will have some views in conflict with the belief system. And some can
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
Mark Peaty wrote: No Brent, what I AM saying is that they are GONE! Well and truly gorrnn! But they lasted a lot longer than we have. We could get side tracked into all sorts of discussions about how each of the civilisations you named, waxed and waned more than once in the face of environmental changes and the inherent instability of feudal societies, but I haven't got the time [fascinating though it would be :-]. My point is that, with all due respect to the late Douglas Adams, and I suppose to whoever it was who wrote the book of Daniel in the Judaeo-Xian Bible, the TRUE Writing on the Wall AKA God's last message to humankind, is five short words in plain-English: * Shape up or die out! What I say is if we really want to 'shape up' and survive, then compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method are four essential ingredients without which our modern world will go the way of all those other civilisations your mentioned. It will go the way of those other civilizations anyway because: a) it's dependent on energy from cheap oil and b) all civilizations rise and fall, none last forever. Brent Meeker Nations and empires flourish and decay, By turns command, and in their turns obey. --- Publius Ovidius Naso --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
John M wrote: Well, Brent, this was a post that requires multiple replies (marked JM) and a longer reflection (with my apologies). * ...individuals within that belief system will have a variety of views. Some will have some views in conflict with the belief system. JM: right. Some are converted to Islam as well. * ...they may simply stop thinking about it and rely on faith ... JM: my late brother in law did not 'dare' to die because he - catholic and an excellent natural scientist - lived in sin (had a 2nd marriage) and was afraid of Hell. In my wordset an atheist requires a god to deny and agnosticism may be an irrelevant mindset 'who cares'. * About my 'opinion' Big Bang: I wrote it several times, in varied detail, that Hubble was a genius thinking of the redshift as an optical equivalent to Dopler, marking an expanding universe, but it was not scrutinized before the scientific establishment took it for granted. Lookiong for 'other' explanations was seen as heretic and unscientific. Since 1922(Hubble) - 3 generations of scientists were brainwashed into that, (including you and me) and literally millions of experiments were carried out for *proving* it only. You are very much misinformed. There have been plenty of alternative explanations put forth - dust absorption and re-emission, tired light, variable speed of light. And they all failed one empirical test or another. So it is your opinion that is unsupported - not the Doppler shift explanation of the Hubble constant. If a result was 'not good' it was rejected (alternate (oppositional) opinion of mine landed a quip in a friendly discussion (1997) without any further word from an MIT cosmologist: HOAX). Professionals sometimes get testy in dealing with cranks. As I said: I owe myself the distinctions of the extenf of a 'belief system'. One may be a western natural scientist and have an unusual 'belief' imbedded in it, what does not make one so 'obtuse'. The applied math is so reassuring. The fact that the regression counted backwards linearly and it was detected that the 'moves' in cosmology go nonlinearly (call it chaotic?) (e.g. many body interactions) - but more importantly: that the physical connotation was recognising in the vastly different (concentrated into a miniaturized?) universe quite similar 'laws' to our present (expanded?) world, leading to hard to swallow paradoxes - is a basis for my disbelief. Then marvellous ideas were invented (assumed?) to solve the controversial math: inflation in the first place, and others, what makes me call the cosmological Big Bang view a scientific narrative. However: mathematically/theoretically proven. Even new theories added and adjusted. The starting point still remains: did the spectra shift to a lower frequency by receding lightsources, or (guessably) by passing magnetic/electric/or else(??) fields that slow down the (observable/registrable) 'frequency' in our model of light? Doesn't work: EM fields are light - they don't slow light down as is easily observed in the laboratory. Or by some effects yet to be discovered, not fitting into our conventional (historic) model of the 'physical wiorld'? Well you could suppose God did it - that's yet to be discovered. It's easy to claim a scientific theory may be overturned by something yet to be discovered; that's the essence of science. But it's hardly a reason to libel scientists for maintaining a theory that has passed all the tests they've been able to think of. I consider Hubble of similar importance to the DeCusa-Copernicus duo in their establishing (changing?) a geocentric physical worldview into a heliocentric - for the coming generations - it was also temporary and later on gave place to a wider informatics. That's all, not any denigration for people with a more conventional 'scientific' basis. I even value the practical results of reductionist scientists (I am one of them). Trying to step out from the quantized reductionist model-view and its (beyond model) conclusions makes me a scientific agnostic and renders my 'talk' vague. I feel we are not there (yet) But being not there yet doesn't imply that we need to reconsider the flat-earth theory or keep an open mind about the sin theory of disease. Newton's theory of gravity was wrong in the sense that it gives the wrong bending of light and wrong advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But Einstein's theory didn't disprove Newton's, it just showed it to be an approximation. And we already know Einstein's theory is wrong; it's inconsistent with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean we should reconsider the theory that the Earth sucks. Of course the Big Bang isn't the last word; but the next word is still going to include the Big Bang and I try a different path from the UD or comp etc. ways, with less founding, eo ipso struggling in a scientifically (=math) not
