On 11 Feb 2013, at 17:52, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If Bob is behind a door that will reveal Moscow and Bill is
behind a door that will reveal Washington then the probability that
Bob and Bill will open a door and see
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person
view, and that might be a OK approximation in a world without
duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is
only A first
On 10 Feb 2013, at 18:54, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
All the probabilities need to add up to 100% or it's nonsense,
making your W and M prediction into nonsense.
If Bob is behind a door that will reveal Moscow and Bill is behind a
On 2/11/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person view, and that might
be a OK approximation in a world without duplicating machines but not in a world that
has them; there is only A first person view and one view is every bit as legitimate
On 08 Feb 2013, at 17:54, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees
Washington and Moscow.
But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the
right plate,
On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:16, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/8/2013 12:04 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist
On 09 Feb 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
you agree that if I ask you the question in the MWI context, what
is the probability that you see the photon hit the left plate,
you'll say 50%,
As I've said before
On 2/9/2013 6:16 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
If you make evolution set the standard, then you have to buy the darker side of its
theology: Good Tsunami, asteroid, CO2, mass extinctions of life forms; as these shocks
will create a stronger forcing function on populations and individuals
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:03:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 6:16 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
If you make evolution set the standard, then you have to buy the darker
side of its theology: Good Tsunami, asteroid, CO2, mass extinctions of
life forms; as these shocks
On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a subjective
motivation.
Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside.
All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a high
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a
subjective
motivation.
Subjective motivation is just a quantitative value seen from the inside.
Why would
On 2/9/2013 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a
subjective
motivation.
Subjective motivation is just a
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a
On 2/9/2013 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Evolution
On 2/9/2013 5:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's how I recognize intelligence - and so do you.
No, I recognize intelligence by experiencing learning. If there were an Elvis
impersonator who was so good that you could not tell the difference between a film of
him performing and one of
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 9:07:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/9/2013 5:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's how I recognize intelligence - and so do you.
No, I recognize intelligence by experiencing learning. If there were an
Elvis impersonator who was so good that you could not
2013/2/8 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees
Washington and Moscow.
But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the right
plate, not the
On 2/8/2013 12:04 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM,
On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg
On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:11, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On
On 2/7/2013 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06
On 2/7/2013 8:23 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 8:23 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11
On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
There might be confusion between necessary and possible dangers.
If there is, you haven't cleared it up.
Necessary danger: It’s legal for your neighbor to walk on to your property and shoot you
for emotional reasons or it’s legal to burn
On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
“A secular purpose” is a nice ruse, because it is “theology-free”,
right?
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
After a experiment has been completed the Many World's
Interpretation can give some people, including me, a intuitive feel
of what just happened,
The analogous experiment in the
On 06 Feb 2013, at 03:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW)
after making some measurement.
Yes.
You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
Not true, there is a single result in
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
2013/2/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg
2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so
On 03 Feb 2013, at 19:58, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Feb 2013, at 17:10, Jason Resch wrote:
Very nice post Bruno. I found your points convincing and
informative.
Thanks Jason. I appreciate.
I really don't know
On 03 Feb 2013, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically
all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question
like is God a person can be an open problem.
But you have a
A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net ?rote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013
On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so
in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about
what I could call an
:
*Time:* 2013-02-05, 11:42:46
*Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allc...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
snip
I do not believe in any *personified
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether
On 2/5/2013 6:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark
sees Washington and
On 2/5/2013 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making
some
measurement.
Yes.
You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 10:00:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all
correct machines
believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can
be
On 02 Feb 2013, at 09:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't
believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some
mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it
was the
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What I find most surprising about John's position is that he can use
I in the same sense you mean in the UDA when referring to many-worlds
thought
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all
correct machines
On 2/4/2013 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What I find most surprising about John's
On 2/4/2013 7:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/3/2013
On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, I am not an atheist.
Sorry to hear about your mind virus, but don't despair, even rabies
can sometimes be cured.
I am an agnostic. I think that a serious scientist has to be
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines
believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can be an open
problem.
But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot
On 2/3/13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all
correct machines
believes in God, and in some theories question like is God a person can
be an open
problem.
But you have a
On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale
version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion
of gods like if it was the only one.
