Fwd: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[meekerdb]

Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of
whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is
implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable
truths of arithmetic".

Brent


-------- Original Message --------



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/


Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about religion that I
am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Daniel Garber, a
professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in
the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a wrap-up column on
the series."

...

Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny that the arguments
for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that
proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious discussion outside
of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my sense is that the
discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone out of
the question."

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:

> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested
> in the question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about
> it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism,
> and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of
> arithmetic".

How do you know that? How could you know that. IF comp is true, and if
Christianism is true, the meeting with St-Ptere and the "dogma" of the
Church might well be among the unprovable truth (unprovable by you and
similar) of arithmetic.
I doubt this, of course, but we just don't know. What is true and even
provable, is that if we are consistent, in that case the discourse of
the christians should be mute on this, and the Christians should just
trust God for the advertising. So the behavior of some Christians
might be inconsistent with arithmetic, but not necessarily the
doctrine. But then the behavior of most institutionalized religion is
already inconsistent or unsound with arithmetic, and the
institutionalization is consistent like the provability of the false
is consistent (but unsound) with arithmetic. That would mean that
institutionalization *is* the theological trap that the machines
already warn us against.

Bruno

>
> Brent
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
>
>
> Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews
> about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee
> for this installment is Daniel Garber, a professor of philosophy at
> Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in the
> period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a
> wrap-up column on the series."
>
> ...
>
> Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would
> deny that the arguments for the existence of God have been
> decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that proofs for
> the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious
> discussion outside of the domain of professional philosophy of
> religion. And even there, my sense is that the discussions are
> largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone out
> of the question."
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[LizR]

Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny that the arguments for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious discussion outside of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my sense is that the discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone out of the question."

Maybe he'd like to discuss that with ISIS and their ilk.

[spudb...@aol.com]

Brian Cox is selling a book (uk scientist) and considers atheism naïve, but he isn't a believer, and his books goes into life, ET's and size of the cosmos. Because of biology, he's a rare earther. The better question is-does God satisfy one's intellectual and emotional needs, or does it Offend them? That's a primo question.

 

 

[meekerdb]

On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:

Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic".

How do you know that? How could you know that.

I read the interview.  For example

D.G.: I’m not a believer, so I’m not in a position to say. First of all, it’s worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don’t come from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case for believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a benevolent God could allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils like devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always been a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, figured out how to accommodate themselves to it.

It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism.  If he were referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there would be no "problem of evil" for that god.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:

Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic".

How do you know that? How could you know that.

I read the interview.  For example

D.G.: I’m not a believer, so I’m not in a position to say. First of all, it’s worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don’t come from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case for believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a benevolent God could allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils like devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always been a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, figured out how to accommodate themselves to it.

It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism.  If he were referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there would be no "problem of evil" for that god.

On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and evil related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person perspective yet understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to justify and be confronted with that very problem.

There is a problem of evil in arithmetic. Is there a hell, for example, that is how long can we endure a pain? Does qualitative pains augment or diminish with the number of neurons, or the size of the relative numbers?

Well, with comp the math is there for the theology (including physics) of the ideally correct machine, or more exactly of the person canonically associated (by incompleteness) by the machine to itself in the arithmetical reality.

I am interested in all human theologies, because they can reflect the experience of machine successful in introspection, but in practice you can distinguish the genuine theologies, which encourage the personal research and the use of reason, and the non genuine theologies which invoke the talk of one machine and imposes some  literal interpretation to others and basically prevents, in one way or another, the personal research.

It is madness to separate science and religion. It creates the many pseudo-religions and the many pseudo-sciences.

Religion is the only goal: religare, relating and unifying the knowable. Looking for the "theo": the ultimate panorama, or a glimpse of it.

And science is the only tool, with the help of art, music, experiments and experiences.

Arithmetical truth is not God per se. It is only so in the sense that it appears for machines to behave like Plotinus describes the One, and corrected Aristotle through the Parmenides, and this in a coherent way with respect to assume that consciousness is invariant for some digital permutations.

Note that the existence of pain is easy to understand from Darwin theory, but the making of the qualia remains far from easy to understand. Even with having the Z* \ Z  logics describing the non communicable parts of the first person experiences. Pains might result from hidden self-lies or something.

Bruno

Brent

IF comp is true, and if Christianism is true, the meeting with St-Ptere and the "dogma" of the Church might well be among the unprovable truth (unprovable by you and similar) of arithmetic.
I doubt this, of course, but we just don't know. What is true and even provable, is that if we are consistent, in that case the discourse of the christians should be mute on this, and the Christians should just trust God for the advertising. So the behavior of some Christians might be inconsistent with arithmetic, but not necessarily the doctrine. But then the behavior of most institutionalized religion is already inconsistent or unsound with arithmetic, and the institutionalization is consistent like the provability of the false is consistent (but unsound) with arithmetic. That would mean that institutionalization *is* the theological trap that the machines already warn us against.

Bruno

Brent


-------- Original Message --------



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/


Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Daniel Garber, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I'll conclude with a wrap-up column on the series."

...

Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny that the arguments for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious discussion outside of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my sense is that the discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone out of the question."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 10/8/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:

Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic".

How do you know that? How could you know that.

I read the interview.  For example

D.G.: I’m not a believer, so I’m not in a position to say. First of all, it’s worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don’t come from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case for believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a benevolent God could allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils like devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always been a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, figured out how to accommodate themselves to it.

It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism.  If he were referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there would be no "problem of evil" for that god.

On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and evil related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person perspective yet understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to justify and be confronted with that very problem.

But under computationlism it's not a problem.  The is no presumption that a computable world is morally good by human standards.

Brent

[Jason Resch]

Under computationalism, all possible worlds and all possible observers exist and there's nothing God can do about it. God can no more make certain observers or observations not exist than make 2 + 2 = 3. However, a benevolent theistic god under computationalism (with access to unlimited computing resources) could nonetheless "save" beings who existed in other worlds by continuing the computation of their minds.

Jason

[meekerdb]

You say "could" as though he had a choice, meaning He's not part of the computable world and is not one of the "all possible observers".  Seems to me that he will have to both save everyone and also torture everyone in hell.

Brent

[Samiya Illias]

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Samiya 

--

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

--
Stathis Papaioannou

[Samiya Illias]

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Samiya

--
Stathis Papaioannou

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Samiya

Concerning the goal you set yourself, of illustrating factual equivalence of Qu'ran with scientific perspectives today, here is one, which I don't share on many levels (a bit condescending at times, but at least he singles out what seem to be pertinent issues), but that I can understand and relate to on a few:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

The very idea "factual accuracy of Qu'ran" is framed to be a major means, and common meme in arguing for "recruitment" (propaganda danger), something, I think we can agree, a transcendental being of any sort, wouldn't need unless they had psychological issues and needed to see a doctor or shaman, in which case...:-)

I hope this addresses some of your concerns as most here have little experience with content. PGC 

[Jason Resch]

He/They are of the all possible observers.

 

Seems to me that he will have to both save everyone and also torture everyone in hell.

Some comp theistic gods may do such things, but I think such "evil gods" would be comparatively rare.

 

Jason

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Samiya

The multiverse doesn't seem to be purpose built, it seems to be random.

[Samiya Illias]

I have read the link and see your drift. Though I disagree with the points made in it, and have addressed some of them already in my blog, however, I do not think you wish me to discuss/refute the arguments here. That's okay :) 

Samiya  

[Samiya Illias]

On 09-Oct-2014, at 9:53 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Samiya

The multiverse doesn't seem to be purpose built, it seems to be random. 

I do not think the current multiverse model is correct. I am more inclined to think of the multiverse in terms of concentric seven layers (seven heavens in the scripture).  I've been thinking about it for a while but I need to study this further before I'm comfortable taking a position on it. 

Samiya 

--Stathis Papaioannou

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 8:06 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Samiya

Concerning the goal you set yourself, of illustrating factual equivalence of Qu'ran with scientific perspectives today, here is one, which I don't share on many levels (a bit condescending at times, but at least he singles out what seem to be pertinent issues), but that I can understand and relate to on a few:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

The very idea "factual accuracy of Qu'ran" is framed to be a major means, and common meme in arguing for "recruitment" (propaganda danger), something, I think we can agree, a transcendental being of any sort, wouldn't need unless they had psychological issues and needed to see a doctor or shaman, in which case...:-)

I hope this addresses some of your concerns as most here have little experience with content. PGC 

I have read the link and see your drift. Though I disagree with the points made in it, and have addressed some of them already in my blog, however, I do not think you wish me to discuss/refute the arguments here.

My wishes are beside the matter.

It's you that claims this kind of correctness in Qu'ran, making it the basis of your reasoning and exchanges on this list and your blog, if I recall correctly.

It's not even off-topic in this thread, as scientists apparently care about religion as this example shows, especially when a claim to facts and valid reasoning is made. Or you could start another thread.

That would be ok.

And no, I am not uncomfortable with you refuting arguments. Quite the contrary, if it is done in a fashion that doesn't invoke faith authoritatively, a discourse climate that is open to inquiry and critical examination, without confusing criticism/disagreement with personal attack, then no problem.

From here at least, we can verify a perspective that contrasts with yours, which is better than making sense of your claims exclusively, as we are not native readers, culturally.

That is, if you care in the end about demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course. PGC

 

[Bruno Marchal]

We can ask the universal person, but good, like truth can't be defined, although there might be approximations. It is not easy.

There is indeed no presumption on this, nor attempt to wishful thinking, but the question of pains, hell, all that is still open, even for a physicalist. Even for the case of the ideally correct machine. 

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Samiya Illias]

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Oct 2014, at 05:35, Samiya Illias wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

There is a purpose to things relatively to other things and/or the everything. It might be like a god playing hide and seek with itself. The intrinsic purpose is to remember or to recognize one-self, may be, but some will pursue the illusions and that's OK too.

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

They assume nature, and intention for nature. Not sure about nature, but intentions exist in elementary arithmetic (assuming computationalism). Not all can be satisfied.

Religion is the purpose,

science is the tool,

contemplation and spiritual transport are the result, when science is done properly, which we learn by experiences.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored.

Concerning your link, I'd see that as less on-topic for following simple reason:

That's interpretation without a critical position against it, and this is perhaps why there is a disconnect between some of your claims and how some members, including myself, react.

