2013/12/6 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and
dangerous religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not
live without a form of
2013/12/6 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous
religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Dec 2013, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrot
I have already insist that God cannot be part of the
explanation. We agree on
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
Well, it is a consequence of QM without collapse, or more simply,
elementary arithmetic (and comp). But you need faith to believe in
them and their meaning/models.
BTW it is
On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:23, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can
entertain the idea for an argument or a theory that's all) and QI
could in principle be proven false... A religion by being based on
faith cannot.
It is true that there
On 05 Dec 2013, at 21:56, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI
but there seem to be plenty on this list.
Can you refute comp-I?
I can't, even without the step 8.
Bruno
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5,
Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can
entertain the idea for an argument
On 05 Dec 2013, at 23:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Dec 2013, at 01:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
Good question, and one which is repeatedly
The dogma that science (in the very narrow sense used today for such
world) is not dogma is the foundation stone of one of the most sucessful
modern religions: scientism.
That is wonderful since there is no knowledge possible without initial
postulates or dogmas as you may call it. This erasure
Science has no dogma, because everything can be discussed and
questionned... On the contrary, religions *must* have some part that can't
be discussed, you can't say you're catholic if you don't believe jesus was
the son of god... you can't say you're buddhist and reject what the buddha
said.
So
2013/12/6 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Science has no dogma, because everything can be discussed and
questionned...
So science is the art of discussing and questioning everything?
That is like saying nothing.
In the other side, one thing is the activity of science, other the
different
Science comes from latin and means knowledge... if some wants to use
science as a cover for something else, that doesn't redefine what it is...
science is an attitude towards pursuit of knowledge...
Quentin
2013/12/6 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
2013/12/6 Quentin Anciaux
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Science has no dogma, because everything can be discussed and questionned...
That is philosophy. Science is more narrow -- and it should be.
Science is empiricism. It is restricted to the domains of knowledge
where
On 05 Dec 2013, at 21:56, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI
but there seem to be plenty on this list.
Bruno: Can you refute comp-I?
I can't, even without the step 8.
Richard: I do not have to since it is a matter of belief.
I do not believe that universes
2013/12/6 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Science has no dogma, because everything can be discussed and
questionned...
That is philosophy. Science is more narrow -- and it should be.
Science is empiricism.
2013/12/6 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Science has no dogma, because everything can be discussed and
questionned...
That is philosophy. Science is more narrow -- and it should be.
Science is empiricism. It
2013/12/6 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
On 05 Dec 2013, at 21:56, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI
but there seem to be plenty on this list.
Bruno: Can you refute comp-I?
I can't, even without the step 8.
Richard: I do not have to since it is a
-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:07 am
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 05 Dec 2013, at 22:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 spudboy...@aol.com
They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for another
one
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some
2013/12/6 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comjasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A
2013/12/6 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comjasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A
On 06 Dec 2013, at 13:52, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Science comes from latin and means knowledge...
*that* *is* *the* error of the latine. They misunderstanding of
the greeks and indians.
For the platonist, and the popperians notably, science is *only*
beliefs, public theories,
I would
On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Can you refute comp-I?
No I can not because of the IHA principle.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 12/6/2013 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous religion. And
RELIGION CAN NOT BE
On 12/6/2013 3:59 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The dogma that science (in the very narrow sense used today for such world) is not
dogma is the foundation stone of one of the most sucessful modern religions: scientism.
That is wonderful since there is no knowledge possible without initial
On 12/6/2013 4:46 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
So science is the art of discussing and questioning everything?
Plus hypothesizing and testing.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 12/6/2013 4:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Science cannot get rid of fundamental ontological and epistemological
assumptions.
What are these? Is Bruno getting rid of them?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On 12/6/2013 7:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
On 12/6/2013 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no science. There are only field of inquiries, and humans having a scientific
attitude. Scientific attitude is field independent. Research can be refrained only by
abuse of authority. Genuine believer hides nothing and don't fear reason.
On 06 Dec 2013, at 13:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 21:56, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI
but there seem to be plenty on this list.
