Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_You_See_Me_%28film%29 ? that was quite fun, a bit incredulity stretching... On 2 May 2014 01:14, Martin Abramson martinabrams...@gmail.com wrote: How about: NOW YOU SEE ME ? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento. There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend. To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least tangentially, and in a fictional manner). I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block univese. Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late although the 10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close in some respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story was inspired by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years beforehand if I remember correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you have to remember that it was made in black and white, for viewing as a weekly serial in 1969...) -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 2 May 2014, at 6:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya The only thing you are sharing on this list is your deep personal emotional need for people to show respect for your holy book. Like all those smitten by some ancient text, you are only vaguely concealing the fact that you are out to proselytise for your favourite religion. You are clearly a soldier in the army of Islam and you are out to convert the infidel. I must say you are getting pretty boring. You have tried every conceivable angle by now to fixate everyone onto the Qu'ran and you simply won't give up until people love you for your deep religious fervour. Buddy - it simply ain't gonna happen in this place. You are not advancing anything other than arguments from authority as you have been told multiple times by now. This kind of thing cannot be concealed by any amount of contrived scholarly nonsense, most of which serves only to bore people on this list to death, mainly because of the selective and tendentious reasoning behind your posts. I'm afraid there isn't much meat in your sandwich. Kim Jones 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 2 May 2014, at 6:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya The only thing you are sharing on this list is your deep personal emotional need for people to show respect for your holy book. Like all those smitten by some ancient text, you are only vaguely concealing the fact that you are out to proselytise for your favourite religion. You are clearly a soldier in the army of Islam and you are out to convert the infidel. I must say you are getting pretty boring. You have tried every conceivable angle by now to fixate everyone onto the Qu'ran and you simply won't give up until people love you for your deep religious fervour. Buddy - it simply ain't gonna happen in this place. You are not advancing anything other than arguments from authority as you have been told multiple times by now. This kind of thing cannot be concealed by any amount of contrived scholarly nonsense, most of which serves only to bore people on this list to death, mainly because of the selective and tendentious reasoning behind your posts. I'm afraid there isn't much meat in your sandwich. I had a friend from Saudi Arabia who opened a cafe* near my house at the time. He practiced Islam but was very discrete about it. He was a smart guy, and willing to discuss his beliefs without any intent to proselytise. He never started that conversation, I was the one curious about it. Once he was insisting with me that I should try some new import beer that he just got. I asked him how could he encourage me to drink, if he was my friend and believed that to be a sin. He said: you are lucky. you don't know any better, so Allah doesn't mind. So I follow his advice to this day and steer clear of any religious enlightenment that could interfere with life's little pleasures! :) Cheers, Telmo. * in the european sense, so it also served booze Kim Jones 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
1st post This article attempts to prove from Scripture... 2nd post Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. Do I detect some fancy footwork? Even I try not to contradict myself in consecutive posts. As for [scripture] has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. - what exactly do the Bible, Torah, Qur'an etc have to say about spin foams, Calabi-Yau manifolds, etc? -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
PS I meant to add, nice comment from Telmo! Wise words - avoid enlightenment, seek pleasure! I believe the Buddha did quite a bit of that, too... although he eventually succumbed to the temptations of enlightenment (I guess nobody's perfect). -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
PPS by the way, I think all that is being proved in that article is that holy texts tend to include a number of creation myths loosely stitched together, rather than just one. I'm fairly sure Genesis in the Bible (for example) contains at least two creation myths (I read it to check, and it certainly seems to). And given that the article claims that Adam was the last man made out of clay that's hardly going to go very far towards uniting the creation myth with evolution! (I know there's some speculation that clays were involved in the evolution of RNA, but it's a BIG leap from RNA to a human being.) PPPS Did the last man made from clay get all fired up, and then acquire a glazed expression? -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings