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious text there should exist a universe which best fits those text. Saibal - Original Message - From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. I don't remember if I did that a year ago or not, but I certainly think the current discussion is off-topic. This mailing list is based on the premise that all possible universes exist. Unless someone can think of a connection to this idea, can we please drop this thread? I have also noticed that all of [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s posts are copy-and-pastes from online sources: http://www.islamanswers.net/destiny/recorded.htm http://www.islamanswers.net/unity/understand.htm http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070226110342AAy6SG5 http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm Copying other people's writings without attribution is plagiarism, which I certainly do not approve of. And aside from that, if anyone wants to reference large amounts of online material, please post a link instead of copying the text. P.S., I find that I am not always able to keep up with all of the discussions on the list. Putting my name in a post is a good way to get my attention, and please always feel free to email me directly with any administrative issues related to the list. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
Dream on Brent ... Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: Klortho wrote: The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of civilisation: Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can survive without all four of these. Talk about assertions without any evidence! Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived until recently without democracy or the scientific method. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countle
OK, tell me where all those civilisations of the past have gone to, because THEY did NOT survived. Tell me what makes YOU so sure this current global civilisation can survive. I am more than happy to be shown where I am wrong, but if you TRULY disagree with what I am saying, I would like you to provide some clear and unambiguous empirical evidence to back up your assertions. Without that, you are simply complaining that I am just strongly expressing an opinion. I never deny this, in the context that we are speaking of here, but I think that my opinion on this is as good as anybody's that I have seen so far. To help you chew on this: * compassion is the acting out of the ability to see oneself in the other and the recognition that, except for the throw of some cosmic dice, I am he or she and they are me; compassion facilitates the breaking down of the fear and false consciousness which underpins unconscious projection; compassion is a sign and manifestation of authentic being and strength, not weakness; without compassion truly human life is well nigh impossible * ethics is the foundation of civilisation and is the acting out of the ability to see that we each depend on many, many others for our survival and well being and they depend upon us, and that the true genius and strength of humankind is our ability to cooperate with each other rather than a propensity to strive against others * democracy is essentially the systematic implementation of the non-violent resolution of conflict, it requires that everyone's voice be heard and democracy advances as the excessive and aggressive power of the rich and powerful is curtailed and controlled; Karl Popper gave the most succinct explanation of why democracy is both better than all the alternatives and absolutely essential and the basic form of his argument is this: all policies formulated by governments and governing bodies will have unexpected negative consequences, no matter how good the policies, and it is to be expected that at least 50% of the unforeseen consequences will be significantly adverse and negative for those who experience them so it is imperative that the negative consequences of policies be made known to those who govern and that the rulers take notice and actually ameliorate the problems. If the rulers cannot be made to correct these unforeseen negative outcomes then over time the negative outcomes will accrue to the extent that the people feel driven to rebel or vote with their feet and leave the land of the rotten regime. * the advent of scientific method into human culture is what has made the modern world; this modern era is a time of transition in which every traditional belief and practice is being challenged by the application of scientific method and of the fruits of the application of science; in this world of great and ceaseless changes, the continued application of scientific method is and always will be essential for allowing us to adapt to all the unforeseen outcomes of change so far; with scientific method human beings have the ability to journey out into the solar system and beyond, to be citizens of the galaxy, but without scientific method humans will die out on a devastated planet Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Klortho wrote: The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of civilisation: Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can survive without all four of these. Talk about assertions without any evidence! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countle
