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 Proph
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All > we > > > can > > > > do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a > best > > > > guess as to what's going on. > > > > > This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly > > > disagree on rational grounds. > > > > One of the problems with the verification principle of logical > positivism > > was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, > and > > hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics > (and, > > I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge > that it > > was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating > the > > principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the > weather, > > build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such > and > > such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical > > component. > > > > I think you and/or Bruno talked about this internal conditional > definition of "morality" before. But this is just logical inference > inside a "closed" system of facts. IF this is true THEN this is > true. There are no real normative statements here, and thus no real > moral meaning. IF you want to torture babies, THEN you "should" do > such and such. This definition of morality does not explain why we > should want certain things and not others. This definition does not > suppport the real noble things of morality such as compassion. Some > examples are: > > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when your enemy strikes you > on the cheek, THEN you should turn the other cheek and pray for him/ > her. > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice > between your benefit and your neighbor's benefit, THEN you act for > your neighbor's benefit. > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice > between your life and your friend's life, THEN you should give your > life. That's fine in its logical form. > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a > process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just > cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit > (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit > that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in > accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so > much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest > requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another > person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by Brent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma > > > Science is just a systematisation of this > > > > process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. > > > > > So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I > > > agree. > > > > > > However, it's > > > > all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: > tomorrow > > > pigs > > > > might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened > before. > > > I > > > > would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there > is > > > no > > > > reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute > > > certainty. A > > > > metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or > an > > > > anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is > arrogant > > > as > > > > well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or > > > absolute > > > > anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there > are > > > some > > > > things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may > be > > > > unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up > > > absolute certainty. Also I don't know what "absolute meaning" means, > > > unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case > > > I don't hold that view. > > > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. > > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a > closed > > system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least > one > > fixed point that is unexplainable". I read into this an implication that > God > > would solve the problem because he could be outside the system, indee
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
On 2/27/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno - thanks. > > Stathis did not address my "why simulation at all" main question, you did > by an "IF" followed by "then" and another 'if' (already assumed) and it goes > on and on. > At the end we are in a virtual reality what could bring Hollywood a > $billion and the teens would kill all the aliens in the video-games. > > It is not far from the Gedankenexperiment to shortcut something we do not > understand by fantasy and keep it repeating so many times that people get > used to it. That happened with the EPR, the Big Bang, (oops: indeed the > expanding universe), etc. leading to 'complementarities' in which I really > do not know: is our mental faculty not wide enough to comprehend it, or we > just misunderstand some readings on our instruments. When people "get used" > to the 'if'-s: comes the statement of a physicist on another list: "I can > live with paradoxes". > > I feel sometimes somebody somehow somewhere should recall a 'reasonable' > (original?) question. > I've no idea why we might be being simulated if we are being simulated. It is actually very arrogant to assume that we are somehow the centre of the simulation at all, like bacteria in my gut assuming that the universe, the solar sysstem, humans were made for their benefit. 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: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we >>> can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. >>> This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly >>> disagree on rational grounds. >> One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism >> was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and >> hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, >> I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it >> was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the >> principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, >> build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and >> such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical >> component. >> > > I think you and/or Bruno talked about this internal conditional > definition of "morality" before. But this is just logical inference > inside a "closed" system of facts. IF this is true THEN this is > true. There are no real normative statements here, and thus no real > moral meaning. IF you want to torture babies, THEN you "should" do > such and such. This definition of morality does not explain why we > should want certain things and not others. This definition does not > suppport the real noble things of morality such as compassion. Some > examples are: > > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when your enemy strikes you > on the cheek, THEN you should turn the other cheek and pray for him/ > her. > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice > between your benefit and your neighbor's benefit, THEN you act for > your neighbor's benefit. > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice > between your life and your friend's life, THEN you should give your > life. > > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a > process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just > cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit > (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit > that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in > accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so > much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest > requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another > person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. > ... > > I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If > you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest > to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps > this is branded as "wishful thinking", but I am also insisting that > science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, > generality, beauty, "introspection" is also mystical wishful thinking, > and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that > its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, > THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you "should" do such and > such). > > Tom You seem not to appreciate the inconsistency in trying to use someone else's morality, even The Creator's, as your own. Surely you've read Euthyphro. 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] 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: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we > > can > > > do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best > > > guess as to what's going on. > > > This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly > > disagree on rational grounds. > > One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism > was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and > hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, > I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it > was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the > principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, > build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and > such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical > component. > I think you and/or Bruno talked about this internal conditional definition of "morality" before. But this is just logical inference inside a "closed" system of facts. IF this is true THEN this is true. There are no real normative statements here, and thus no real moral meaning. IF you want to torture babies, THEN you "should" do such and such. This definition of morality does not explain why we should want certain things and not others. This definition does not suppport the real noble things of morality such as compassion. Some examples are: IF you want to follow the Creator's path when your enemy strikes you on the cheek, THEN you should turn the other cheek and pray for him/ her. IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice between your benefit and your neighbor's benefit, THEN you act for your neighbor's benefit. IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice between your life and your friend's life, THEN you should give your life. The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. > > > Science is just a systematisation of this > > > process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. > > > So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I > > agree. > > > > However, it's > > > all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow > > pigs > > > might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. > > I > > > would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is > > no > > > reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute > > certainty. A > > > metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an > > > anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant > > as > > > well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or > > absolute > > > anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are > > some > > > things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be > > > unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up > > absolute certainty. Also I don't know what "absolute meaning" means, > > unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case > > I don't hold that view. > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a closed > system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one > fixed point that is unexplainable". I read into this an implication that God > would solve the problem because he could be outside the system, indeed > outside all possible systems. But this runs into two problems. The first is > that positivists are in fact very modest and make no claim to explain > everything; the very opposite, in fact. The second is that the concept of an > entity outside all possible systems, and therefore requiring no cause, > design, meaning or any of the other things allegedly necessary for the > universe and its components constitutes a restatement of the ontological > argument for the existence of God, an argument that is 900 years old and has > been rejected as invalid even
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 ar
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
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 prophets that came before him and the one to come
after, were to prepare the other mansions for their respective
followers. The prophet that came after Jesus had evidently shown the
current "way" to a modern mansion in the kingdom of heaven.
Besides; the verse clearly states; Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion.
It is a folly to believe that Jesus (or any prophet) was the
"DESTINATION".
Jesus said; "I am the door" to find the pasture. (Jn.10:9).
A sheep that walks through the "door" will find the pasture.
A sheep that circles around the "door" will never find the pasture.
One who crosses over the "way" will reach the mansion. Anyone that
stops on the "way" and believes the "way" to be the end of his/her
journey, will be out in the open without any shelter and a roof.
Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will enter
the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is
in heaven." (Mt.7:21).
On Feb 25, 5:50 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Could you, [EMAIL PROTECTED], please spell out what YOU
> understand by the meaning of the term 'scientific method'.
>
>2.
>
> RE: 'The expression Manifest Book symbolizes the Destiny Actual, which
> is a
> title for Divine Will and God's creational and operational laws of the
> universe and the physical order displayed by living creatures. The
> Manifest Record means the Preserved Tablet which is the book of Divine
> Knowledge and symbolizes the Destiny Formal or Theoretical determining
> the immaterial order and the life of the universe.'
>
> MP: Could you please tell us just exactly where all these books and
> records are.
> The clause: 'The
> Manifest Record means the Preserved Tablet which is the book of Divine
> Knowledge'
> is very confusing; something /means/ something else but /is actually/
> something else again.
>
> The second clause: ' and symbolizes the Destiny Formal or Theoretical
> determining the immaterial order and the life of the universe.' seems to tell
> me that in fact all this is metaphor.