A positive aspect of science is that, when done correctly, we are not forced to trust interpretations. That's why it would be more instructive for me to see you address the points in the Foundalis link, rather than what you have interpreted and convinced yourself of already.

It creates perspective, that would enrich your points perhaps. As a tool, science tests ideas and reasoning; and contrasting a perspective that differs from yours, and you refuting it, would tell me much more than personal interpretation you link to above. PGC

[Samiya Illias]

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:42 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored. 

In the foundalis link you sent, under 1.2, it quotes Quran Chapter 18 and goes on to discuss the verses in it. It discusses Dhul Qarnayn's travels. Therefore I sent my blogpost' link. I have presented my study and interpretation of other aspects of Chapter 18 also in my blog listed under blog archive. I sent that link just as an example. 

If you find the approach not critical enough, perhaps you can do it in a more scientific manner, if it interests you. 

I can critically try to understand the Quran, looking up meanings and science research on the topic, but I cannot take the falsifiable approach simply because I'm convinced that the Arabic text of the Quran is from God, the Master-Creator, while scientific knowledge is what we are discovering. So, for me personally, the scripture takes precedence. 

Samiya 

[meekerdb]

On 10/9/2014 9:53 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or purpose for everything? 

Also, what do you think of this: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html 

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Samiya

The multiverse doesn't seem to be purpose built, it seems to be random.

--Stathis Papaioannou

If it's purpose built, the purpose must be to let dark matter form clumps.

Brent
“If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles.”
   --- J.B.S. Haldane

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, for me personally, the scripture takes precedence. 

Samiya 

Thank you for being honest. Maybe you might note this on your blog as an introduction to save peoples' time in their personal searches: I thought you were trying to show that science and Qu'ran are not as contradictory as people may think.

But I was wrong, because it appears you are using science as a marketing/religious conversion tool to advance your interpretation of the scripture, which ultimately "takes precedence" whenever there appears to be contradiction, as you say.

On a personal note, taking less literal approach to sacred texts, I agree with some members that religion and science need not fight for dominance. But many disagree with me on this. PGC

[John Mikes]

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 

What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood. Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 

We don't know what is good, or bad, what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God. I disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all - changes are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not. 

I don't repeat the chorus: who created the Creator? (Again a point way beyond our mental capabilities). 

Human science works on theories - explanations of the unexplained - axioms - necessary conditions for the theories to work - and consequences - reduced to the level of the up-to-date functioning of our mental capablity. 

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. 

I find it remarkable that your Quran-quote extendes to geography discovered way after (into?) Hedzhra also the cosmology formulated during the recent times and chemistry of the last 100 years (ozon?) - maybe they are included only in the paraphernalia. 

I would love to read about the other animals as well including non-terrestrials.

Have a good time, and forgive my interruption

John Mikes

 

[Samiya Illias]

On 10-Oct-2014, at 3:21 am, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)

I tried to answer, to which you've referred to above. Beyond that, even I don't know. I suppose I was always blessed with faith, and life experiences and the wondrous world of scientific discovery only served to increase the faith and make me value the blessing of faith and scripture! 

 I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We believe, as we have been informed in the Quran, that Prophet Mohammad was not given a new religion. Rather, it is a continuation and repetition of the same message which was sent throughout the ages through many messengers to all nations. Prophet Mohammed is unique in that he is the last in the series of messengers and the Quran revealed through him is a message of warning and good tidings for all humans and djinns. Therefore, it's divinely preserved in its original language and therefore it is important that we study it diligently. 

Scriptures are revealed for our information and guidance. If I may quote an example from the Quran, the purpose of scriptures is that they be studied: 

Holy Quran 62:5

------------------

مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا ۚ بِئْسَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

'The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.'

We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 

What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood. Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 

We don't know what is good, or bad, what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God. I disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all - changes are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not. 

I don't repeat the chorus: who created the Creator? (Again a point way beyond our mental capabilities). 

Human science works on theories - explanations of the unexplained - axioms - necessary conditions for the theories to work - and consequences - reduced to the level of the up-to-date functioning of our mental capablity. 

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. 

I find it remarkable that your Quran-quote extendes to geography discovered way after (into?) Hedzhra also the cosmology formulated during the recent times and chemistry of the last 100 years (ozon?) - maybe they are included only in the paraphernalia. 

If I may quote again three verses from Chapter 41: 

Holy Quran 41:3

------------------

كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know,

Holy Quran 41:4

------------------

بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا فَأَعْرَضَ أَكْثَرُهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ

As a giver of good tidings and a warner; but most of them turn away, so they do not hear.

Holy Quran 41:53

------------------

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

I would love to read about the other animals as well including non-terrestrials. 

Have a good time, and forgive my interruption

John Mikes

Thanks for writing. 

Samiya 

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

I am not a muslim, but I also disagree with the fundamental premise of Foundalis, which I quote below. I claim that just the opposite is true. A theory that explains already existing data is considered less important or impressive than one that predicts data that does not yet exist. Example are numerous, but Einstein's GR is the best known example.

"In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and then we see which theory explains best the data."

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> nobody knows anything about God,

Including if He exists.

> nor can we observe God.

Rather like Santa Claus.

> However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be purpose-built

If the multiverse exists then we have a perfect explanation of why our particular universe seems so compatible to life, at least in a few special places; and if the multiverse does not exist then the God theory is of no help in explaining the mystery because it immediately suggests another even larger mystery that I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out.  No theory at all is vastly superior to a theory that is self evidently stupid. 

> and the scripture

Scripture? Oh yes the tails your mommy and daddy told you before you were old enough to walk.

 

>also speaks of a purpose-built creation. 

Who the hell gives a damn what some ignorant Bronze Age tribe has to say on the subject?

 John K Clark

 

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

I am not a muslim, but I also disagree with the fundamental premise of Foundalis, which I quote below. I claim that just the opposite is true. A theory that explains already existing data is considered less important or impressive than one that predicts data that does not yet exist. Example are numerous, but Einstein's GR is the best known example.

"In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and then we see which theory explains best the data."

The point was that in respectful scientific discourse we can pick out and take issue with something at all, which you intuitively did above. I don't agree with black and white rendering of this particular problem you quote either.

But exclusively first person interpretation of a text with complex cultural history, without some distanced perspective, or reference to scientific discourse or facts in some form... to people unfamiliar with the text gives us little to no reference points for discussion.

We run increased/higher risk of confusing personal spiritual posture with shareable scientific facts in reference to some theory, which is already a given in such discussion.

At least Foundalis provides a reference point we can discuss (and disagree about, no problem) without hitting the wall of fundamental differences again and again, which itself spells hope of seeing the others' point and fostering the kind of understanding and tolerance that is more genuine than "Ok, to be culturally/politically correct and polite, I will believe you".

The latter runs nowhere and confirms the religious' skeptic's stance of "ok, they just want to brainwash me with ideology, instead of having a discussion where we can see eye to eye." PGC

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 

What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood.

That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the perspective of the universal numbers.

Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 

Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.

We don't know what is good, or bad,

I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the main things I think all the mammals knows the difference between good (like eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, burning, etc.).

Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.

Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.

what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God.

Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God? 

Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying?

I disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all - changes are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not. 

In the big picture, I agree. from inside, the frontier between the deterministic and the non deterministic is infinitely complex.

I don't repeat the chorus: who created the Creator?

A swarm of numbers.

(Again a point way beyond our mental capabilities). 

To be sure, yes, to grasp as a possible theory, it is different. You can't use an argument for something beyond our mental capabilities as a refutation of a theory. This would no more be agnosticism, but use of a metaphysical principle to discard a class of theories, without argument.

The point being here that numbers can see their own limitations, and grasp that truth extends properly their justifiability abilities.

Human science works on theories - explanations of the unexplained - axioms - necessary conditions for the theories to work - and consequences - reduced to the level of the up-to-date functioning of our mental capablity. 

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. 

Absolutely so :)

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Samiya Illias]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 

What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood.

That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the perspective of the universal numbers.

Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 

Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.

We don't know what is good, or bad,

I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the main things I think all the mammals knows the difference between good (like eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, burning, etc.).

Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.

Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.

what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God.

Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God? 

Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying? 

No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply. 

[3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire. 

Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider the following verses about him: 

[2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. 

[6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall] (Remember) when Abraham said unto his father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not things that set. And when he saw the moon uprising, he exclaimed: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. And when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater! And when it set he exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that ye associate (with Him).

PS: in 6:76, the word that's translated as star I think should be translated as planet.  

And I think the following verses partially address the question John Mikes hesitates to ask: 

[33:72-73  Translator: Pickthall] Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool. So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women, and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. 

Samiya 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Oct 2014, at 21:06, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:42 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored. 

In the foundalis link you sent, under 1.2, it quotes Quran Chapter 18 and goes on to discuss the verses in it. It discusses Dhul Qarnayn's travels. Therefore I sent my blogpost' link. I have presented my study and interpretation of other aspects of Chapter 18 also in my blog listed under blog archive. I sent that link just as an example. 

If you find the approach not critical enough, perhaps you can do it in a more scientific manner, if it interests you. 

I can critically try to understand the Quran, looking up meanings and science research on the topic, but I cannot take the falsifiable approach simply because I'm convinced that the Arabic text of the Quran is from God, the Master-Creator, while scientific knowledge is what we are discovering. So, for me personally, the scripture takes precedence. 

This is problematic. You leave the scientific attitude, and you make a quasi infinite argument per authority error. Like the catholic church which at least condemn literalism. You might be the one doing the blasphemy, asserting knowing a public relationship with god.

It is equivalent with: by definition I do right and you do wrong. Your literalism is equivalent with insulting all believers not sharing your assumption, pursuing different ways. 

It would be more appropriate to search on what we all share about God.

I advocate the scientific attitude in theology. Literalism does not help. How could we ever "religare" the literalists in different traditions? How can you be literalist about a subject as complex as God, known for having no real name, no image, being inconceivable, etc.  Your attitude prevents the doubt which makes possible the progress. I think.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Oct 2014, at 05:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 10-Oct-2014, at 3:21 am, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)

I tried to answer, to which you've referred to above. Beyond that, even I don't know. I suppose I was always blessed with faith, and life experiences and the wondrous world of scientific discovery only served to increase the faith and make me value the blessing of faith and scripture! 

 I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We believe, as we have been informed in the Quran, that Prophet Mohammad was not given a new religion. Rather, it is a continuation and repetition of the same message which was sent throughout the ages through many messengers to all nations. Prophet Mohammed is unique in that he is the last in the series of messengers and the Quran revealed through him is a message of warning and good tidings for all humans and djinns. Therefore, it's divinely preserved in its original language and therefore it is important that we study it diligently. 

