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 t
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 th
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
a
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 to why there is
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 6:46 PM, 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
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 wrote:
> The f
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 know
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> 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
ontology, and also a need
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 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 consolatin
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 do
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
A ridiculous statement, and
> yet, We the Who in Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samiya Illias
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am
> Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
>
> This is str
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 not
, and yet, We the Who in
Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We b
By the way, Tegmark has a new book coming out Jan 14, I do recall.
-Original Message-
From: LizR
To: everything-list
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 Mazer wrote:
To add to my last comment, the article
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 d
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 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 con
On 02 Dec 2013, at 00:13, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the
issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic,
Yes. After St-Thomas, most catholic theologian agree that God cannot
make 17 into a composite number. God obeys to
On 12/1/2013 9:11 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the
Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God
wills and allows it to be.
That's what you say you believe. But is there any reas
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is
the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal.
Everything is as God wills and allows it to be.
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Most theistic philosophers
On 2 December 2013 12:51, 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 co
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 contingent ones. Here's a
relevant bit from the article:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.
>
Ok, but here I think "government" is meant as some pre-existing complexity.
While the laws of physics are simpler than their outcome, the christian god
is more complex that its ou
Agnosticism should be the "religion" of the state.
On 2 December 2013 11:33, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.
>
> There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society,
> and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes
Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.
There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society,
and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke
(let the state work without religion), that later became ideological
(atheism is the religion o
Nice video!
Yes even Fred Hoyle fell down on understanding what's possible with simple
rules and a large number of iterations.
On 2 December 2013 10:59, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the unive
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR wrote:
> Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
> say.
>
I agree. People underestimate the complexity that can arise from
multiplying simple behaviours by many entities. Here's a beautiful example:
http://vimeo.com/1625689
Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
say.
On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough wrote:
> How can a grown man be an atheist ?
>
> An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can
> function without some form of government.
>
> How silly.
>
>
> Dr
601 - 631 of 631 matches
Mail list logo