Well [EMAIL PROTECTED] your response has been even more disappointing than even my very low expectation prepared me for. You have not even recognised what my questions were about, let alone made any significant attempt to address them. As an ex-Christian I know what it is like to be sucked into a world view that projects part of one's own nature into a 'spiritual being' and projects other, completely unacknowledged and rejected parts of one's psyche onto outsiders who are perceived as being threatening and evil because they exhibit those impulses rather than oneself. However, we must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called 'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they are all expressions of belief and ONLY belief. Because there is no way of relating these holy ramblings to any concrete test, belief in them becomes, as often as not, a function of a person's social and political allegiances. The beliefs change to comply with and rationalise the ambitions and practices of the ruling elite. The chanting of sacred texts and the recitation of beliefs become assurances of acceptance, badges of compliance with the regime. There will be NO significant contributions to the well being and advancement of human kind arising from this religiosity, just acquiescence and the turning of a blind eye to the crimes of the rulers and the thugs who impose the anti democratic rule. The moral and intellectual contrast is expressed most vividly, I think, by the way a free-thinking monk called Giordano Bruno was vilified, stripped naked, tortured and finally burnt alive by the inquisitor thugs of the Roman church, in a public square somewhere in Rome 17 February 1600. His crime? Being a sceptic and publicly questioning some of the preposterous beliefs that religion required people to agree to. He was murdered because the sceptical method he advocated and employed threatened the very foundations of the corrupt religious hierarchy and the secular regimes - all feudal thug-ocracies. From what I read, hear, and see reported about Islam in Iran, Iraq, Saudi, and umpteen other places, the basic issues are the same as for Christianity. The holders and wielders of traditional power WILL not acknowledge that the demonstrated power of scientific method to show us how the natural world works and to show us deep insights into how the human brain and mind work has a moral authority at least equal to that of their 'holy' books. THIS is the real challenge of the 20 and 21 centuries. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesus said: I and the Father are one (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not Jesus the same, or, co-equal in status with his Father? Answer No.1 In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.) `hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.) Here the word used by John is `hen' and not `heis'. The marginal notes in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit.neuter) a unity, or, one essence. If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim for Jesus being co-equal in status with his Father, please invite his/ her attention to the following verse: Jesus said: And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one. (John 17:22). If he/she was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ to be one meaning co-equal in status on the basis of John 10:30, then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe them - the disciples of Jesus, to be co-equal in status with the Father and Jesus (just as we are one) in John 17:22. I have yet to find a person that would be prepared to make the disciples (students) co-equal in status with the Father or Jesus. The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally passed on to the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished the work which the Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4) Hot Tip (precise and pertinent) Jesus said: I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. (Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one for Jesus being co-equal in status with his Father. Question No.2 Jesus said: I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through me. (Jn.14:6), therefore, is not the Salvation through Jesus, ALONE? Answer No.2 Before Jesus spoke these words, he said; In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you. (John 14:2). The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to prepare a mansion and not all the mansions in my Father's house. Obviously, the
Re: [SPAM] Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countle
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Mark Peaty skrev: However, we must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called 'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they are all expressions of belief and ONLY belief. I have written an essay called: A Proof of the Existence of God and Why does Universe Exist (11 pages), where I scientifically prove that God exist (or rather prove that it is probable that God exists...). This essay is attached. -- Torgny Tholerus It is an equivocation on personality=consciouness=cooperation and a non-standard meaning of God. Here's a much simpler proof: God is love. Love exists. Therefore: God exists. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
Are you saying I just dreamed that Sumer, Ur, Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Sparta, Cathay, and the Indus Valley where civilization first developed and lasted for thousands of years (much longer than the U.S. which is the oldest existing democracy) were not democratic and pre-dated the scientific method? Brent Meeker Mark Peaty wrote: Dream on Brent ... Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: Klortho wrote: The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of civilisation: Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can survive without all four of these. Talk about assertions without any evidence! Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived until recently without democracy or the scientific method. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