Mohammad was a man. All man can fail, he is not a god. You can't be sure it was always listening well, or even understanding him. My reading of the Quran makes me doubt he was under the same inspiration. The text is historical, and not easy to understand, translate or interpret. It is a witnessing of many part of the old bible, and the gospels, but it remains a text, which can only scratch the surface. 

Scriptures are revealed for our information and guidance. If I may quote an example from the Quran, the purpose of scriptures is that they be studied: 

Holy Quran 62:5

------------------

مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا ۚ بِئْسَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

'The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.'

We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 

What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood. Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 

We don't know what is good, or bad, what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God. I disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all - changes are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not. 

I don't repeat the chorus: who created the Creator? (Again a point way beyond our mental capabilities). 

Human science works on theories - explanations of the unexplained - axioms - necessary conditions for the theories to work - and consequences - reduced to the level of the up-to-date functioning of our mental capablity. 

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. 

I find it remarkable that your Quran-quote extendes to geography discovered way after (into?) Hedzhra also the cosmology formulated during the recent times and chemistry of the last 100 years (ozon?) - maybe they are included only in the paraphernalia. 

If I may quote again three verses from Chapter 41: 

Holy Quran 41:3

------------------

كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know,

Holy Quran 41:4

------------------

بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا فَأَعْرَضَ أَكْثَرُهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ

As a giver of good tidings and a warner; but most of them turn away, so they do not hear.

But Allah will handle that situation all by IT/HIM/HERself, he does not give to some humans the right to handle that in his name.

That would be the given of a right of authoritative argument, and all the fight.

Only bad faith use authoritative argument.

Holy Quran 41:53

------------------

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

I can agree with that!

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Oct 2014, at 12:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

I am not a muslim, but I also disagree with the fundamental premise of Foundalis, which I quote below. I claim that just the opposite is true. A theory that explains already existing data is considered less important or impressive than one that predicts data that does not yet exist. Example are numerous, but Einstein's GR is the best known example.

"In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and then we see which theory explains best the data."

I agree, but in a sense we do start with a theory, which is our body at birth, and we bet there is some reality capable of satisfying the theory, but we can't prove that. Theory and data supporting the theory is a bit like the egg and the chicken, at some level. Our brains contains old theories on reality, they can compete.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Samiya Illias]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 09 Oct 2014, at 21:06, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:42 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored. 

In the foundalis link you sent, under 1.2, it quotes Quran Chapter 18 and goes on to discuss the verses in it. It discusses Dhul Qarnayn's travels. Therefore I sent my blogpost' link. I have presented my study and interpretation of other aspects of Chapter 18 also in my blog listed under blog archive. I sent that link just as an example. 

If you find the approach not critical enough, perhaps you can do it in a more scientific manner, if it interests you. 

I can critically try to understand the Quran, looking up meanings and science research on the topic, but I cannot take the falsifiable approach simply because I'm convinced that the Arabic text of the Quran is from God, the Master-Creator, while scientific knowledge is what we are discovering. So, for me personally, the scripture takes precedence. 

This is problematic. You leave the scientific attitude, and you make a quasi infinite argument per authority error. Like the catholic church which at least condemn literalism. You might be the one doing the blasphemy, asserting knowing a public relationship with god.

It is equivalent with: by definition I do right and you do wrong. Your literalism is equivalent with insulting all believers not sharing your assumption, pursuing different ways. 

It would be more appropriate to search on what we all share about God.

I advocate the scientific attitude in theology. Literalism does not help. How could we ever "religare" the literalists in different traditions? How can you be literalist about a subject as complex as God, known for having no real name, no image, being inconceivable, etc.  Your attitude prevents the doubt which makes possible the progress. I think.

Bruno 

Bruno, you misunderstand me. I speak for my personal self only. Having studied the Quran and using science as a tool to help understand it, I am now fully convinced that the Arabic text of the Quran is indeed revealed scripture. So, my attitude towards it is one of humble submission. There are many verses that are still not clear to me, as I am only human and limited by my knowledge and understanding, yet as a believer I try to look for scientific research and knowledge to help me better understand the verses, instead of rejecting it simply because it is not according to my knowledge or popular current theories. Also, it is important to remember that the verses we speak and try to understand are mostly about creation. So, its basically an exploration and discovery of and about nature. Only a few verses give any idea about God. In fact, a verse clearly states that there is nothing like God, so we really cannot imagine or speculate about God. We can only observe and wonder about the majesty of God through the creation and check how factually accurate the scripture is about creation. 

I understand that each one of us is at a different level of knowledge and understanding, as well as in their own unique journey of making sense of it all. It is perfectly okay for you and others to doubt and put the verses to the falsification test. I believe that if you're earnestly looking for the truth, God will lead you to it. Also, if someone does not wish to believe, God will never force faith on anyone.  

Samiya 

[Samiya Illias]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2014, at 05:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 10-Oct-2014, at 3:21 am, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)

I tried to answer, to which you've referred to above. Beyond that, even I don't know. I suppose I was always blessed with faith, and life experiences and the wondrous world of scientific discovery only served to increase the faith and make me value the blessing of faith and scripture! 

 I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We believe, as we have been informed in the Quran, that Prophet Mohammad was not given a new religion. Rather, it is a continuation and repetition of the same message which was sent throughout the ages through many messengers to all nations. Prophet Mohammed is unique in that he is the last in the series of messengers and the Quran revealed through him is a message of warning and good tidings for all humans and djinns. Therefore, it's divinely preserved in its original language and therefore it is important that we study it diligently. 

Mohammad was a man. All man can fail, he is not a god. You can't be sure it was always listening well, or even understanding him. My reading of the Quran makes me doubt he was under the same inspiration. The text is historical, and not easy to understand, translate or interpret. It is a witnessing of many part of the old bible, and the gospels, but it remains a text, which can only scratch the surface. 

Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

We believe the arabic Quran was inspired, preserved, transmitted and protected from changes or alterations under the command of God. It was not a human act by Prophet Muhammad. He received and conveyed the message verbatim. 

Yes, as I had mentioned in my last post, just above your comment here, the message revealed was not new. It was a continuation of the message sent through all prophets over the ages. So, of course, there is similarity of content. 

If I can be of any help in your reading of the Quran, please don't hesitate to ask.    

How does this verse lead you to ask the above two sentences? I agree with your first sentence that Allah will handle, but I do not understand the next two statements. 

Samiya  

 

Holy Quran 41:53

------------------

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

I can agree with that!

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

OK, that is a bit of platonism. Truth is beyond all representations, and the physical might be a representation, in fact an unknown sum on infinities of representations.

PS: in 6:76, the word that's translated as star I think should be translated as planet.  

And I think the following verses partially address the question John Mikes hesitates to ask: 

[33:72-73  Translator: Pickthall] Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool. So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women, and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. 

But is it not idolatrous (I ask) to pretend that one book got it all, and all others are wrongdoers constructions?

Human are easily credulous. They can believe that the best medicinal plant is a dangerous product which has to be made illegal!

You can use the Quran as a guide to the truth, but you cannot equate it with the truth, you can't appropriate the truth, only share experiences, and, if only to be able to listen genuinely to others, you need to be able to doubt, perhaps not the root of your belief, but the shape the beliefs can take for some possible other believers or hopers.

Some truth go without saying. Some truth become falsities once asserted. The theological is full of things like that.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Samiya Illias]

I do not believe or state any such thing. I keep affirming that many books and many prophets came throughout the ages. 

And I do not worship the Quran. I worship Allah (The Deity) who sent the Quran for our guidance, and because it is from Allah and for our guidance, I take it very seriously. I also respect other scriptures as from God, but as they have suffered human alterations, I rarely use them and when I do, I cross-check with what the Quran says about the same topic, simply because the Quran has not suffered change. What's idolatrous about that? 

Human are easily credulous. They can believe that the best medicinal plant is a dangerous product which has to be made illegal!

You can use the Quran as a guide to the truth, but you cannot equate it with the truth, you can't appropriate the truth, only share experiences, and, if only to be able to listen genuinely to others, you need to be able to doubt, perhaps not the root of your belief, but the shape the beliefs can take for some possible other believers or hopers. 

Of course 

 

Some truth go without saying. Some truth become falsities once asserted. The theological is full of things like that. 

You keep asserting that. Some day I might understand what you mean by it :) 

Samiya  

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

  John K Clark

[Samiya Illias]

Would you like specific explanations to the verses you've quoted below? If you're trying to make some point, its not clear to me. 

Samiya 

[Samiya Illias]

However, for a muslim the instruction is: [Quran 2:157 Sahih International]: The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.   

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would you like specific explanations to the verses you've quoted below?

Not necessary, those quotations speak for themselves and are quite clear. They need no explanation from you.

> If you're trying to make some point, its not clear to me. 

So let me understand this, you've read those quotes but have no idea of what point I was trying to make? So in light of the murders committed because Salman Rushdie wrote a book, In light of the murders committed because somebody drew a cartoon of Mohamed, in light of 911 you still don't understand why unbelievers such as myself might find those Quran quotations interesting. Is that what you're saying?

   John K Clark

[Samiya Illias]

On 12-Oct-2014, at 10:12 pm, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would you like specific explanations to the verses you've quoted below?

Not necessary, those quotations speak for themselves and are quite clear. They need no explanation from you.

> If you're trying to make some point, its not clear to me. 

So let me understand this, you've read those quotes but have no idea of what point I was trying to make? So in light of the murders committed because Salman Rushdie wrote a book, In light of the murders committed because somebody drew a cartoon of Mohamed, in light of 911 you still don't understand why unbelievers such as myself might find those Quran quotations interesting. Is that what you're saying?

Those verses instructing slaughter are on the context of war, not peace. The examples you cite above are misapplications of the verses. However that's another debate. Admitting the existence of God and obeying him with faith and gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us. We believe each one of us is in pledge for our own deeds, and the implications of faith are eternal, far beyond the temporal worries and joys. 

Samiya  

   John K Clark

 

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

  John K Clark

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote

> Those verses instructing slaughter are on the context of war, not peace.

If the Quran has told Muslims to "put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" and if the Quran really is the word of God then you will be in a constant state of war until the last unbeliever has been converted or murdered.

