On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
If a machine equates God with ultimate reality,
I do not... I don't equate god with anything.
Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God.
As I said, I cannot define God by
A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash.
Does evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection? Whose
the programmer?
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:40 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually Crick
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 05:37, meekerdb wrote:
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
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
If a machine equates God with ultimate reality,
I do not... I don't equate god with anything.
Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
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,
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
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:05, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
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
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
We're just guessing on this Samiya, or our ancestors, really. What God may be,
is may not exactly fit the Omni,characterizations. Moreover, being a practical,
American, we have to know, in a self-interested way, what good/benefit does
knowing about God do for us. A ridiculous statement, and
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
Maybe. I'm a Muslim and the more I learn of science, the more convinced I get
of the authenticity of the Quran. Hence, when I read about the purpose of this
life and the hereafter, I do take it very seriously.
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:54 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
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
But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the
laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect,
with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases?
Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is
independent of God
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 Hamid al-Ghazali,
who rejected causal necessity but
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
If a machine equates God with ultimate reality,
I do not... I don't
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 10:26, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
If a machine equates God with ultimate reality,
I do not... I don't equate god with anything.
Which
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
On 12/2/2013 12:55 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash. Does
evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection?
Natural selection is just part of evolution, a consequence of life reproducing
exponentially so that
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 12/2/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 05:37, meekerdb wrote:
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
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 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether
a thing exists we must first know its properties.
Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather precise
notion of God to
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them.
That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they
can judged other people, reward and punish them.
Why do you credit such things. Why can you
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 12/2/2013 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to have assumed the task is to find something label with the word God. I
say let us be modest and use words for what we know.
Let us be genuinely modest. We know about nothing, and all we can do is agreeing on some
axioms.
A logicians
On 12/2/2013 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:05, meekerdb wrote:
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,
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
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/2/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 05:37, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:52, John Clark wrote:
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
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
If a
On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before
we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its
properties.
Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to
But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic,
which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction,
no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would
be within God's power or not?
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias
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 Israel by
Pharoah, such that the male children
No, I just do not want to speculate about something I really have not given
much thought to or can contribute by 'thinking' on it. The little that I've
read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only seem to go
round and round in their efforts to make sense of it.
Samiya
but priginally you responded to my comment about God and logic by saying This
is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? which I took to mean you
were expressing a definite disagreement with the idea that God was
limited to acts consistent with the laws of logic. Did I misunderstand,
and
On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
God as understood by billions people on earth...
Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again.
But they can't be wrong about what their words mean to them.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading
atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people
(especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist
in
On 12/2/2013 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also
misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to
atheist people (especially belgians)...
On 3 December 2013 09:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/2/2013 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also
misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to
atheist
On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also
misleading
On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote:
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
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36,
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
God as understood by billions people on earth...
Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again.
But they can't be wrong about what their words
On 12/2/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I don't think it's so simple as applying Occam's razor. In my example red is an
experience that from the perspective of conscious thoughts may have no explanation,
i.e. is fundamental.
Like the guy in Washington cannot explain why he is the one
On 12/2/2013 12:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also
misleading
atheistic position, and you're
On 12/2/2013 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/2
On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
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
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 eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a
God, to me, means an All-Powerful, Able to Do All, deity. That is my belief.
What I'm saying is that I do not have an answer to the question you pose, and
if I try, I'll simply be speculating about what I really do not know or have a
way of knowing. There may be a very good explanation for this
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 outside
the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every
On 3 December 2013 11:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 December 2013 16:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
MOND is an alternative
On 12/2/2013 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 December 2013 11:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/2/2013 1:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 December 2013 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/1/2013 7:35 PM,
On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally
Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit
of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports.
So are
68 matches
Mail list logo