Excellent, Saibal Mitra! Thanx! Now you just have to quantize the miracles into a physix that fits those scriptures - into 'physical laws' of those religions. Maybe it would require a different math as well, to make a fit. And do not forget about the calory-supply of Hell. (Brimstone requires oxygen, to burn - at least in THIS universe.) John M Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious text there should exist a universe which best fits those text. Saibal - Original Message - From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. I don't remember if I did that a year ago or not, but I certainly think the current discussion is off-topic. This mailing list is based on the premise that all possible universes exist. Unless someone can think of a connection to this idea, can we please drop this thread? I have also noticed that all of [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s posts are copy-and-pastes from online sources: http://www.islamanswers.net/destiny/recorded.htm http://www.islamanswers.net/unity/understand.htm http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070226110342AAy6SG5 http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm Copying other people's writings without attribution is plagiarism, which I certainly do not approve of. And aside from that, if anyone wants to reference large amounts of online material, please post a link instead of copying the text. P.S., I find that I am not always able to keep up with all of the discussions on the list. Putting my name in a post is a good way to get my attention, and please always feel free to email me directly with any administrative issues related to the list. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/705 - Release Date: 2/27/2007 3:24 PM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Brent, as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception: I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system', but this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners - or many religious faithfuls can argue among themselves. I never tried to speculate about identifying what constitutes a 'different belief system', but 'system' must be more than just shades of individual differentiation in the details. John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny John Mikes wrote: Stathis: You, of all people, should realize that one belief system cannot reach over to another one. Logic - mindset is different, facts come in different shades, evidence is adjusted to the 'system', a belief system is a whole world. Brent makes the same mistake: to argue from his 'scientific' (is it really - in the conventional old sense???) mindset with statements of the faithful, but it is a geerally committed error - while you, a learned mind-scientist should know better. I am not on top of this myself: I fall frequently into arguing from my 'rational' worldview into the (rational for them) faith-induced mentality. We are the (negligible) minority. They have less doubts than us. So I thank [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever he or she may be) for the valuable intofmation about the Muslim culture and take it as that. We will never get a jihadic self-sacrificer to accept that his expectation of the huris waitnig for pleasuring him 'over there' is unfounded. It is for him and who cares (in my view) for 'happenings' of our present (human) copmplexity after it dissolved (call it death) into disintegration? A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button. Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different? Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles. Anybody arguing - MY - point? I guess it would be futile to discuss anything with you, since you believe each of us is hermetically sealed in their own belief system. I don't agree - but that's my error. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I rarely pass up an opportunity for religious debate, but I am honestly overwhelmed by your recent posts. I hope you have not done all this work just to be relegated to the list archive. How did you find us, anyway? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
Stathis: You, of all people, should realize that one belief system cannot reach over to another one. Logic - mindset is different, facts come in different shades, evidence is adjusted to the 'system', a belief system is a whole world. Brent makes the same mistake: to argue from his 'scientific' (is it really - in the conventional old sense???) mindset with statements of the faithful, but it is a geerally committed error - while you, a learned mind-scientist should know better. I am not on top of this myself: I fall frequently into arguing from my 'rational' worldview into the (rational for them) faith-induced mentality. We are the (negligible) minority. They have less doubts than us. So I thank [EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever he or she may be) for the valuable intofmation about the Muslim culture and take it as that. We will never get a jihadic self-sacrificer to accept that his expectation of the huris waitnig for pleasuring him 'over there' is unfounded. It is for him and who cares (in my view) for 'happenings' of our present (human) copmplexity after it dissolved (call it death) into disintegration? A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button. Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different? Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles. Anybody arguing - MY - point? John Mikes On 2/26/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how do you know that the Qu'ran is actually the word of God? People claim all sorts of things, and while it's often easy to prove that they *claimed* these things (although as you rightly point out, with many religions, such as Christianity, even this is not a given), the point is to prove that these things are *true*. The more incredible-sounding, the more proof is needed. If I tell you I had a conversation with my mother last night you would probably have no reason to demand proof, but if I tell you I had a conversation with God or aliens or Elvis Presley, then you'd be foolish to just accept it, even if it can be shown that I genuinely believe what I am claiming. Stathis Papaioannou On 2/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip text --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