 

> Admitting the existence of God

It's easy to understand why a human being who claims to hear God's voice would push the idea that believing in something when there is absolutely no reason to do so is the very highest form of virtue, but I don't understand why in the world a omniscient being would. 
 

> and obeying him with faith and gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us.

Because if you don't, if you put one toe out of line  a loving God with torture you in ways beyond imagining for a infinite number of years. I think the God of the Quran is the second most unpleasant character in all of fiction, only the God of the Old Testament is worse.

  John K Clark

[Samiya Illias]

On 12-Oct-2014, at 10:52 pm, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote

> Those verses instructing slaughter are on the context of war, not peace.

If the Quran has told Muslims to "put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" and if the Quran really is the word of God then you will be in a constant state of war until the last unbeliever has been converted or murdered. 

Incorrect. God and his angels will put terror in the hearts. Muslims are not asked to do that. 

According to the Quran, it has been the tradition of God that whenever a Messenger is sent with clear proofs and ample warnings, then the people of the time have no choice except to submit or face punishment. Many mighty civilisations were destroyed in different ways. In fact, in one instance only: Prophet Jonah got upset with waiting for his people to accept Islam and left. However, God was displeased with it, as his was the only nation which finally accepted the mission of their Messenger. The Quran repeatedly mentions the date of the Pharoah and the Aad and Samood and others, and the Arabs were being repeatedly warned that Mohammed is also a Messenger from God so he will triumph. 

We are not messengers and it is not our job to convert anyone. The Quran is quite clear that it is God who blesses with faith whoever He wills, and keeps away from faith whoever He finds unwilling for faith. 

 

> Admitting the existence of God

It's easy to understand why a human being who claims to hear God's voice would push the idea that believing in something when there is absolutely no reason to do so is the very highest form of virtue, but I don't understand why in the world a omniscient being would. 

God doesn't force faith on anyone. In fact, on the contrary, those who do not want to believe, God withholds guidance from them. 

 

> and obeying him with faith and gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us.

Because if you don't, if you put one toe out of line  a loving God with torture you in ways beyond imagining for a infinite number of years.

Well, if you do not believe in God or after-life, why do you worry about it? 

I think the God of the Quran is the second most unpleasant character in all of fiction, only the God of the Old Testament is worse.

I think Allah ( The Deity) is the most loving and compassionate. It is of no benefit to Allah to punish anyone and everyone is invited to faith in many ways and the doors for repentance are open till a person is about to die. It's only when the veil is lifted and a person sees the angel of death that the chance to repent and believe is over. We are required to acknowledge the Creator through our observation of the creation in this life. Why? Some event in the past where we humans took on the Trust. 

Samiya 

[LizR]

I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where did God come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.

[meekerdb]

That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to Bruno.
Philosophers may very well think about "why we are here" or "the set of unprovable
truths", but they respect common usage of language enough not to call it "thinking about
God", or "theology", as Bruno would have them do.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already = Truth). 

Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would guess.

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those who lie about petrol and cannabis.

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would consult many translations.

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5. 

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".

That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries, among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real" debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was still discussed.

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad hominem statement has no place in a sacred text. It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the table.

I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.

For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and resistance to the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth. 

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, "we" shall put the mess in your bank account and internet. We need not just many good translations, but a "style" of the period analysis.

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been introduced to a few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality, god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if you're vain enough and want to distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to. Same difference.

And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a problem.

Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard should therefore point to some evidence instead of the constant whining/sniping/policing without backup (which includes begging with "popular use" justifications; since when is this equated with serious evidence?). Catholic theologian are ahead of you + you guys don't offer any alternative, therefore you bore chanting this nonsense again and again, that not only exhibits consistency with neo-platonist (or Brent's "old Greeks") but with confessional Catholic theologians today, so get over it. PGC

[Samiya Illias]

On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already = Truth). 

Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would guess. 

Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions during war. All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else. 

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those who lie about petrol and cannabis.

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would consult many translations.

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5. 

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".

That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries, among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real" debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was still discussed.

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad hominem statement has no place in a sacred text.

Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule of the thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of individuals and nations towards/against Muslims. 

It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the table.

I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.

If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of the author of the Quran. Rather, you would try to understand why is it so. 

For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and resistance to the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth. 

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, "we" shall put the mess in your bank account and internet.

Quite terrifying the modern analogy :-) 

Samiya 

[Samiya Illias]

When God sends revelation, God ensures that it is delivered verbatim. Consider the following verses: 

Holy Quran 72:27

------------------

إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَىٰ مِنْ رَسُولٍ فَإِنَّهُ يَسْلُكُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ رَصَدًا

Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before each messenger and behind him observers

Holy Quran 72:28

------------------

لِيَعْلَمَ أَنْ قَدْ أَبْلَغُوا رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ وَأَحَاطَ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ وَأَحْصَىٰ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عَدَدًا

That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12-Oct-2014, at 10:12 pm, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would you like specific explanations to the verses you've quoted below?

Not necessary, those quotations speak for themselves and are quite clear. They need no explanation from you.

> If you're trying to make some point, its not clear to me. 

So let me understand this, you've read those quotes but have no idea of what point I was trying to make? So in light of the murders committed because Salman Rushdie wrote a book, In light of the murders committed because somebody drew a cartoon of Mohamed, in light of 911 you still don't understand why unbelievers such as myself might find those Quran quotations interesting. Is that what you're saying?

Those verses instructing slaughter are on the context of war, not peace.

But this implies "In war, be bestial". I'm not sure this is part of what some supreme being would say.

 

The examples you cite above are misapplications of the verses. However that's another debate. Admitting the existence of God and obeying him with faith and gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us. We believe each one of us is in pledge for our own deeds, and the implications of faith are eternal, far beyond the temporal worries and joys. 

Samiya  

Among the temporal worries and joys is people telling others how to interpret god/reality. Something that many holy scriptures across cultures avoid when assuming that supreme being is inconceivable (how could any one person or writing claim to be the final voice of such being?).

You can say "it's only my personal take" repeatedly, but stating and citing things like "Admitting the existence of God and obeying him with faith and gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us." gives people perhaps the impression that you don't follow your own word and/or the word of your cited scripture: You are actively suggesting to people with such citation how to interpret God/reality, while admitting that you cannot. But how can we obey if God's will is not always clear and most often difficult to read?

If these are only personal thoughts like "I might have a cup of tea now..." then I don't see why you need a blog or to convince people of one one interpretation of a text. This, people could see as using your religion/god to promote your private interests, like internet name/identity/blog.

Is there something like an internet publicity chapter in the Qu'ran (I assume there must be some things related to men of fame who value appearances etc)?

Or a chapter that tells us how to manage living in a world with billions of people who all have their own personal theologies in front of creation, and what to do when all the sacred scriptures, that everybody chooses to believe/disbelieve... what to do when all of these are interpreted, read, and understood partially differently and partially in agreement at the same time? Don't flood me with citations: Just give me one for these last 2 points, if you have to. PGC

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of the author of the Quran. Rather, you would try to understand why is it so. 

And if cows had wings, they could open their own airline. The above is not an argument.

 

For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and resistance to the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth. 

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, "we" shall put the mess in your bank account and internet.

Quite terrifying the modern analogy :-) 

Well, that's based on your scripture and citations. Is it alright to mock it as you do? PGC

 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If the Quran has told Muslims to "put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" and if the Quran really is the word of God then you will be in a constant state of war until the last unbeliever has been converted or murdered.

> Incorrect. God and his angels will put terror in the hearts.

Then God isn't doing a very good job, I guess He needs reinforcements. Neither God nor His angels puts terror into my heart, but religious nincompoops with a fetish for dynamite do.  

 

> Muslims are not asked to do that. 

And yet Muslims are told to:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

And

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

And  

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"
 

> According to the Quran [...]

Samiya, this is 21st century, other than the fact that you mommy and daddy told you it was true why would you care what the Quran said?

> God doesn't force faith on anyone.

But Muslims and Christians do.

> In fact, on the contrary, those who do not want to believe, God withholds guidance from them. 

What I want to know is why a omnipotent being would consider a belief (or the desire to have a belief) in something for which there is no evidence a virtue, in fact the very greatest virtue there is. It's childishly easy to understand why a bipedal hominid like Jesus or Mohamed or any mountebank who wished to gain some control over his fellow hominids would push this idea, but I don't see why a omnipotent being would. 

 

> if you put one toe out of line  a loving God with torture you in ways beyond imagining for a infinite number of years.

> Well, if you do not believe in God or after-life, why do you worry about it?

I worry that God will torment me in the afterlife about as much as I worry that the big bad wolf will huff and puff and blow my house down, however I do worry that other people worry about it because nothing in human history has causes people to do more stupid and destructive things than religion. 

>> I think the God of the Quran is the second most unpleasant character in all of fiction, only the God of the Old Testament is worse.

> I think Allah ( The Deity) is the most loving and compassionate.

Well you'd better think that God is most loving and compassionate because if you don't your religion says that most loving and compassionate being will torture you in ways too horrible for our present human minds to contemplate. And a most loving and compassionate God will continue performing His butchery on you not for a million years, or a billion years or a trillion years but for a INFINITE* number of years. 

*Scripture does not report if the infinity is denumerable or if the number of years in hell being tortured by a loving and compassionate God can be put into a one to one correspondence with the set of Real Numbers. 

> It is of no benefit to Allah to punish anyone 

And yet according to both Islam and Christianity God uses all of his infinite power to punish people for the slightest violation of one of His many monumentally silly rules. When you look at the way God behaves in the Quran (or the Bible) can you detect any fundamental difference from the way Satin behaves? The only difference I can see is that God won the war and is a little more powerful, so the only reason to join God's team rather than that of His competition is that God is a bigger school yard bully than Satin.

> the doors for repentance are open till a person is about to die. It's only when the veil is lifted and a person sees the angel of death that the chance to repent and believe is over. 

So if a man was a good person for 80 years but in the last 3 seconds of his life during his death agony in a concentration camp he screamed "damn God"  he goes to hell. But if Hitler said "there is no God but Allah and Mohamed was his prophet" one second before he put a pistol in his mouth and pulled the trigger then Hitler goes to Heaven. 

Well.. I guess it's no dumber than lots of other religious ideas.

  John K Clark

[LizR]

I don't object to Bruno's usages, I try to adjust my thinking to accommodate what he's saying and how he's saying it (which I have to do with lots of people, both on and off this list).