Bruno: Can you refute comp-I?
In which theory?
In comp, comp_i is a theorem, or meta-theorem. The amoeba
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI but there seem to be plenty
on this list.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in quantum immortality, I am not ashamed
to admit that there are some things I just don't know. And
On 7 December 2013 09:31, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI but there seem to be plenty
on this list.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in quantum immortality, I am not
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some
On 6 December 2013 06:58, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I love you. I've been saying this sort of thing for years, but
rarely have I managed to do it so articulately.
Awww.. thanks Liz! :)
:-)
Richard:
I learned my physics dogma at Harvard Grad School.
Before that I was a mechanical engineer.
Fine, but to 'think: what is a dogma' you learned as a li'l kid when you
had to pray at bedtime.
BTW (I never attended Harvard) did they teach you that 'physics' is a
dogma?
I try to identify
2013/12/6 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
A religion is based on dogma,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/6 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:07 am
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 05 Dec 2013, at 22:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 spudboy...@aol.com
On 03 Dec 2013, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot
I have already insist that God cannot be part of the explanation.
We agree on this.
Then I repeat my question, why add useless wheels within wheels that
explain nothing to
On 03 Dec 2013, at 01:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias
samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and
outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and
every soul and who is worthy of
On 04 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense.
Here's a funny example:
The Leipzig secular solstice celebration:
http://lesswrong.com/meetups/u6
Here's a video of some guy who's trying to become a priest for
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous
religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without
a form of religion or religions like you can not live alone.
OK.
Bruno
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I repeat my question, why add useless wheels within wheels that explain
nothing to otherwise nice theories?
To take into account the discovery already made by arithmetical machine
that there is a transcendental truth
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
you can not live without a form of religion
Speak for yourself, I've been living without religion since i was 12.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I believe in science.
That is my religion.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
you can not live without a form of religion
Speak for yourself, I've been living without
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
I believe in science.
That is my religion.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 December 2013 04:24, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
One of the most perverse tricks that the system played on us, in my
opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should raise the
kids. Sure,
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense.
Here's a funny example:
The Leipzig secular solstice celebration:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
Could you give an
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
How do you relate
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous religion. And
RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without a form of religion or religions
like you can not live alone.
On 12/5/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Dec 2013, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot
I have already insist that God cannot be part of the explanation. We
agree on this.
Then I repeat
Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
BTW it is not dogma that I believe in.
Richard
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can
entertain the idea for an argument or a theory that's all) and QI could in
principle be proven false... A religion by being based on faith cannot.
Quentin
2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Who can tell me that
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe in science. That is my religion.
Yes, but only if the meaning of the sequential ASCII characters
r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n is anything you think is important. Some people are far
more interested in the sound of words
They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for another
one.
-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
I can. The defining characteristic of religious people is being seldom
correct but always certain, and so quantum immortality is not a religion
because I'm far
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI
but there seem to be plenty on this list.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
Quentin wrote:
*A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.*
*(*addressed to Richard's:I believe in science.That is my religion.)
It is a questionable semantic situation what one can call an 'axiom', or
even
a math-groundrule (like: primes are primes ) what (I
John,
I learned my physics dogma at Harvard Grad School.
Before that I was a mechanical engineer.
Richard
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Quentin wrote:
*A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.*
*(*addressed to
-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can
entertain the idea
On 12/5/2013 1:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com
They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for
another one.
If they were proven false, what's your explanation of why the catholic church still
exists and has
But despite fundamentalism, like what killed Islamic science,
it is here for good. (Any interpretation of the ambiguity will do)
Rich
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 spudboy...@aol.com
They
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Dec 2013, at 01:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and
outside the faith. God, in
Two more remarks:
I´m astonished contemplating how people can contemplate with horror the
belief in a god that they thing that it does not exist and accept the
belief in worldly lies and praise completely invented myths about their
favorite heroes Even if they know that are false. That Kim Jon
Hi Alberto,
I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense.