>
> I have a saying: If something can't be put into plain English then it
> probably isn't true. I apply this standard to everything I read and
> hear, particularly when I am confronted with someone or something
> who/which is 'holding forth' and purporting to describe my world for me.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Peaty CDES
>
> [EM
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: 'A
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: Evidence for the simulation argument
BM: (1) The universe is more complex than current physics makes it out and may not be computable, and in comparison, (2) Our ability to comprehend things is quite limited. But these two together imply that is quite possible that we live in a simulation. In a n-dimensional Hilbert space, one needs n^2 -1 real parameters to specify the information content, that is to say a density matrix, hermitean, with tr(rho)=1. Since human measurements, within a specific basis set, give n-1 independent probabilities, one needs n+1 unbiased basis sets to provide the required number n^2 - 1. (Note that n+1 unbiased basis sets exist if n is _prime_, as far as I remember). Are the great simulators number theorists? :-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Evidence for the simulation argument
Bruno - thanks. Stathis did not address my "why simulation at all" main question, you did by an "IF" followed by "then" and another 'if' (already assumed) and it goes on and on. At the end we are in a virtual reality what could bring Hollywood a $billion and the teens would kill all the aliens in the video-games. It is not far from the Gedankenexperiment to shortcut something we do not understand by fantasy and keep it repeating so many times that people get used to it. That happened with the EPR, the Big Bang, (oops: indeed the expanding universe), etc. leading to 'complementarities' in which I really do not know: is our mental faculty not wide enough to comprehend it, or we just misunderstand some readings on our instruments. When people "get used" to the 'if'-s: comes the statement of a physicist on another list: "I can live with paradoxes". I feel sometimes somebody somehow somewhere should recall a 'reasonable' (original?) question. John - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:22 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument (Brent wrote): "The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand." -(End of his post below) ---WE???WHO--- "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe? or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea? Does every one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe with understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted? (and why simulate?) JohnThe discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a possibly simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a "real" world would look like, so that we can gather scientific data and thereby determine whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that we are going to run into a Microsoft logo or bump their heads against a huge planetarium screen. How do we know that the limits of the simulation we might be in are not represented by the speed of light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on how much we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous or more finely granular. How would we know? Stathis Papaioannou Of course we cannot *know*. But if we assume the comp Hypothesis, then we *can* "know" (relatively to the comp hyp). Indeed, if comp is true, then we "belong" to all simulations of us possible at once. All the simulations are generated by the DU. And the physical appearances are (first person) sum on all relative computations. And if "I" is different from "Universe/God", then comp predicts "Universe/God", as it can appear to me or us, is NOT Turing emulable. QM confirms this fact, but it is an open problem if comp generates to too much white rabbit or not. If QM is the only comp-physics possible, then indeed first and third person white rabbits would disappear. Remember just this: if I am turing emulable then the observable universe cannot be. This follows from UDA. Cf my previews explanation: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html 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: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 26-févr.-07, à 12:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > On 2/26/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : >> >> > >> > >> > On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> From: Brent Meeker >> >>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >> >>> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM >> >>> Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument >> >>> (Brent wrote): >> >>> "The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the >> >>> whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and >> >>> understand." -(End of his post below) >> >>> >> >>> ---WE???WHO--- >> >>> >> >>> "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe? >> >>> or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea? >> >>> Doesevery one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe >> >>> with understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted? >> >>> (and why simulate?) >> >> >>> JohnThe discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a >> >>> possibly simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a >> >>> "real" world would look like, so that we can gather scientific >> data >> >>> and thereby determine whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that >> >>> we are going to run into a Microsoft logo or bump their heads >> >>> against a huge planetarium screen. How do we know that the limits >> of >> >>> the simulation we might be in are not represented by the speed of >> >>> light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on how much >> >>> we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of >> >>> light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous >> or >> >>> more finely granular. How would we know? >> > >> > Stathis Papaioannou >> >> >> >> >> Of course we cannot *know*. But if we assume the comp Hypothesis, >> then >> we *can* "know" (relatively to the comp hyp). >> Indeed, if comp is true, then we "belong" to all simulations of us >> possible at once. All the simulations are generated by the DU. And the >> physical appearances are (first person) sum on all relative >> computations. And if "I" is different from "Universe/God", then comp >> predicts "Universe/God", as it can appear to me or us, is NOT Turing >> emulable. QM confirms this fact, but it is an open problem if comp >> generates to too much white rabbit or not. If QM is the only >> comp-physics possible, then indeed first and third person white >> rabbits >> would disappear. >> Remember just this: if I am turing emulable then the observable >> universe cannot be. This follows from UDA. >> Cf my previews explanation: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html > The UDA is an argument about ultimate reality. We can still speculate > as to whether we are simulated in one level relative to another level. Locally, this makes sense. What UDA shows (I think Mark Peaty has the right intuition here) is that if we are simulated at some relative level, then we can know it (like in a lucid dream). If we are 100% correctly simulated, this is equivalent as saying we are already simulated by the UD, because if the simulation is physically correct, then it makes no sense to attach our mind to just that simulation. We are infinitely distributed in the whole UD* (static block-execution of the UD). OK? If the simulation is not correct, then we can know it, if it last enough, and if there is no "malin genie" killing his creature each time when they discover the fake nature of they neighborhood (like in totalitarian system). Must go. I am not sure when I can go back to my office this week. Teaching duties. 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 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: Evidence for the simulation argument