--

[Samiya Illias]

Holy Quran 109:6

------------------

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

Samiya 

[LizR]

On 14 October 2014 15:54, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Holy Quran 109:6

------------------

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

So even God failed to predict the existence of Atheists!

(Oh well, it's not like he's omniscient...) 

[meekerdb]

On 10/13/2014 9:26 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:

I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where did God come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.

That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about "why we are here" or "the set of unprovable truths", but they respect common usage of language enough not to call it "thinking about God", or "theology", as Bruno would have them do.

I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been introduced to a few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality, god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if you're vain enough and want to distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to. Same difference.

And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a problem.

Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard should therefore point to some evidence

Exactly what I did.  I pointed to an interview between academic philosophers of religion who opined that the the problem of evil was the most convincing argument against the existence of God.  This clearly assumes that "God" does NOT refer to some ineffable collection of sets or foundation of reason or all uncomputable truths.

Brent

instead of the constant whining/sniping/policing without backup (which includes begging with "popular use" justifications; since when is this equated with serious evidence?). Catholic theologian are ahead of you + you guys don't offer any alternative, therefore you bore chanting this nonsense again and again, that not only exhibits consistency with neo-platonist (or Brent's "old Greeks") but with confessional Catholic theologians today, so get over it. PGC

[Samiya Illias]

On 14-Oct-2014, at 5:03 am, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If the Quran has told Muslims to "put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" and if the Quran really is the word of God then you will be in a constant state of war until the last unbeliever has been converted or murdered.

> Incorrect. God and his angels will put terror in the hearts.

Then God isn't doing a very good job, I guess He needs reinforcements. Neither God nor His angels puts terror into my heart, but religious nincompoops with a fetish for dynamite do.  

Are you at war with Islam? Why should God put terror in your heart? He knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise you seek to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set of circumstances He put you in the world with, including your family and education and other influences, and He knows and understands what and how you think and react and why. We do not know whether your heart is one day meant to acknowledge and appreciate God or not. It's between you and God. 

It is important to also keep in mind that the Messengers were sent to people who not only did not believe in monotheism, but as a nation these people were committing many transgressions and sins, and some of the greatest of Muslims were from people with such backgrounds. 

If I were to cite an example from Prophet Mohammad's time, Omar was an ardent disbeliever in the message, very angered by the prophetic mission and was on his way to murder the prophet. Yet, God saw good in him and guided him to faith. He went on to become the second leader of the Muslims after the prophet's death. There are many historical records about him, both pro and anti, depending on who wrote it,  you may wish to look them up. 

 

> Muslims are not asked to do that. 

And yet Muslims are told to:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

And

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

And  

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"
 

> According to the Quran [...]

Samiya, this is 21st century, other than the fact that you mommy and daddy told you it was true why would you care what the Quran said?

> God doesn't force faith on anyone.

But Muslims and Christians do.

> In fact, on the contrary, those who do not want to believe, God withholds guidance from them. 

What I want to know is why a omnipotent being would consider a belief (or the desire to have a belief) in something for which there is no evidence a virtue, in fact the very greatest virtue there is. It's childishly easy to understand why a bipedal hominid like Jesus or Mohamed or any mountebank who wished to gain some control over his fellow hominids would push this idea, but I don't see why a omnipotent being would. 

 

> if you put one toe out of line  a loving God with torture you in ways beyond imagining for a infinite number of years.

> Well, if you do not believe in God or after-life, why do you worry about it?

I worry that God will torment me in the afterlife about as much as I worry that the big bad wolf will huff and puff and blow my house down, however I do worry that other people worry about it because nothing in human history has causes people to do more stupid and destructive things than religion. 

>> I think the God of the Quran is the second most unpleasant character in all of fiction, only the God of the Old Testament is worse.

> I think Allah ( The Deity) is the most loving and compassionate.

Well you'd better think that God is most loving and compassionate because if you don't your religion says that most loving and compassionate being will torture you in ways too horrible for our present human minds to contemplate. And a most loving and compassionate God will continue performing His butchery on you not for a million years, or a billion years or a trillion years but for a INFINITE* number of years. 

God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us whether we remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless ways: the oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the education that feeds our minds, the knowledge and feelings that nourish our hearts, the natural beauty that provide for our senses of sight and hearing and so on. God also provides wealth and comfort in varying degrees. God does not discriminate on the basis of faith in this world, as here we all have equal opportunity to believe or reject. And God keeps inviting to forgiveness. However, God warns of a Day when all mankind has a meeting with God, an appointment that must be kept, and God warns that after that God will forget those who forgot God in this world, and so they will suffer in Hell with nothing but scalding water to drink and food that will not nourish. 

The beauty, delights, comforts and nourishment of this world are only a preview of the appreciation of God for those who appreciate Him in this world, without being able to directly see Him, but realise, acknowledge and appreciate God's existence through His signs. 

*Scripture does not report if the infinity is denumerable or if the number of years in hell being tortured by a loving and compassionate God can be put into a one to one correspondence with the set of Real Numbers. 

> It is of no benefit to Allah to punish anyone 

And yet according to both Islam and Christianity God uses all of his infinite power to punish people for the slightest violation of one of His many monumentally silly rules. When you look at the way God behaves in the Quran (or the Bible) can you detect any fundamental difference from the way Satin behaves? The only difference I can see is that God won the war and is a little more powerful, so the only reason to join God's team rather than that of His competition is that God is a bigger school yard bully than Satin.

> the doors for repentance are open till a person is about to die. It's only when the veil is lifted and a person sees the angel of death that the chance to repent and believe is over. 

So if a man was a good person for 80 years but in the last 3 seconds of his life during his death agony in a concentration camp he screamed "damn God"  he goes to hell. But if Hitler said "there is no God but Allah and Mohamed was his prophet" one second before he put a pistol in his mouth and pulled the trigger then Hitler goes to Heaven. 

God knows what's in our hearts and minds, and is not deceived by our appearances and our lies. He grants faith only to the willing heart. We have no way of knowing whose faith is accepted or otherwise, hence cannot comment on it. I just pray that we die as Muslims, well pleased with God and God well pleased with us. Amen 

Samiya 

Well.. I guess it's no dumber than lots of other religious ideas.

  John K Clark

--

[Richard Ruquist]

From my experience with a channel of a recently died person, 

it appears that all such persons have the ability to read our minds.

I of course have no proof that such is true,

but it does seem consistent with a mind/body reality.

But the point is that if such is true

then knowing "what's in our hearts and minds" is not limited to god.

If so we on earth must be great entertainment for the dead.

Richard

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Oct 2014, at 17:02, Samiya Illias wrote:

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 09 Oct 2014, at 21:06, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:42 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': 

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored. 

In the foundalis link you sent, under 1.2, it quotes Quran Chapter 18 and goes on to discuss the verses in it. It discusses Dhul Qarnayn's travels. Therefore I sent my blogpost' link. I have presented my study and interpretation of other aspects of Chapter 18 also in my blog listed under blog archive. I sent that link just as an example. 

If you find the approach not critical enough, perhaps you can do it in a more scientific manner, if it interests you. 

I can critically try to understand the Quran, looking up meanings and science research on the topic, but I cannot take the falsifiable approach simply because I'm convinced that the Arabic text of the Quran is from God, the Master-Creator, while scientific knowledge is what we are discovering. So, for me personally, the scripture takes precedence. 

This is problematic. You leave the scientific attitude, and you make a quasi infinite argument per authority error. Like the catholic church which at least condemn literalism. You might be the one doing the blasphemy, asserting knowing a public relationship with god.

It is equivalent with: by definition I do right and you do wrong. Your literalism is equivalent with insulting all believers not sharing your assumption, pursuing different ways. 

It would be more appropriate to search on what we all share about God.

I advocate the scientific attitude in theology. Literalism does not help. How could we ever "religare" the literalists in different traditions? How can you be literalist about a subject as complex as God, known for having no real name, no image, being inconceivable, etc.  Your attitude prevents the doubt which makes possible the progress. I think.

Bruno 

Bruno, you misunderstand me. I speak for my personal self only.

OK. This is not entirely obvious. Typically, we can already explain (using some "reasonable theory/hypothesis) that in the theological field, public beliefs and private beliefs can be different. It is part of the truth that some truth can be known, but not in a public way. Worse, some truth becomes false when asserted publicly.

Having studied the Quran and using science as a tool to help understand it, I am now fully convinced that the Arabic text of the Quran is indeed revealed scripture.

Hmm... 

So, my attitude towards it is one of humble submission. There are many verses that are still not clear to me, as I am only human and limited by my knowledge and understanding, yet as a believer I try to look for scientific research and knowledge to help me better understand the verses, instead of rejecting it simply because it is not according to my knowledge or popular current theories.

So, why not remain open to the possibility that some verse are perhaps from God, but also perhaps from the devil or from some humans, as you acknowledge not understanding them? Why extrapolate?

I understand the desire that all verse comes from God, but if you want use science, you must free yourself from wishful thinking, I think.

Also, it is important to remember that the verses we speak and try to understand are mostly about creation.

I am not entirely sure. Not literally. 

So, its basically an exploration and discovery of and about nature. Only a few verses give any idea about God. In fact, a verse clearly states that there is nothing like God, so we really cannot imagine or speculate about God.

But this is what you do publicly, by asserting that you are convinced that God is the literal author of the Quran.

We can only observe and wonder about the majesty of God through the creation and check how factually accurate the scripture is about creation. 

You need also to introspect. What you see can be a dream, or a show by the "devil". Aristotelian believes that seeing is proof, but Platonicien believes that seeing can be an illusion.

I understand that each one of us is at a different level of knowledge and understanding, as well as in their own unique journey of making sense of it all. It is perfectly okay for you and others to doubt and put the verses to the falsification test.

OK. Nice.

I believe that if you're earnestly looking for the truth, God will lead you to it.

I believe this too.

Also, if someone does not wish to believe, God will never force faith on anyone.

Only for a finite period of time. because truth get transparent when the lies die, and in the limit, they all die (I am alas not yet really sure of this ...).

Bruno

 

Samiya 

Samiya 

Concerning your link, I'd see that as less on-topic for following simple reason:

That's interpretation without a critical position against it, and this is perhaps why there is a disconnect between some of your claims and how some members, including myself, react.

A positive aspect of science is that, when done correctly, we are not forced to trust interpretations. That's why it would be more instructive for me to see you address the points in the Foundalis link, rather than what you have interpreted and convinced yourself of already.