Here's a funny example:
The Leipzig secular solstice celebration:
http://lesswrong.com/meetups/u6
Here's a video of some guy who's trying to become a priest for atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vIFloLATxo
(I
On 5 December 2013 04:24, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Hi Alberto,
Everyone should have at least one psychedelic experience. This would
change the world faster and better than any ideology.
It was saying that sort of thing that got Doctor Timothy Leary locked up,
bless him.
On 5 December 2013 04:24, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
One of the most perverse tricks that the system played on us, in my
opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should raise the
kids. Sure, people spend a couple of hours with them between days spent
working
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03-Dec-2013, at 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and
Yes.
Consider another example: when a software is designed which accepts user
inputs, all possible inputs are considered and responses coded accordingly. So,
when the software is bring used, the user provides whatever input he wills, but
his possible choices are already known.
And another
The best example I know of along these lines is photosynthesis.
Allow me to quote from the most recent Journal of Neuroquantology:
The superposition of a particle, enabling it to exist in a number of
different states or locations simultaneously, is an idea that has been used
to study how
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot
Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot
make 17 into a composite number. God obeys to logic,
So the God theory has zero explanatory power
That does not follow.
I think it does.
On 02 Dec 2013, at 20:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:45 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:46, Samiya Illias wrote:
Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages:
On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of
How can a grown (wo)man be NOT atheist?
Answer: by cutting out logics and to BELIEVE what religious enslavers want
him/her to believe and by subjecting himself to the rules of (that
particular) religion and/or te RULER behind it. If a 'grown person' does
not 'believe' in the religious fables about
On 02 Dec 2013, at 00:51, Jesse Mazer wrote:
To add to my last comment, the article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/
mentions that Leibniz was among those philosophers who
distinguished between necessary and contingent truths, and only
granted God the power to change
No reason at all. I'm just sharing my understanding on the topic, so that
1) if I'm wrong, someone will point out the flaw in my understanding
2) if my understanding is generally pointing towards the correct theory /
belief, perhaps it'll be of use to someone.
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote:
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God?
Making It consistent is not really limiting it.
Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to
inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism.
(that is why atheists
By the way, Tegmark has a new book coming out Jan 14, I do recall.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 2 December 2013 12:51, Jesse
, and yet, We the Who in
Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
This is strange! What
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every
possible meaning of the word.
I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and
theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the
laws of math and logic, and does
, and
yet, We the Who in Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
This is strange
What I say is that atheism is NOT an option.
Not only because Chesterton said that anyone who does nor believe in God
will en up believing in anything, but also because that is in the structure
of the human mind as is know by personal introspection (the greek
philosophers), historical experiience
I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are
necessary attributes of God.
When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He
doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God
reserves the power and the right to
On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect
in every possible meaning of the word.
Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard
subject)
Here, you might hope that God will succeed in
The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is
perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible
for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic
are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
What I say is that atheism is NOT an option.
Ok, you appear to be alluding to something deeper than the need to overcome
prisoner dilemmas.
I recognise that there is a need to put something at the root of the
Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages:
On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by
Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive,
It reads that it was a great trial from God.
At another place, it reads that
You explained it yourself: '
so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '.
Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently
making a fool of myself :)
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages:
On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by
Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept
alive, It
On 02 Dec 2013, at 14:58, Jesse Mazer wrote:
The Muslim philosophers and theologians I have found addressing the
issue seem to agree that there are necessary truths that God
cannot change, which include logical necessity. Examples:
From http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/K057 on Abu
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot make
17 into a composite number. God obeys to logic,
So the God theory has zero explanatory power and even if God does exist He
is just as mystified as
On 12/2/2013 1:04 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
No reason at all. I'm just sharing my understanding on the topic, so that
No, you are just asserting your position. That's not understanding. Understanding
something implies knowing reasons why it might be true, being able to infer consequences
On 12/2/2013 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote:
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God?
Making It consistent is not really limiting it.
Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology,
which is
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:46, Samiya Illias wrote:
Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages:
On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of
Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and
females kept alive, It reads that it was a great
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the
faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is
worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans
have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do
501 - 600 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
