On 02 Mar 2015, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to
On 03 Mar 2015, at 21:03, PGC wrote:
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.
Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott,
On 08 Mar 2015, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible,
and [] means
On 08 Mar 2015, at 22:07, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and
[] means necessary.
Before I get lost in
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and []
means necessary.
Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal
On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and []
means
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and
[] means necessary.
In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, means sometime, and
[] means always.
In the locus interpretation of modal logic,
On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true
in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want.
In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is
On 05 Mar 2015, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my
faculties
On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence
for reason and logic, and the
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the
sciences is not doubt.
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences
is not doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!
I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for
reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!
I am not sure I
This and the next post of yours are classic. In the next one you cast doubt
on our space-based worldview - I was waiting for the next step: the
TIME_BASED doubt.
*
Bruno quoted Samiya concluding: *Doubt is the lack of faith!* - and I
could not keep my agnostic mind from reversing this into:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 20:16, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old
fashioned male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he
was just a child
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.
Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk.
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:58, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything,
On 4 March 2015 at 06:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old fashioned
male God who
On 4 March 2015 at 09:03, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort,
without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC
Unless they cause the universe to crash.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he
Schoppenhauer?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
or { } -
the empty set?
I think he
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is there something rather than nothing? It just
OOPs Should written 8 not 10. Changed my mind about the words without
changing the number.
Brent
On 3/1/2015 3:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR
On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we
made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all. I
find it interesting that a lot of logically necessary truths were
contradicted by
On 3/1/2015 4:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we
made up -
so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all. I find it
John, thank you for sharing your thoughts and narrative.
i'm not sure anyone can provide an 'acceptable explanation' of the
Creator/Originator. I think it is simply beyond our comprehension. However,
I do believe that there is an overwhelming evidence of
creation/origination, thus implying a
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the
empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a beginning, but a
sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't believe
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a
beginning, but a
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
as diehard atheist in every way,
That's me.
finding any possible transcendental concept of others laughable,
I don't find all transcendental concepts laughable, some are based on logic
and are reasonable or at least
Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno
is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc.
etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I
hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well.
Now that you
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for
the
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.
Bruno
Samiya
On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general
notion, used by most philosophers and
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy
on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that
already have words
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 7:40:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy
on
On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because
God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real
question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing?
A
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Samiya
On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:33:59PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
basis of reality.
: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!) program??? what would you
call
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived.
Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible.
As much as a tampon factory needs a
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition,
is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A
person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.
The
On 25 Feb 2015, at 22:08, LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.
I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about
the existence
On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.
I see, so belief in God is based on faith
On 26 Feb 2015, at 02:24, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about
what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there.
Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories
On 2/26/2015 3:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
avowed
meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of
On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
basis of reality.
I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would
Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
a pipeline(s).
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.
I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the
existence of God, but for a word to be
On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.
I see, so belief
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the
final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there.
Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories are the
final word on the nature of reality?
Cue JKC.
Brent
On 2/24/2015 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is
based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science.
Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology.
Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on
faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be
preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as
delusory as Abrahamic theology.
-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.
I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the
existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast,
so your need to point out something, anything,
...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Very good. I do go computationalism myself
of knowledge) and can be compared with the observation (up to now it
fits).
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing
-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
If one goes
computer.
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via
On 16 Feb 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind.
Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object.
Again, with computationalism, faith is meta-justified by the fact
that all
On 16 Feb 2015, at 20:14, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The faith step is assuming arithmetic.
It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry
into whether something as apparently simple as first-order
Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Interesting John
On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The faith step is assuming arithmetic.
It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry into
whether something as apparently simple as first-order arithmetical
relations are nonetheless a sufficient ontological
On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind.
Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object. Again, with
computationalism, faith is meta-justified by the fact that all (Löbian) machines
cannot avoid the discovery that
Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List
On 2/15/2015 3:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should *KNOW*
about?
Agnostically yours
John M
The practical advice would be to ask yourself how you know where your computer keyboard is
and how it works. Then you may try applying
On 15 Feb 2015, at 17:08, Samiya Illias wrote:
You can invoke God to tell to the others what is right and wrong.
You apply such belief to yourself if you feel it, but it can only
concern a relation that you have with God, and God can have other
relations with other people.
Yes, of
On 16 February 2015 at 12:01, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should
*KNOW*
about?
Being in the same position as you, all I can say is ... I don't know.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_3e19ce3c-5d69-462e-ae18-078186a4f441
div dir=ltr
div class
everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 04:46 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_6358d9ed-4934-4055-8f54-a38c31f4effc
div dir=ltr
div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 spudboy100 via
On 15 Feb 2015, at 1:49 am, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you would you also agree with this statement: Science is simply
Critical Inquiry, neither doubt not faith.
A scientist would say that he would drop his favoured theory, or at least think
it less likely to be
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human
thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which,
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 1:22 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human thinkers
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the faithful
associate with the devil, they term, iblis.
And in both the Old Testament and the Quran the devil is far more moral
than God,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me
On 14 Feb 2015, at 6:40 am, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and
intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not
doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!
Science considers faith bad and
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human
thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which,
if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you
will need to use the second axioms?
Nine times.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
to dialectics?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno
...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal
is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr.
Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson
University, is the
On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias
it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs
this topic I think.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Then reason shows that arithmetic is already
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of
an infinity of universal
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed
full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide
your infinitely many relatively
On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2015, at 06:54, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2015 at 00:15,
On 03 Feb 2015, at 06:54, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM,
1 - 100 of 798 matches
Mail list logo