It creates perspective, that would enrich your points perhaps. As a tool, science tests ideas and reasoning; and contrasting a perspective that differs from yours, and you refuting it, would tell me much more than personal interpretation you link to above. PGC

 

Samiya 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Oct 2014, at 17:30, Samiya Illias wrote:

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2014, at 05:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 10-Oct-2014, at 3:21 am, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)

I tried to answer, to which you've referred to above. Beyond that, even I don't know. I suppose I was always blessed with faith, and life experiences and the wondrous world of scientific discovery only served to increase the faith and make me value the blessing of faith and scripture! 

 I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - then the 

Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while

 

some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the work of Allah. 

We believe, as we have been informed in the Quran, that Prophet Mohammad was not given a new religion. Rather, it is a continuation and repetition of the same message which was sent throughout the ages through many messengers to all nations. Prophet Mohammed is unique in that he is the last in the series of messengers and the Quran revealed through him is a message of warning and good tidings for all humans and djinns. Therefore, it's divinely preserved in its original language and therefore it is important that we study it diligently. 

Mohammad was a man. All man can fail, he is not a god. You can't be sure it was always listening well, or even understanding him. My reading of the Quran makes me doubt he was under the same inspiration. The text is historical, and not easy to understand, translate or interpret. It is a witnessing of many part of the old bible, and the gospels, but it remains a text, which can only scratch the surface. 

Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

We believe the arabic Quran was inspired, preserved, transmitted and protected from changes or alterations under the command of God. It was not a human act by Prophet Muhammad. He received and conveyed the message verbatim. 

I think that this is close to a form of idolatry. It is a mixing of the celestial and the temporal. It is very dangerous to do in the quest.

Yes, as I had mentioned in my last post, just above your comment here, the message revealed was not new. It was a continuation of the message sent through all prophets over the ages. So, of course, there is similarity of content. 

Yes, and there is a similarity in content in all honest introspecting machine's discourses.

If I can be of any help in your reading of the Quran, please don't hesitate to ask.    

Thanks,

Bruno

 

Scriptures are revealed for our information and guidance. If I may quote an example from the Quran, the purpose of scriptures is that they be studied: 

Holy Quran 62:5

------------------

مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا ۚ بِئْسَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

'The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.'

We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 

What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood. Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 

We don't know what is good, or bad, what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God. I disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all - changes are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not. 

I don't repeat the chorus: who created the Creator? (Again a point way beyond our mental capabilities). 

Human science works on theories - explanations of the unexplained - axioms - necessary conditions for the theories to work - and consequences - reduced to the level of the up-to-date functioning of our mental capablity. 

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. 

I find it remarkable that your Quran-quote extendes to geography discovered way after (into?) Hedzhra also the cosmology formulated during the recent times and chemistry of the last 100 years (ozon?) - maybe they are included only in the paraphernalia. 

If I may quote again three verses from Chapter 41: 

Holy Quran 41:3

------------------

كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know,

Holy Quran 41:4

------------------

بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا فَأَعْرَضَ أَكْثَرُهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ

As a giver of good tidings and a warner; but most of them turn away, so they do not hear.

But Allah will handle that situation all by IT/HIM/HERself, he does not give to some humans the right to handle that in his name.

That would be the given of a right of authoritative argument, and all the fight.

Only bad faith use authoritative argument.

How does this verse lead you to ask the above two sentences? I agree with your first sentence that Allah will handle, but I do not understand the next two statements. 

Samiya  

 

Holy Quran 41:53

------------------

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

I can agree with that!

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

Perhaps.

and because it is from Allah and for our guidance, I take it very seriously. I also respect other scriptures as from God, but as they have suffered human alterations, I rarely use them and when I do, I cross-check with what the Quran says about the same topic, simply because the Quran has not suffered change. What's idolatrous about that? 

Even if the Quran has not changed (which I doubt), you can't be sure that Muhammad, a human, get the sounds right. If not, you make Muhammad into a sort of God, and that is again the dangerous thing to believe, even in the case it is true.

Human are easily credulous. They can believe that the best medicinal plant is a dangerous product which has to be made illegal!

You can use the Quran as a guide to the truth, but you cannot equate it with the truth, you can't appropriate the truth, only share experiences, and, if only to be able to listen genuinely to others, you need to be able to doubt, perhaps not the root of your belief, but the shape the beliefs can take for some possible other believers or hopers. 

Of course 

OK. But that is not always clear in the way you address the problem.

 

Some truth go without saying. Some truth become falsities once asserted. The theological is full of things like that. 

You keep asserting that. Some day I might understand what you mean by it :) 

It is actually something playing a key feature in human and machine theologies. A part of the truth cannot be asserted. That might be why Lao-Tseu said that the wise man keep silent. 

In machine's theology, some truth can be asserted if we assert them with an interrogation point. Some can be verbalized, but cannot be asserted, even with an interrogation point, some other cannot even be verbalized, but can be memorized, some others cannot be memorized. Amazingly, this applies also to some experiences people can have with some use of some plant.

I guess there will be opportunity to say more, or less :)  later,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Samiya Illias]

When God does anything, He ensures that it is done properly. So, when He sends revelation, He ensures that it is delivered and communicated. Consider this: 

Holy Quran 72:27

------------------

إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَىٰ مِنْ رَسُولٍ فَإِنَّهُ يَسْلُكُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ رَصَدًا

Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before each messenger and behind him observers

Holy Quran 72:28

------------------

لِيَعْلَمَ أَنْ قَدْ أَبْلَغُوا رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ وَأَحَاطَ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ وَأَحْصَىٰ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عَدَدًا

That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number. 

Human are easily credulous. They can believe that the best medicinal plant is a dangerous product which has to be made illegal!

You can use the Quran as a guide to the truth, but you cannot equate it with the truth, you can't appropriate the truth, only share experiences, and, if only to be able to listen genuinely to others, you need to be able to doubt, perhaps not the root of your belief, but the shape the beliefs can take for some possible other believers or hopers. 

Of course 

OK. But that is not always clear in the way you address the problem.

I sent another email soon after the above quoting the verse to never be of those who doubt. I allow for others to doubt, but for me the whole Quran is a message sent from God. I understand some of it, and I try to understand what I do not, but I doubt my knowledge and understanding, not the knowledge and wisdom of the Quran. 

Samiya 

[Richard Ruquist]

I have read that the observers of Mohamid wrote down everything he said on anything available and put them all in a basket they carried around.

Then when all was said and done they composed the Koran by associating all sayings on the same topic together, placing the positive sayings first and the negative sayings after the positive sayings for each topic. However, since muslims believe that later sayings negate earlier sayings, only the negative sayings are to be believed. Is this true?

Richard

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:33 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 10/13/2014 9:26 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:

I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where did God come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.

That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about "why we are here" or "the set of unprovable truths", but they respect common usage of language enough not to call it "thinking about God", or "theology", as Bruno would have them do.

I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been introduced to a few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality, god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if you're vain enough and want to distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to. Same difference.

And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a problem.

Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard should therefore point to some evidence

Exactly what I did.  I pointed to an interview between academic philosophers of religion who opined that the the problem of evil was the most convincing argument against the existence of God.  This clearly assumes that "God" does NOT refer to some ineffable collection of sets or foundation of reason or all uncomputable truths.

Yes, to people more literal/naive than conservative catholic theologians in Europe, who we all know as the grooviest bunch on earth. So what? That's just bad personal craft. Anyway, who stated this should be subject to some majority vote a la Brent. My point is simply that with this group of academics, that use, particularly property of inconceivable with its limited set of implications, is standard. PGC

[spudb...@aol.com]

I think it's a fools' task to try to speak for God. Unless, one has an unassailable truth behind them, one that is testable, in the falsifiable sense of the phrase. So far, one can believe in the rightness of religious texts but its a matter of subjective analysis. Try admitting that we don't know and then start with a conjecture. Like Greg Benford, retired physicist and scifi writer. This is what comes of invoking a physicist in the search for spiritual answes. Needless to say, I like it (subjective again).A description of the Omega Point as mechanism.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/benford20140930

Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler have pointed out that a new source of energy—so-called “shear-energy”—would become available if the universe expanded at different rates in different directions. This shearing of space-time itself could power the diaphanous electron-positron plasmas forever, if the imbalance in directions persists. To harness it, life (whatever its form) would have to build “engines” that worked on the expansion of the universe itself.

Such ideas imply huge structures the size of galaxies, yet thin and able to stretch, as the space-time they are immersed in swells faster along one axis than another. This motor would work like a set of elastic bands that stretch and release, as the universal expansion proceeds. Only very ambitious life that has mastered immense scales could thrive. They would seem like Gods to us.

As well, our universe could eventually be crushed by denser material not yet in view. Or the smoothing out of mass on large scales may not continue indefinitely. There could be a new range of structures, on scales far larger than the part of the universe that we have so far seen.

Physics can tell us nothing of these, as yet. These ideas will probably loom larger as we learn more about the destiny of all visible Creation.

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14-Oct-2014, at 12:51 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there something like an internet publicity chapter in the Qu'ran (I assume there must be some things related to men of fame who value appearances etc)?

Or a chapter that tells us how to manage living in a world with billions of people who all have their own personal theologies in front of creation, and what to do when all the sacred scriptures, that everybody chooses to believe/disbelieve... what to do when all of these are interpreted, read, and understood partially differently and partially in agreement at the same time? Don't flood me with citations: Just give me one for these last 2 points, if you have to. PGC

Holy Quran 109:6

------------------

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

Do you follow the book/scripture you preach sincerely?

Does speaking of god's majesty and the sanctity of personal religious choice, while advertising an exclusive, literal, personal and concrete form only, constitute a sincere approach to you. Sounds like "my interpretation is the best... I am certain of it... but you can have an opinion, if you stay away." Is this a genuine choice?

Your religion, as can be seen by all the quotes, makes prescriptions on others' religion, so no, for me is "not my religion", as long as I am forced to accept that "for you is your interpretation of religion, which pretends to allow mine, but in authoritative manner does not". PGC

[Samiya Illias]

No. Verses were noted down and memorised as revealed. Towards the end of the prophetic mission, when all the verses had been revealed, the Heavenly Messenger Gabriel made the order of the Quranic verses known to the prophet and committed it to his memory, which he communicated to his companions. The huffaz ( who memorised the Quran) learnt it in the correct order. Later on, when the written verses were being compiled during the caliphs' time, the huffaz were consulted on the order of the verses. 

Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran has been transmitted both orally and in written form. There are millions of people who know the Quran by heart. Furthermore, once a year, in the month of Ramadhan, the Quran is read in congregational prayers every night such that the entire Quran is revised in one month. The person who leads the prayer is a hafiz and there is always another hafiz right behind him ready to check should he ( the prayer leader) make any mistake. This practice has been going on across the globe for several centuries.  

If you were to read the Quran, you will see that it is not arranged by topic. The message is repeated across the Quran with similar and different examples. Monotheism, keeping duty to God, prayer, good deeds and glad tidings for the hereafter, and clear warnings of Judgement Day and the consequences of lack of faith and good deeds are repeatedly explained with examples. The fate of nations bygone is also repeated to convey the message, and various references to natural phenomenon explain by examples as well as are signs which can be verified by scientific knowledge, across the centuries depending on the level of scientific knowledge available at the time of study. The book continues to amaze with its factual accuracy. It helps belief in those verses which cannot be verified and must be taken on faith. 

Samiya 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you at war with Islam?

No, I'm not at war with anyone.

> Why should God put terror in your heart?

Because God is obviously a sadist and gets off on bondage. Why else would God spend a infinite number of years happily disemboweling his victims and then healing them so he can have the pleasure of disemboweling them again? And this hideous demon you call "God" never EVER gets tired of it, He never gets tired of hearing the screams of those in agony. And we are told by both Christianity and Islam to love this revolting thing they call "God" because if we don't this fiend will start disemboweling us too and He will never stop.

Christianity and Islam are not only intellectually idiotic they are also morally bankrupt. 
 

> He knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise you seek to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set of circumstances

 

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town

He's making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town

> God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us whether we remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless ways: the oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat,

He also sent us the cancer that rots our children's bones and the typhoons that drown us and the earthquakes that crush us. And if God didn't give us food water and oxygen we wouldn't live long enough to sin and then God wouldn't be able to engage in His hobby, torturing billions of people for eternity. 

> God keeps inviting to forgiveness.

Well.... I might be able to forgive God if He would change His ways, but He won't, His compulsion to disembowel billions of people for eternity is just too strong. 

 

> God will forget those who forgot God in this world, and so they will suffer in Hell with nothing but scalding water to drink and food that will not nourish. 

Yep, that's your God alright,  that's the pervert we're supposed to love.

  John K Clark

[spudb...@aol.com]

John, 

Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the awful suffering you have accurately, cited? Marx said that religion is an opiate for the people, so what do you offer as a pain reliever? 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:01 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[spudb...@aol.com]

Moreover, John-

What'dya think of Brian May?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11143875/Prof-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html

I don't know if he's right or way wrong, but I find his focus, interesting. 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:01 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014  spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> John,  Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the awful suffering you have accurately, cited?

That's asking a awful lot of me, I don't have a solution that will eliminate the suffering in the world. I wish I did.  If I were God I would have made extreme pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately I didn't get the job.    

> Marx said that religion is an opiate for the people,

And like opium religion is not a good long term solution to sorrow; for every person who is made happier contemplating the pleasures of heaven there are 10 made more unhappy contemplating the tortures of Hell. And then you've got millions of people saying they will kill you right now if you don't love God X and renounce all other Gods, and millions more saying they will kill you right now if you don't love God Y and renounce all other Gods. And both are saying their kind and merciful God will torture you for all of eternity if you don't love Him, even though there is absolutely nothing lovable about either of them.

> What'dya think of Brian May?

I think you mean Brian Cox, he said " There is naivety in just saying there’s no God" but he doesn't say why it's naive except to say that some very very smart people have believed in God; and that's true. I think it's true because most people, perhaps even most very smart people, tend to believe what their mommy and daddy told them into adulthood, stuff they were told before they were potty trained. There is no other explanation for the enormously strong correlation between deeply held religious belief and geography. 

  John K Clark

 

[spudb...@aol.com]

Very Good.

Thanks

Mitch

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:26, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:

I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where did God come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.

That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about "why we are here" or "the set of unprovable truths", but they respect common usage of language enough not to call it "thinking about God", or "theology", as Bruno would have them do.

I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been introduced to a few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality, god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if you're vain enough and want to distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to. Same difference.

And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a problem.

Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard should therefore point to some evidence instead of the constant whining/sniping/policing without backup (which includes begging with "popular use" justifications; since when is this equated with serious evidence?). Catholic theologian are ahead of you + you guys don't offer any alternative, therefore you bore chanting this nonsense again and again, that not only exhibits consistency with neo-platonist (or Brent's "old Greeks") but with confessional Catholic theologians today, so get over it. PGC

Well said.  

I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at the origin of the physical universe, or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe".

With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible, and we can proceed in trying to figure out the plausibility of more detailed notion, maybe by adding theological axioms like computationalism: the soul incarnation is invariant for a digital substitution made at some level.

Making clear the assumptions, you can get theorems, and gives good or bad notes to other religion, where "good" mean here "correct or consistent with comp", and "bad means false or inconsistent with comp".

For example many atheists believes that their present incarnation is unique, when arguing that there is no afterlife. But comp is closer to Hinduism and buddhism, here, where incarnation implies reincarnation, in your usual most probable Turing universal environment, or in others.

At no point we need to assert that we are true or false. But we can better analyse the consistencies and plausibilities of the ideas.

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

That does not follow. It could be that dead person becomes God back again, or that some people does that when they are lucky enough to have lived their last incarnation :)

If so we on earth must be great entertainment for the dead.

Yes, but there are too much advertising!

Bruno

Richard

 

Samiya 

Well.. I guess it's no dumber than lots of other religious ideas.

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already = Truth). 

Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would guess. 

Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions during war.

OK. Sorry.

All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else. 

The problem for me, is that, if I open my mind up to accept this literally, then I automatically open my mind to the possibility that Satan made some changes in it. 

Are you willing to try this exercise? Find the verses added by Satan.  (assuming all this)

Mohammed is a human. 

You attribute him an implicit deity character when you believe he is not fallible, as all humans are. 

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those who lie about petrol and cannabis.

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would consult many translations.

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5. 

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".

That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries, among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real" debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was still discussed.

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad hominem statement has no place in a sacred text.

Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule of the thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of individuals and nations towards/against Muslims. 

OK. The bible does that too, like the gospels. No problem with non literal interpretation of the sacred text, and historical perspective, but beware those who will take some verses literally.

It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the table.

I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.

If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of the author of the Quran.

I guess. But as wise and knowledgeable he was, he was a human, and all humans are fallible.

I can accept as axiom for God that God is not fallible.

It is about infinitely harder to accept that a human is not fallible, or that you can know that he has not failed.

Rather, you would try to understand why is it so. 

For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and resistance to the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth. 

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, "we" shall put the mess in your bank account and internet.

Quite terrifying the modern analogy :-) 

It is the very general idea that although truth might not always be pleasant, lies and non corrected errors can only postpone the unpleasantness and augment its intensity.

It is terrifying but not despairing as we can learn to accept our errors, and understand the fake nature of the power of the lies, eventually.

Bruno

Samiya 

We need not just many good translations, but a "style" of the period analysis.

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Oct 2014, at 20:19, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 13-Oct-2014, at 10:37 pm, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already = Truth). 

Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would guess. 

Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions during war. All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else. 

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those who lie about petrol and cannabis.

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would consult many translations.

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5. 

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".

That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries, among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real" debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was still discussed.

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad hominem statement has no place in a sacred text.

Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule of the thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of individuals and nations towards/against Muslims. 

It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the table.

I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.

If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of the author of the Quran. Rather, you would try to understand why is it so. 

When God sends revelation, God ensures that it is delivered verbatim. Consider the following verses: 

Holy Quran 72:27

------------------

إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَىٰ مِنْ رَسُولٍ فَإِنَّهُ يَسْلُكُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ رَصَدًا

Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before each messenger and behind him observers

Holy Quran 72:28

You cannot quote the text as an evidence for the authority of the text.

------------------

لِيَعْلَمَ أَنْ قَدْ أَبْلَغُوا رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ وَأَحَاطَ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ وَأَحْصَىٰ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عَدَدًا

That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.

That might be a part of some good argument, only if that was not part of the Quran. 

Bruno

to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth. 

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, "we" shall put the mess in your bank account and internet.

Quite terrifying the modern analogy :-) 

Samiya 

We need not just many good translations, but a "style" of the period analysis.

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

   I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are some kind of "divine intervention" that saved my life. Could there be an explanation that is completely secular? I am open to such, but its like arguing that something like the spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually happened but one does not have a collection of unimpeachable witnesses available.

   

   Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!

On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of
whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is
implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable
truths of arithmetic".

Brent


-------- Original Message --------



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/


Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about religion that I
am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Daniel Garber, a
professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in
the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a wrap-up column on
the series."

...

Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny that the arguments
for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that
proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious discussion outside
of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my sense is that the
discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone out of
the question."

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at the origin of the physical universe,

Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.

> or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe

Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a physical universe but you have said on this list that you don't. 

> With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible

If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby Race every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.

  John K Clark

 

[Stephen Paul King]

​Hi John,

   Yo wrote: "God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs."​ Indeed, your existence is proof of this claim!

   Try harder not to project the consequences of being finite and human onto something that you will never understand. Too be sure, I find that those that religionists that push their personal beliefs onto others are reprehensible, but it is the "pushing" and attempts to control the minds of others that is evil, not the belief in what can not be "rationally" explained. 

   There is no replacement for 1p definiteness.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

Step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

[Samiya Illias]

On 14-Oct-2014, at 11:24 pm, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 13 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19 Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it.  Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof. And when We read it, follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation thereof. 

As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” .

READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already = Truth). 

Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.

or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you put them to the sword".

Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would guess. 

Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions during war.

OK. Sorry.

All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else. 

The problem for me, is that, if I open my mind up to accept this literally, then I automatically open my mind to the possibility that Satan made some changes in it. 

How? If you literally open your mind to accept that the Quran is 'exact revealed words without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else ' , then  are you not contradicting yourself when you say that 'then I automatically open my mind to the possibility that Satan made some changes in it ' ??? 

Are you willing to try this exercise? Find the verses added by Satan.  (assuming all this)

Mohammed is a human. 

Yes Muhammad is a human and we bear witness to that. 

You attribute him an implicit deity character when you believe he is not fallible, as all humans are. 