On 2/28/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis: You, of all people, should realize that one belief system cannot reach over to another one. Logic - mindset is different, facts come in different shades, evidence is adjusted to the 'system', a belief system is a whole world. Brent makes the same mistake: to argue from his 'scientific' (is it really - in the conventional old sense???) mindset with statements of the faithful, but it is a geerally committed error - while you, a learned mind-scientist should know better. I am not on top of this myself: I fall frequently into arguing from my 'rational' worldview into the (rational for them) faith-induced mentality. [EMAIL PROTECTED] was specifically arguing that the evidence for the Qu'ran being the genuine word of Mohamed was good. That is an empirical argument and I can accept it. But this misses the point because the more interesting question is whether the Qu'ran is the word of God. [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been proposing allegedly rational/empirical arguments in support of this latter claim, but they are not nearly up to the standard of the evidence that the Qu'ran was, indeed, written by the historical figure Mohamed. Had [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, this is what I believe to be the truth, so there, there is no gain in pointing out logical or empirical inconsistencies, although there may still be a point in examining the nature of faith, and how to decide which of the multitude of conflicting faiths is true (sometimes religious people are perfectly rational and scientific about every religion except their own, which strikes me as cheating). We are the (negligible) minority. They have less doubts than us. Most of what is commonly called the western world today, with the notable exception of the US, is agnostic, atheistic or just plain uninterested in religion. So I thank [EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever he or she may be) for the valuable intofmation about the Muslim culture and take it as that. No doubt about it, he or she put a lot of work into the posts and even writes reasonably well. We will never get a jihadic self-sacrificer to accept that his expectation of the huris waitnig for pleasuring him 'over there' is unfounded. It is for him and who cares (in my view) for 'happenings' of our present (human) copmplexity after it dissolved (call it death) into disintegration? You don't think we should even try to talk to them? Admitedly, they are far more likely to listen to economic or political arguments than philosophical ones. A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. Did he? I suppose we are straying from the list subject somewhat, but overall the quality and relevance of the debate has remained very high over the years, more so than some moderated lists. That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button. Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different? Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles. Anybody arguing - MY - point? What you've consistently said is that people may come from completely different backgrounds and viewpoints and this does not mean we should discount the non-standard viewpoint. However, at the very least, if someone comes along and claims that they are following the standard rules of a game, such as science, they can't complain if they are judged according to those rules. John Mikes On 2/26/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how do you know that the Qu'ran is actually the word of God? People claim all sorts of things, and while it's often easy to prove that they *claimed* these things (although as you rightly point out, with many religions, such as Christianity, even this is not a given), the point is to prove that these things are *true*. The more incredible-sounding, the more proof is needed. If I tell you I had a conversation with my mother last night you would probably have no reason to demand proof, but if I tell you I had a conversation with God or aliens or Elvis Presley, then you'd be foolish to just accept it, even if it can be shown that I genuinely believe what I am claiming. Stathis Papaioannou On 2/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip text --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
John Mikes wrote: Stathis: You, of all people, should realize that one belief system cannot reach over to another one. Logic - mindset is different, facts come in different shades, evidence is adjusted to the 'system', a belief system is a whole world. Brent makes the same mistake: to argue from his 'scientific' (is it really - in the conventional old sense???) mindset with statements of the faithful, but it is a geerally committed error - while you, a learned mind-scientist should know better. I am not on top of this myself: I fall frequently into arguing from my 'rational' worldview into the (rational for them) faith-induced mentality. We are the (negligible) minority. They have less doubts than us. So I thank [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever he or she may be) for the valuable intofmation about the Muslim culture and take it as that. We will never get a jihadic self-sacrificer to accept that his expectation of the huris waitnig for pleasuring him 'over there' is unfounded. It is for him and who cares (in my view) for 'happenings' of our present (human) copmplexity after it dissolved (call it death) into disintegration? A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button. Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different? Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles. Anybody arguing - MY - point? I guess it would be futile to discuss anything with you, since you believe each of us is hermetically sealed in their own belief system. I don't agree - but that's my error. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list. I don't remember if I did that a year ago or not, but I certainly think the current discussion is off-topic. This mailing list is based on the premise that all possible universes exist. Unless someone can think of a connection to this idea, can we please drop this thread? I have also noticed that all of [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s posts are copy-and-pastes from online sources: http://www.islamanswers.net/destiny/recorded.htm http://www.islamanswers.net/unity/understand.htm http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070226110342AAy6SG5 http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm Copying other people's writings without attribution is plagiarism, which I certainly do not approve of. And aside from that, if anyone wants to reference large amounts of online material, please post a link instead of copying the text. P.S., I find that I am not always able to keep up with all of the discussions on the list. Putting my name in a post is a good way to get my attention, and please always feel free to email me directly with any administrative issues related to the list. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of civilisation: Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can survive without all four of these. Talk about assertions without any evidence! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
Klortho wrote: The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of civilisation: Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can survive without all four of these. Talk about assertions without any evidence! Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived until recently without democracy or the scientific method. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined, and then recorded after its coming into existence, as indicated in many verses like, Nor anything green or withered except it is all in a Manifest Book. I guess the Koran's author hadn't heard about quantum randomness. Anyway that's not an explanation, it's just an assertion - and why should anyone credit assertions written without supporting evidence by a man who didn't even know that the Earth orbits the Sun. This Quranic statement is confirmed by the universe, It's not only not confirmed, it would be impossible to confirm even if it were true. Brent Meeker There are hundreds of religions flourishing around the world: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Bahaism, Babism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Jehovas Witnesses, Jainism, Confucianism etc. And each of these religions claim that their scripture is preserved from the day it was revealed (written) until our time. A religious belief is as authentic as the authenticity of the scripture it follows. And for any scripture to be labeled as authentically preserved it should follow some concrete and rational criteria. Imagine this scenario: A professor gives a three hour lecture to his students. Imagine still that none of the students memorized this speech of the professor or wrote it down. Now forty years after that speech, if these same students decided to replicate professor's complete speech word for word, would they be able to do it? Obviously not. Because the only two modes of preservation historically is through writing and memory. Therefore, for any claimants to proclaim that their scripture is preserved in purity, they have to provide concrete evidence that the Scripture was written in its entirety AND memorized in its entirety from the time it was revealed to our time, in a continuous and unbroken chain. If the memorization part doesn't exist parallel to the written part to act as a check and balance for it, then there is a genuine possibility that the written scripture may loose its purity through unintentional and intentional interpolations due to scribal errors, corruption by the enemies, pages getting decomposed etc, and these errors would be concurrently incorporated into subsequent texts, ultimately loosing its purity through ages. Now, of all the religions mentioned above, does any one of them possess their scriptures in its entirety BOTH in writing AND in memory from the day of its revelation until our time. None of them fit this required criteria, except one: This unique scripture is the Qur'an - revelation bestowed to Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) 1,418 years ago, as a guidance for all of humankind. Lets analyze the claim of the preservation of the Quran... Memorization 'In the ancient times, when writing was scarcely used, memory and oral transmission was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost unknown' relates Michael Zwettler.(1) Prophet Muhammad (S): The First Memorizer It was in this 'oral' society that Prophet Muhammad (S) was born in Mecca in the year 570 C.E. At the age of 40, he started receiving divine Revelations from the One God, Allah, through Archangel Gabriel. This process of divine revelations continued for about 22.5 years just before he passed away. Prophet Muhammad (S) miraculously memorized each revelation and used to proclaim it to his Companions. Angel Gabriel used to refresh the Quranic memory of the Prophet each year. 'The Prophet (S) was the most generous person, and he used to become more so (generous) particularly in the month of Ramadan because Gabriel used to meet him every night of the month of Ramadan till it elapsed. Allah's Messenger (S) use to recite the Qur'an for him. When Gabriel met him, he use to become more generous than the fast wind in doing good'. (2) 'Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur'an with the Prophet (S) once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he (Prophet) died'. (3) The Prophet himself use to stay up a greater part of the night in prayers and use to recite Quran from memory. Prophet's Companions: The First Generation Memorizers Prophet Muhammad (S) encouraged his companions to learn and teach the Quran: 'The most superior among you (Muslims) are those who learn the Qur'an and teach it'. (4) 'Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud,
