As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual
sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities.
And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in
the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists.
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual
sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities.
And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in
the universe and in
If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so
seriously.
Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment.
2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so
seriously.
Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment.
Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish.
2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
You know that it is not
By the way, I´m glad that you recovered from the punch and adopted the
standard superiority mode of atheistic conversation that I find sooo lovely
2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
If what I said were
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An,
Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu,
Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart,
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
You know that it is not
By the way, I´m glad that you recovered from the punch and adopted the
standard superiority mode of atheistic conversation that I find sooo lovely
Well, you use the standard rethoric... you don't discuss, so... That's
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi,
Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis,
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact, materialism cannot explain matter, either. Worst, it
avoids trying to explain it at the start.
It's not worse, it's logic. Whatever is taken as fundamental in a
theory is not something
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich,
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis
On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote:
We exist,
OK.
then why should we reject the idea of having been created,
Or of having a non physical origin. creation involves the idea of
someone doing something with something, and so that idea take some
something for granted, and so
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote:
We exist,
OK.
then why should we reject the idea of having been created,
Or of having a non physical origin. creation involves the idea of
someone doing something with something, and so that
On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An,
Anansi, Anat,
On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich,
On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Is that not intellectual dishonesty?
It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and
presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts.
Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they
replace it
Some basic principles of Leibniz's Idealism
1. Everything that exists has two aspects, essence (mind or monad) and existent
(object).
This is a localized version of Berkeley's overall Idealism. Essence, being
mental, is outside of spacetime
while the existent (a corporeal body) is
A conjecture: Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism
According to Leibniz's Idealism, everything that exists has two aspects,
1, essence (mind or monad or what we here conjecture is a quantum wave),
which is outside of spacetime, and
2. existent (physical particle or
Dr. Clough:
1, essence (mind or monad or what we here conjecture is a quantum wave), which
is outside of spacetime
Do you, personally, define spacetime, as the Hubble Volume? I like substance
dualism, and I also like quantum dualism, more, precisely. Do you envision an
infinite field of
Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or uninformed
description, given that the idea he is best-known for is that the hard
problem of first-person qualia can never be solved by materialist
explanations (even if the so-called easy problem of explaining
third-person behaviors,
Babies Have Self-Awareness From The Minute They're Born
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/babies-self-awareness_n_4323481.html
By: By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer
Published: 11/21/2013 12:10 PM EST on LiveScience
With their uncoordinated movements and unfocused eyes, newborns
By materialist, he really means atheist or non-Christian.
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 12:04:50 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or uninformed
description, given that the idea he is best-known for is that the hard
problem of first-person
On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken),
On 01 Dec 2013, at 18:04, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or
uninformed description, given that the idea he is best-known for is
that the hard problem of first-person qualia can never be solved
by materialist explanations (even if the
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can
On 30 November 2013 05:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, I disagree. The atheists say the definition of Earth (God) in the
sacred text is an infinite plane (fairy tale). We know there is no infinite
plane below us, (we disbelief fairy tales) thus we correct our theory of
Earth
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. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
---
This email is free from viruses
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. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
---
This email is free from viruses
Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would
say.
On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 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
On 30 November 2013 12:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Thanks for the explanations. Ok, I think I now understand why dark
matter is the best hypothesis.
It is, to date. Neverthless, you would have been quite correct had it been
the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that you
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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:
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 te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Because there are no obvious
On 30 November 2013 03:58, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
1)
Atheists say: Prove to me your existence and I will trust you.
God says: Trust me and I will prove to you my existence.
Agnostic says: Trust me, neither of you can prove or show the other
anything at
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
Agnosticism should be the religion of the state.
On 2 December 2013 11:33, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 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
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 have
the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists
might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
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
Liz,
There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From
wiki-dark matter
- 3.1 Galaxy rotation
curveshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_rotation_curves
- 3.2 Velocity dispersions of
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:
Thanks, that's an impressive list. I'd be rather surprised if bolt-on
extras to GR can explain all those.
On 2 December 2013 12:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
There are 7 other repeatable observations explained by dark matter. From
wiki-dark matter
- 3.1 Galaxy
On 2 December 2013 12:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com 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
Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'?
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, that's an impressive list. I'd be rather surprised if bolt-on
extras to GR can explain all those.
On 2 December 2013 12:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories. Although it looks like it's
actually bolt-on extras to Newtonian gravitation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
On 2 December 2013 14:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain what you mean by 'bolt-on extras to GR'?
--
I should have said that by ad hoc I mean with no, or little, theoretical
justification. That is, adjusting the threoy to fit the data, but with for
no compelling theoretical justification.
On 2 December 2013 15:42, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ad hoc modifications to our existing theories.
MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying
gravity.
Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian)
IMO John Moffat has a much better mod-gravity theory
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506021.pdf
wiki-Moffat: He proposes a variable speed of
On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying
gravity.
Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras)
Dark Matter results when gravity is not modified. (pure Newtonian)
Or rather
On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created,
Because we discovered that we evolved?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
Moffat even does away with renormalization.
The acid test was to be the fine structure constant being time dependent.
But that was not repeatable for a south hemisphere telescope whose name I
forget.
The two Keck Telescopes were built at Litton ITEK in Lexington, MA where I
worked for a few
On 12/1/2013 12:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
but there is no known proof (or even an argument offered by materialists)
that
matter cannot be explained in terms of something simpler.
Of course not. That would the point the it's fundamental.
The point of Jason if I may, is
Evolution is also a part of creation!
The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of
procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand
act of creation!
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/1/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah
Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar,
Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares,
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 laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Most
On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
On 12/1/2013 3:32 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
As such, you should restrain from using that word, it's useless.
What term would you suggest?
What about ultimate reality ? Because that's what you say it means... It's neutral,
does not have all the connotations linked with the word
On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and
presented not as
a religion, but as scientific facts.
Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace
it
without saying by another
On 12/1/2013 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Using God for the ultimate reality, it seems to me, can in the long run enlarge the
listening and the understanding of what the machines are already telling us.
Not as much as using ultimate reality for ultimate reality. One must suspect you have
Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator.
Brent
On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Evolution is also a part of creation!
The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and
the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand
On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
MOND is an alternative explanation that replaces Dark Matter by modifying
gravity.
Yes (hence the flippant remark about bolt on extras)
Dark Matter results
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
On 12/1/2013 10:30 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed
it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God.
Evolution is designed, it's a simple consequence of random variation and it's consequences
for reproduction. That's why
Actually Crick designed the perfect means for DNA replication (I think that
was it) without any errors
long before it was established empirically. When experimenters finally
discovered how nature did it,
it turned out that nature's method produced occasional errors.
So the system of evolution is
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
63 matches
Mail list logo