I say that he did not fail in his mission of communicating the message because God made foolproof arrangements to ensure its communication to Muhammad's people through Muhammad, and through his companions and other Muslims to the rest of the world. The responsibility of ensuring that the Quran stays free if changes is not left upon us humans. If it had been left to humans, it would have suffered changes just as much as any other scripture. 

or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .

Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those who lie about petrol and cannabis. 

Your passion for cannabis is amusing :) 

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...

Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would consult many translations.

Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5. 

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".

That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries, among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real" debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was still discussed.

or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”

Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad hominem statement has no place in a sacred text.

Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule of the thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of individuals and nations towards/against Muslims. 

OK. The bible does that too, like the gospels. No problem with non literal interpretation of the sacred text, and historical perspective, but beware those who will take some verses literally.

It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the table.

I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.

If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of the author of the Quran.

I guess. But as wise and knowledgeable he was, he was a human, and all humans are fallible. 

Yes we agree that Muhammad was human. In fact, we bear witness that Muhammad, Jesus, Solomon, David, Moses, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Job, Noah, Adam and all other prophets sent to human communities were humans. They lived amongst their people, preached and showed by their example that it is humanly possible to keep duty to God and live our purpose. 

I can accept as axiom for God that God is not fallible. 

Agree! 

Please note that we believe the Quran is from God. Muhammad is not the author of the Quran.  

It is about infinitely harder to accept that a human is not fallible, or that you can know that he has not failed.

Agree again. You see that is why even though we have the collection of ahadith ( sayings and actions of Prophet Mohammad and his companions) we do not place those books on the same level as the Quran. Those are highly valued historical works but they are not infallible. We always understand and accept that there can be mistakes in those works as those are human efforts. 

Rather, you would try to understand why is it so. 

For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and resistance to the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth. 

or 3:149–51

"We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, "we" shall put the mess in your bank account and internet.

Quite terrifying the modern analogy :-) 

It is the very general idea that although truth might not always be pleasant, lies and non corrected errors can only postpone the unpleasantness and augment its intensity.

It is terrifying but not despairing as we can learn to accept our errors, and understand the fake nature of the power of the lies, eventually. 

Agree. 

Samiya 

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

No. Verses were noted down and memorised as revealed.

What if somebody human made a mistake here, like all of us from time to time?

 

Towards the end of the prophetic mission, when all the verses had been revealed, the Heavenly Messenger Gabriel made the order of the Quranic verses known to the prophet and committed it to his memory, which he communicated to his companions. The huffaz ( who memorised the Quran) learnt it in the correct order. Later on, when the written verses were being compiled during the caliphs' time, the huffaz were consulted on the order of the verses. 

Maybe they made some mistakes?

 

Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran has been transmitted both orally and in written form.

Maybe some mistakes were made here?

 

There are millions of people who know the Quran by heart. Furthermore, once a year, in the month of Ramadhan, the Quran is read in congregational prayers every night such that the entire Quran is revised in one month. The person who leads the prayer is a hafiz and there is always another hafiz right behind him ready to check should he ( the prayer leader) make any mistake.

Good, that somebody checks something once in awhile I guess...

Because if not, mistakes could be conveyed by large number of generations.

Even if they're all good people and mean well, following their culture's traditions: many people wrong in consensus does not make them right. Particularly about nature of some supreme principle/god... or what some say was written by such.

 

This practice has been going on across the globe for several centuries.  

If you were to read the Quran, you will see that it is not arranged by topic. The message is repeated across the Quran with similar and different examples. Monotheism, keeping duty to God, prayer, good deeds and glad tidings for the hereafter, and clear warnings of Judgement Day and the consequences of lack of faith and good deeds are repeatedly explained with examples.

That, particularly "consequences of lack of faith" doesn't sound like, and I quote you:

Holy Quran 109:6

------------------

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

 

 

The fate of nations bygone is also repeated to convey the message, and various references to natural phenomenon explain by examples as well as are signs which can be verified by scientific knowledge, across the centuries depending on the level of scientific knowledge available at the time of study. The book continues to amaze with its factual accuracy.

Not to some people that read it:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

If I'm supposed to be amazed by factual accuracy, I admit to not be convinced by either side of such points. But the page states more about the link between science and the scripture than what I can understand from your posts.

 

It helps belief in those verses which cannot be verified and must be taken on faith. 

Perhaps our beliefs have all the help they can get already, which can even be a problem. Does the scripture treat this problem? PGC

 

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King <step...@charter.net> wrote:

Hi Brent,

   I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are some kind of "divine intervention" that saved my life. Could there be an explanation that is completely secular?

Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a large number of branches, in the ones where you survived something very unlikely necessarily happened?

 

I am open to such, but its like arguing that something like the spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually happened but one does not have a collection of unimpeachable witnesses available.

   

   Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!

I love this idea and I bet on its validity. That being said, how can you know you had such an experience? Could you elaborate?

Cheers,

Telmo.

 

On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of
whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is
implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable
truths of arithmetic".

Brent


-------- Original Message --------



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/


Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about religion that I
am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Daniel Garber, a
professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in
the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a wrap-up column on
the series."

...

Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny that the arguments
for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that
proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious discussion outside
of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my sense is that the
discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone out of
the question."

[spudb...@aol.com]

Aha! Now what of Boltzmann Brains and how this topic is undervalued by the intellects here.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:30 pm
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Oct 2014, at 01:30, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at the origin of the physical universe,

Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.

Proof?

And that is a great example of someone more than willing to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.

> or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe

Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a physical universe but you have said on this list that you don't. 

I never said anything like that. I said only that if comp is true, then invoking a *primary* physical universe to explains the appearance of a physical universe does not work.

> With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible

If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby Race every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.

It is the definition used by philosophers and non confessional theologians since more than 2500 years. It annoyes only the fundamentalist muslims, christians, and the strong atheists, which again confirm my point (you know the one which trigger your bot-like answer).

Bruno

  John K Clark

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Telmo,

  One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We where discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really consequential. It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had to wait for his paper to be published for further information on his theory.

   Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that the events happened are in my memory. All of the emails and so forth are gone, as if they where wiped clean from our reality.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Spudboy,

   Not Boltzmann brains. Vaidman brains!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>> I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at the origin of the physical universe,

>> Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.

> Proof?

Educate yourself by reading the excellent book by Lawrence M Krauss "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing".

 >> I believe in a physical universe but you have said on this list that you don't. 

> I never said anything like that.

You never said anything like that? On october 13 you said  " But, wait, we don't know if there *is* a physical world". As usual in statements of this sort you don't explaine what you're talking about, that is to say you don't  even attempt to explain how things would be different if there was or was not a physical world but nevertheless you said it.
 

> I said only that if comp [...]

I have zero interest in what you have to say about "comp". 

> which again confirm my point (you know the one which trigger your bot-like answer).

If you don't like my bot-like answer then stop making the exact same bot-like accusation; I give the stupidity prize to  "Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism".

  John K Clark

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> which again confirm my point (you know the one which trigger your bot-like answer).

If you don't like my bot-like answer then stop making the exact same bot-like accusation; I give the stupidity prize to  "Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism".

Why? It's the same behavior. What you call bot-like answer is what literalist Christian fundamentalist refer to as "strict duty of prayer": Mindless iteration of unexamined bullshit daily, which you are keeping up with.

The stupidity prize you made up is clearly yours to claim, keep, and take home as long as you keep spamming the list with your personal wishful thinking prayers: "Well known for disliking"... phhh! Yeah, you are as "well known", renowned, and famous as Einstein etc...

You can also make a fool of yourself and dig holes in the woods. You'll appear idiotic/naive to less people statistically speaking. Unless of course you're into public humiliation/embarrassment stuff, in which case maybe it's time to come out of the closet, and seek out those kinds of communities and their forums?

But I bet you can't stop, like the fanatic Christian cannot stop with his prayer/bot-like mantra babbling. That's a comp prediction btw ;-)

Nobody cares though finally, as passionate as your posts may seem to other idiot, you still have nothing. So stick to your prayer and dutifully keep repeating it, lest you be engaged by more posts that will steal your great name/fame due to saving the rest of us from ourselves with the great no-bullshit scientific wisdom approach... that ironically leaves in this case nothing but bullshit in its wake. PGC

[spudb...@aol.com]

Excellent article Stephen. Sean Carrol has made a career, even more than Krauss, of skewering BB's or anything they consider unconventional. Although Krauss does wink and nod at FTL travel. Aaronson is beyond clever, but I don't see his thesis, as well thought out as it was, as being the best answer (Vaidman Bombs). Consider please Brun's experimentation with Closed Timelike Curves. Applying this to the thermodynamics of Boltzmann, quantum mechanics, with CTC's, we get something that looks like J. Richard Gott, and Li Xin Li's (Princeton) Einstein's Universe. BB's included. (Gotts article on ARXIV "I'd Rather See One Than Be One."). 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014  Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The stupidity prize you made up is clearly yours to claim,

Oh I've said plenty of stupid thinks in my time, but I don't think I can compete with Bruno's  "Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism".

  John K Clark

[LizR]

I think I can see what he means, whether or not you agree with him.

[meekerdb]

Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what "Santa Claus" refers to and therefore you do believe in Santa Claus.  A curious inference for a logician.

Brent

On 10/15/2014 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what "Santa Claus" refers to and therefore you do believe in Santa Claus.  A curious inference for a logician.

That's just fancy language, wherein semantic of "Santa" is mapped to "fictitious entity, old, fat, gift giving etc"; so you applying belief predicate to it results in believing untrue fiction.

What's more curious than this is why you choose "Santa" instead of "house" or "Brent" in your example.

But roughly I'd say yes, to negate some proposition you have to know semantic it refers to and point to/represent that idea, with all its possible flaws, and note said negation. And that isn't curious, I'd call it normal because I can't think of some inversion before I have a grasp on some usual state of affairs. PGC

 

[meekerdb]

I works with "house" and "Brent" too.  What's curious is that failing to believe in anything implies that you do believe in it.  I suppose it goes along with the spirit of "everything".  If I can think of it clearly enough to fail to believe it exists then it must be among the the everything that exists.

Brent

[LizR]

Is this a fair comment, Bruno?

[LizR]

I don't believe that's what Bruno means.... (which if I'm wrong means I DO believe that's what he means...)

[Richard Ruquist]

I suggest that believing and not believing in anything is consistent with MWI (and therefore comp) for if you believe something in one world, you will fail to believe in it in some other world.

Richard 

Brent