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
How can we argue for God's existence and unity in a way everyone can understand? In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. So God sets forth parables for men in order that they may bear (them) in mind and take lessons (through them). (14:25) Such parables do we set forth for men so that they may reflect.(59:21) The existence of God is too evident to need any arguments The existence of God is too evident to need any arguments. Some saintly scholars have even stated that God is more manifest than any other being, but that those who lack insight cannot see Him. Others have said that He is concealed from direct perception because of the intensity of His Self-manifestation. However, the great influence of positivist and materialist schools of thought on science and on all people of recent centuries makes it necessary to discuss such arguments. As this now-prevalent scientific worldview reduces existence to what can be perceived directly, it blinds itself to those invisible dimensions of existence that far vaster than the visible. To remove the resulting veil, we will review briefly several traditional demonstrations of God's necessary existence. Before doing so, let us reflect on one simple historical fact: Since the beginning of human life, the overwhelming majority of humanity has believed that God exists. This belief alone is enough to establish God's existence. Those who do not believe cannot claim to be smarter than those who do. Among past and present-day believers are innovative scientists, scholars, researchers and, most importantly, saints and Prophets, who are the experts in the field. In addition, people usually confuse the non-acceptance of something's existence with the acceptance of its non-existence. While the former is only a negation or a rejection, the latter is a judgment that requires proof. No one has ever proven God's non-existence, for to do so is impossible, whereas countless arguments prove His existence. This point may be clarified through the following comparison. Suppose there is a large palace with 1,000 entrances, 999 of which are open and one which appears to be closed. No one could reasonably claim that the palace cannot be entered. Unbelievers are like those who, in order to assert that the palace cannot be entered, confine their (and others') attention only to the door that is seemingly closed. The doors to God's existence are open to everybody, provided that they sincerely intend to enter through them. Some of those doors-the demonstrations for God's existence-are as follows by way of a parable: A parable to understand God's Existence and Unity Once two men washed themselves in a pool. Then, under some extraordinary influence they fell into a trance-like state and when they opened their eyes, they found themselves in a strange land. It was a land in perfect orderliness and harmony-as it might be a well- ordered state, or a single city, or even a palace. They looked around in utmost amazement: from one point of view, it was a vast world; from another, a well-ordered state; from yet another, a splendid city. If it was looked at from still another point of view, it was a palace though one that was in itself a magnificent world. They traveled around this strange world and saw that there were creatures of diverse sorts speaking a language they did not know. However, as could be gathered from their gestures, they were doing important work, carrying out significant duties. One of the two men said to his friend: This strange world must have someone to administer it; this well- ordered state must have a lord, and this splendid city, an owner, and this skillfully made palace, a master builder. We must try to know him, for it is understood that the one who brought us here is he. If we do not know him, who else will help us here? What can we expect from those impotent creatures whose language we do not know and who do not heed us? Moreover, certainly one who has made a huge world in the form of a state, or a city, or a palace, and filled it from top to bottom with wonderful things, and embellished it with every sort of adornment, and decorated it with instructive miracles, wants something from us and from whoever comes here. We must know him, and find out what he wants. The other man objected: I do not believe that there is such a one as you speak of, and that he governs this whole world alone by himself. His friend responded to him: If we do not recognize him and remain indifferent towards him, there is no advantage in it at all, but it may be very harmful, whereas if we try to recognize him, there is little hardship in it, but it may be very beneficial. Therefore, it is in no way sensible to remain indifferent towards him. The other man insisted: I find all my ease and enjoyment in not thinking of him. Besides, I am not to bother myself with things like this which do not concern me. These are all confused things happening by chance or by themselves. They are
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesus said: I and the Father are one (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not Jesus the same, or, co-equal in status with his Father? Answer No.1 In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.) `hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.) Here the word used by John is `hen' and not `heis'. The marginal notes in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit.neuter) a unity, or, one essence. If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim for Jesus being co-equal in status with his Father, please invite his/ her attention to the following verse: Jesus said: And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one. (John 17:22). If he/she was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ to be one meaning co-equal in status on the basis of John 10:30, then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe them - the disciples of Jesus, to be co-equal in status with the Father and Jesus (just as we are one) in John 17:22. I have yet to find a person that would be prepared to make the disciples (students) co-equal in status with the Father or Jesus. I'd say that they were better than co-equal; since they actually existed. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