That's not accurate. I am happy to
) unless
you think of the One as a person.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-02, 03:08:08
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And here you come back with your
On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:42, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in.
Then what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about science or
mathematics or philosophy, or are we just arguing about first
On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:14, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my
theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians
in disguise.
Wow, calling a guy known for
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:42:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in.
I admit there is a story (probably apocryphal) about Pythagoras killing a
man for
On 1/31/2013 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem,
The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what
you mean.
So you do assume the existence of a primitive or primitively material brain?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious
people
I wish it had but no. Such is the awesome virulence of the religious mind
virus that there is nobody to my certain knowledge in which my
On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Without religion, science is pseudo-religion
That's OK with me. Religion is bullshit,
We have discuss this. You confuse religion with clericalism. By saying
gross statement like
On 27 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:09:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would like a semi-axiomatic definition of sensory, to make this
more palatable. I try to get a theory of sense, and I can't take
that notion for granted, even if I
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:48:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:09:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would like a semi-axiomatic definition of sensory, to make this more
palatable. I try to get a
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory
according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one
John,
Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious
people but I, and probably others on this list, find it rather unconvincing.
Jason
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my
theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in
disguise.
Wow,
On 25 Jan 2013, at 20:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2013 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote:
John,
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in
several religions (
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Without religion, science is pseudo-religion
That's OK with me. Religion is bullshit, so pseudo-bullshit is better than
pure, triple distilled, extra virgin, investment grade bullshit.
How would you define grand for a
Thanks. The below shows it would be impossible for us to have a
rational discussion on the subject and therefore we need not waste any
electrons on the subject.
If in the future you change your mind and are interested in discussing
the merits/properties/purpose of a possibly true and
Hi John Clark
If you want to learn about science, study Darwin, etc.
If you want to learn about God, read the Bible.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-24, 11:17:30
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
how do you define the word religion?
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
1* n.* A theological fungus that thrives best in the dark and when fed by
bullshit.
2 Believing what you know ain't so.
3 The boast of the man who is too lazy to
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote:
John,
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in
several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ).
The book by O'Meara on Plotinus makes clear the idea that Plotinus
want the ONE to be simple.
The ONE
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:19, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in
several religions
And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin
provided the
On Friday, January 25, 2013 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote:
John,
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several
religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ).
Little numbers can develop
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as
I know.
It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being
was complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided
:40
*Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4
STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig,
What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ?
A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition
On 1/24/2013 8:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all,
I know. That's the problem.
Interestingly, in Aramaic the word was Elohim, and my jewish/anthropologist friend tells
me that's a plural. So it should have been translated gods, except that
-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to
hear that the invention of science was a fight
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:17:30 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far
as I know.
It certainly says God is grand and if it
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent
being was complex it certainly should have.
Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said
rather than what it actually
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:45:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent
being was complex it certainly should have.
Ah, so we are
John,
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several
religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). The concept
is also not dissimilar to the Neti Neti (Not this, not that) explanation
of Brahman in Hindusim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti ) or the
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several
religions
And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin provided
the mechanism by which Evolution did it, so those religions
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be.
A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything
and neither
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
evolution is complex and counter-intuitive.
The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-intuitive
because the human mind
On 1/24/2013 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
evolution is complex and counter-intuitive.
The basic idea behind Evolution is not
A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field.
There is no such field of study
Hi Craig,
What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 11:00:27
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013
Hi John Clark
From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very
very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL
:* Bruno Marchal javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27
*Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently
many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives
derailed by crystal.
Craig
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* John Clark javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-22, 13:23:37
*Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL
On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:15:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2013 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western
approach are being revealed on a global scale, that
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:26:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Then why would comp be primitive and not the mystical truth through which
comp comes to our attention?
Because the mystical truth is what we want to explain, or
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear
that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned
alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see
On 1/23/2013 7:55 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Belief and question are inseparable. Science and theology are converging to be what they
always were before their artificial separation by political interests: agile, adaptive
partners in our dealings with the final questions of real. These
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:50:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear
that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he
Hi John Clark
Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to
investigation.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:07
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon
this is a bit funny coming from you...
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-21, 12:32:38
*Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon, Jan
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