It is the passage from to eat or to be eaten to to be or not to be. Very nice! PS I took the liberty of - I think - correcting it to what you meant. -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 01 May 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Someone said: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.. So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said: Let´s give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for the people aware of the pattern creation. Existence is relative to theory. Theoretical existence might. But the idea is that some theory can be correct, and in that case, even if *we* cannot be sure, such an existence will be independent of you and the theories. So electrons existed before Millican That contradicts above. and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks. Just as the Moon exists after we discovered atoms. ? Are you serious? The far away, and thus very old, galaxies exist since Hubble (the telescope) detected them? This contradicts your post to me where you told me that the moon is defined by ostentation. Humans refer to that light spot in the sky before they knew about atoms. You lost me. (Typo error?) I think there are many sort of existence, and I prove that all machines can discover them by instrospection: they are ExP(x), [] Ex [] P(x), for each of the many arithmetical modalities. In arithmetic, those modal existences emerge logically from the ontic existence: ExP(x). Bruno Brent Who knows how many things are waiting to become into the existence this way. That is not a good definition of existence for me. -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. To define, is a reasonable precise sense, expectations, sequence, identity, position, or motivation (which I doubt is a simple notion) you need arithmetic. It is, I think, your unwillingness to study a bit of math and logic which prevents you from seeing this. You get a lot about the numbers with few axioms written in first order language. I doubt you can define expectation of sequence in such a simple way. How will you define sequence without mentioning some function from N (the set of natural numbers) to some set? Again, I remind you that simple means simple in the 3p sharable sense, not simple in the 1p personal experiential sense. All scientists agree on the arithmetic axioms, and I have to almost lie to myself to fake me into doubting them. Something like expectation might already have a different meaning for spiders, for different humans, etc. 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Proof is the domain of science. Proof is the domain of mathematics, science can never prove that a idea is correct, it can only prove that something is wrong. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. Scripture, that is to say the silly myths of bronze age tribes, are either capable of guiding our way or they aren't, belief has nothing to do with it. What the faithful believe is that a conscious intelligent being created the universe and thinks that the ultimate virtue is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so, and the more ridiculous the belief the more virtuous it is. I frankly have great difficulty understanding why a omnipotent omniscient being would think that faith (that is to say stupidity) is a virtue let alone the most important one, but I find it extraordinarily easy to understand why a human prophet who wishes to gain control over his fellow human beings would push this idea, it turns the weakness and inconsistency of the mountebank's spiel into a strength. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, A understanding of theology is about as useful in understanding the universe as knowledge of Mother Goose is, and expeditions to find Noah's Ark are as intellectually deep as expeditions to find the giant shoe the old lady lived in who had so many children she didn't know what to do. Richard Dawkins recounts the time he was at a party and somebody asked an Oxford astronomer why there was something rather than nothing, the astronomer said Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain. Dawkins said I was not quick-witted enough to utter the response that I later wrote: 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves? it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, Name one scientific fact in the Bible or the Koran that you wouldn't expect members of a Bronze Age tribe in 1500BC to know. And why do both books give so much moral advice that today we can only describe as evil? Why is the God of the Bible such a moral imbecile? and thus should not be discarded, So you think Jeremiah 19:9 should not be discarded: And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend; you think we should follow Yahweh's example and force people we don't like to eat their children and friends. Is that what you really want? If not then you too think that very very large parts of scripture should not only be discarded but spit upon. 