But how do you know that the Qu'ran is actually the word of God? People claim all sorts of things, and while it's often easy to prove that they *claimed* these things (although as you rightly point out, with many religions, such as Christianity, even this is not a given), the point is to prove that these things are *true*. The more incredible-sounding, the more proof is needed. If I tell you I had a conversation with my mother last night you would probably have no reason to demand proof, but if I tell you I had a conversation with God or aliens or Elvis Presley, then you'd be foolish to just accept it, even if it can be shown that I genuinely believe what I am claiming. Stathis Papaioannou On 2/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined, and then recorded after its coming into existence, as indicated in many verses like, Nor anything green or withered except it is all in a Manifest Book. I guess the Koran's author hadn't heard about quantum randomness. Anyway that's not an explanation, it's just an assertion - and why should anyone credit assertions written without supporting evidence by a man who didn't even know that the Earth orbits the Sun. This Quranic statement is confirmed by the universe, It's not only not confirmed, it would be impossible to confirm even if it were true. Brent Meeker There are hundreds of religions flourishing around the world: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Bahaism, Babism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Jehovas Witnesses, Jainism, Confucianism etc. And each of these religions claim that their scripture is preserved from the day it was revealed (written) until our time. A religious belief is as authentic as the authenticity of the scripture it follows. And for any scripture to be labeled as authentically preserved it should follow some concrete and rational criteria. Imagine this scenario: A professor gives a three hour lecture to his students. Imagine still that none of the students memorized this speech of the professor or wrote it down. Now forty years after that speech, if these same students decided to replicate professor's complete speech word for word, would they be able to do it? Obviously not. Because the only two modes of preservation historically is through writing and memory. Therefore, for any claimants to proclaim that their scripture is preserved in purity, they have to provide concrete evidence that the Scripture was written in its entirety AND memorized in its entirety from the time it was revealed to our time, in a continuous and unbroken chain. If the memorization part doesn't exist parallel to the written part to act as a check and balance for it, then there is a genuine possibility that the written scripture may loose its purity through unintentional and intentional interpolations due to scribal errors, corruption by the enemies, pages getting decomposed etc, and these errors would be concurrently incorporated into subsequent texts, ultimately loosing its purity through ages. Now, of all the religions mentioned above, does any one of them possess their scriptures in its entirety BOTH in writing AND in memory from the day of its revelation until our time. None of them fit this required criteria, except one: This unique scripture is the Qur'an - revelation bestowed to Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) 1,418 years ago, as a guidance for all of humankind. Lets analyze the claim of the preservation of the Quran... Memorization 'In the ancient times, when writing was scarcely used, memory and oral transmission was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost unknown' relates Michael Zwettler.(1) Prophet Muhammad (S): The First Memorizer It was in this 'oral' society that Prophet Muhammad (S) was born in Mecca in the year 570 C.E. At the age of 40, he started receiving divine Revelations from the One God, Allah, through Archangel Gabriel. This process of divine revelations continued for about 22.5 years just before he passed away. Prophet Muhammad (S) miraculously memorized each revelation and used to proclaim it to his Companions. Angel Gabriel used to refresh the Quranic memory of the Prophet each year. 'The Prophet (S) was the most generous person, and he used to become more so (generous) particularly in the month of
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined, and then recorded after its coming into existence, as indicated in many verses like, Nor anything green or withered except it is all in a Manifest Book. I guess the Koran's author hadn't heard about quantum randomness. Anyway that's not an explanation, it's just an assertion - and why should anyone credit assertions written without supporting evidence by a man who didn't even know that the Earth orbits the Sun. This Quranic statement is confirmed by the universe, It's not only not confirmed, it would be impossible to confirm even if it were true. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
On 2/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined... If God decided to lay off the pressure on you to fulfil your destiny, so that you could do whatever you wanted, but you didn't know that he had done this and believed firmly that you were still guided by divine destiny, how would your behaviour be different? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