On 2/26/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > > > > On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> From: Brent Meeker > >>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > >>> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument > >>> (Brent wrote): > >>> "The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the > >>> whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and > >>> understand." -(End of his post below) > >>> > >>> ---WE???WHO--- > >>> > >>> "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe? > >>> or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea? > >>> Doesevery one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe > >>> with understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted? > >>> (and why simulate?) > > >>> JohnThe discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a > >>> possibly simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a > >>> "real" world would look like, so that we can gather scientific data > >>> and thereby determine whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that > >>> we are going to run into a Microsoft logo or bump their heads > >>> against a huge planetarium screen. How do we know that the limits of > >>> the simulation we might be in are not represented by the speed of > >>> light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on how much > >>> we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of > >>> light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous or > >>> more finely granular. How would we know? > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > Of course we cannot *know*. But if we assume the comp Hypothesis, then > we *can* "know" (relatively to the comp hyp). > Indeed, if comp is true, then we "belong" to all simulations of us > possible at once. All the simulations are generated by the DU. And the > physical appearances are (first person) sum on all relative > computations. And if "I" is different from "Universe/God", then comp > predicts "Universe/God", as it can appear to me or us, is NOT Turing > emulable. QM confirms this fact, but it is an open problem if comp > generates to too much white rabbit or not. If QM is the only > comp-physics possible, then indeed first and third person white rabbits > would disappear. > Remember just this: if I am turing emulable then the observable > universe cannot be. This follows from UDA. > Cf my previews explanation: > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html The UDA is an argument about ultimate reality. We can still speculate as to whether we are simulated in one level relative to another level. 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: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> From: Brent Meeker >>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument >>> (Brent wrote): >>> "The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the >>> whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and >>> understand." -(End of his post below) >>> >>> ---WE???WHO--- >>> >>> "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe? >>> or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea? >>> Does every one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe >>> with understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted? >>> (and why simulate?) >>> JohnThe discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a >>> possibly simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a >>> "real" world would look like, so that we can gather scientific data >>> and thereby determine whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that >>> we are going to run into a Microsoft logo or bump their heads >>> against a huge planetarium screen. How do we know that the limits of >>> the simulation we might be in are not represented by the speed of >>> light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on how much >>> we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of >>> light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous or >>> more finely granular. How would we know? > > Stathis Papaioannou Of course we cannot *know*. But if we assume the comp Hypothesis, then we *can* "know" (relatively to the comp hyp). Indeed, if comp is true, then we "belong" to all simulations of us possible at once. All the simulations are generated by the DU. And the physical appearances are (first person) sum on all relative computations. And if "I" is different from "Universe/God", then comp predicts "Universe/God", as it can appear to me or us, is NOT Turing emulable. QM confirms this fact, but it is an open problem if comp generates to too much white rabbit or not. If QM is the only comp-physics possible, then indeed first and third person white rabbits would disappear. Remember just this: if I am turing emulable then the observable universe cannot be. This follows from UDA. Cf my previews explanation: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html 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: Evidence for the simulation argument
On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *From:* Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM > *Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument > (Brent wrote): > "The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole > complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand." > -(End of his post below) > > ---WE???WHO--- > > "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe? > or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea? > Does every one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe with > understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted? > (and why simulate?) > John > > The discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a possibly simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a "real" world would look like, so that we can gather scientific data and thereby determine whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that we are going to run into a Microsoft logo or bump their heads against a huge planetarium screen. How do we know that the limits of the simulation we might be in are not represented by the speed of light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on how much we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous or more finely granular. How would we know? 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