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 02 May 2014, at 05:35, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 He wrote I will welcome any objection, I will reply with great efforts or accept defeat with full grace. . That is very nice, but he does not give the comment ability on the page. So Then he uses the Quran as a literal apparently authoritative source. Only that is not playing the fair rule for that type of argument. perhaps he makes clear on some other page, but for a cold outsider logician, that begs many questions. I don't know Samiya. I tend to believe that we are locally colony of cells, and that each cells is itself an older colony of bacteria, and that those cells are type of colony of molecules, going through some improving self-stabilizing chemical reaction. The bible 'Genesis is a wonderful tale, and it might taught us something, but I don't believe in any literal meaning of it. Evolution is not just random mutation and selection, it is an iteration of simple transformations, and that has mathematical shape (referring to some arithmetical (at least) truth. Evolution is guided by mathematical structure like the mandelbrot set, where you can find basically all natural shapes, from the thunder to fetuses, from river to brains, from forest to cities, and this surrounding itself everywhere 2 times, 4 times, 8 times, 16 times, ... (that might help for the measure problem in case the rational m set is a compact Turing complete set). I am afraid that your conception of God might be too much human and cultural, earthly provincial, I would say, with respect of the possible absolute whole. I understand the comfort for the humans in that type of thought, but to get light on the mind body problem, even with the comp assumption, we have to be open for something which might be much more big, and much more deep. It may be that the comp God dislikes, eventually, those creatures who *assert publicly* that God prefers them to other creatures. You might have some experiences which can give that felling, but the more that experience is genuine, the less you invoke it, and the more you are cautious with respect to more and more creatures and type of creatures, I think. In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of you, and a fortiori of God. Sacred texts can be useful, but only as far as you can see the meaning behind the poetry, and can abandon them when progressing on your path. If not they became soon or later an obstacle. if you compare with machine's theology, we can say that Sufi, Kabbala and the mystic christians are less wrong, less influenced by maimonides' emphasis on the Aristotelian conception. That emphasis was useful for the development of science, but still wrong at the fundamental level. The sufi people, and the kabbalist have not cut the link with Platonism and the mystic message. In that direction, things like clay are but theologically irrelevant dreamy local implementation details. In the west, we are wrong on this plato/aristotle branching since the 6th century. In the middle-east, we are wrong on it since the 11th century, and in the far east, I don't know, but many doctrines are comp-theologically coherent. By wrong, I always mean making a big shift from what is more coherent with the comp assumption. Bruno A screw has the nature of buddha Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Robert M. Pirsig) 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
John asks: Name one scientific fact in the Bible or the Koran that you wouldn't expect members of a Bronze Age tribe in 1500BC to know. 1. Worker honey bees who collect food are females 2. More than one stomach in a honey bee's body 3. Description of human embryo which can only be studied with a microscope 4. Sex of the baby determined by the father's semen 5. Lying is associated with the frontal brain 6. Shape of the Earth is ovoid 7. Iron is not indigenous to Earth 8. Time is relative You can explore these and more topics on the following links: http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/ http://www.4islam.com/amazingquran.shtml John asks: And why do both books give so much moral advice that today we can only describe as evil? Why is the God of the Bible such a moral imbecile? 1. The scriptures need to be studied with reference to context. 2. The scriptures have suffered alterations, so that we do need to be very careful in the study and assess them against sound moral principles, scientific knowledge and cross-check with itself and other scriptures. 3. Only the arabic text of the Quran has not suffered changes, yet still one needs to be careful with the translations and interpretations. 4. I find the moral advice in the Quran to be based upon beautiful moral principles. 5. God is loving, kind and compassionate. Samiya On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:40 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Proof is the domain of science. Proof is the domain of mathematics, science can never prove that a idea is correct, it can only prove that something is wrong. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. Scripture, that is to say the silly myths of bronze age tribes, are either capable of guiding our way or they aren't, belief has nothing to do with it. What the faithful believe is that a conscious intelligent being created the universe and thinks that the ultimate virtue is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so, and the more ridiculous the belief the more virtuous it is. I frankly have great difficulty understanding why a omnipotent omniscient being would think that faith (that is to say stupidity) is a virtue let alone the most important one, but I find it extraordinarily easy to understand why a human prophet who wishes to gain control over his fellow human beings would push this idea, it turns the weakness and inconsistency of the mountebank's spiel into a strength. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, A understanding of theology is about as useful in understanding the universe as knowledge of Mother Goose is, and expeditions to find Noah's Ark are as intellectually deep as expeditions to find the giant shoe the old lady lived in who had so many children she didn't know what to do. Richard Dawkins recounts the time he was at a party and somebody asked an Oxford astronomer why there was something rather than nothing, the astronomer said Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain. Dawkins said I was not quick-witted enough to utter the response that I later wrote: 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves? it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, Name one scientific fact in the Bible or the Koran that you wouldn't expect members of a Bronze Age tribe in 1500BC to know. And why do both books give so much moral advice that today we can only describe as evil? Why is the God of the Bible such a moral imbecile? and thus should not be discarded, So you think Jeremiah 19:9 should not be discarded: And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend; you think we should follow Yahweh's example and force people we don't like to eat their children and friends. Is that what you really want? If not then you too think that very very large parts of scripture should not only be discarded but spit upon. 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 May 2014, at 05:35, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 He wrote I will welcome any objection, I will reply with great efforts or accept defeat with full grace. . That is very nice, but he does not give the comment ability on the page. So Then he uses the Quran as a literal apparently authoritative source. Only that is not playing the fair rule for that type of argument. perhaps he makes clear on some other page, but for a cold outsider logician, that begs many questions. I don't know Samiya. I tend to believe that we are locally colony of cells, and that each cells is itself an older colony of bacteria, and that those cells are type of colony of molecules, going through some improving self-stabilizing chemical reaction. The bible 'Genesis is a wonderful tale, and it might taught us something, but I don't believe in any literal meaning of it. Evolution is not just random mutation and selection, it is an iteration of simple transformations, and that has mathematical shape (referring to some arithmetical (at least) truth. Evolution is guided by mathematical structure like the mandelbrot set, where you can find basically all natural shapes, from the thunder to fetuses, from river to brains, from forest to cities, and this surrounding itself everywhere 2 times, 4 times, 8 times, 16 times, ... (that might help for the measure problem in case the rational m set is a compact Turing complete set). I am afraid that your conception of God might be too much human and cultural, earthly provincial, I would say, with respect of the possible absolute whole. I understand the comfort for the humans in that type of thought, but to get light on the mind body problem, even with the comp assumption, we have to be open for something which might be much more big, and much more deep. How do you get that impression? I think that God is unknowable and incomprehensible. The more I study the Quran and the more I learn of research and discoveries on the frontiers of science, the more I'm filled with awe at the Majesty of God. God is above and beyond, greater than anything we can even begin to imagine. It may be that the comp God dislikes, eventually, those creatures who *assert publicly* that God prefers them to other creatures. Well, that seems to be true. In Quran 62:6, and other places, we read about God's dislike for people claiming preference over others in God's favour. God's mercy extends over all. You might have some experiences which can give that felling, but the more that experience is genuine, the less you invoke it, and the more you are cautious with respect to more and more creatures and type of creatures, I think. In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of you, and a fortiori of God. We do recognize the existence of other creatures. What do you mean by 'In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of you, and a fortiori of God.'? Samiya Sacred texts can be useful, but only as far as you can see the meaning behind the poetry, and can abandon them when progressing on your path. If not they became soon or later an obstacle. if you compare with machine's theology, we can say that Sufi, Kabbala and the mystic christians are less wrong, less influenced by maimonides' emphasis on the Aristotelian conception. That emphasis was useful for the development of science, but still wrong at the fundamental level. The sufi people, and the kabbalist have not cut the link with Platonism and the mystic message. In that direction, things like clay are but theologically irrelevant dreamy local implementation details. In the west, we are wrong on this plato/aristotle branching since the 6th century. In the middle-east, we are wrong on it since the 11th century, and in the far east, I don't know, but many doctrines are comp-theologically coherent. By wrong, I always mean making a big shift from what is more coherent with the comp assumption. Bruno *A screw has the nature of buddha* Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Robert M. Pirsig) 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Telmo, I admire your self-control in 'religious' topics. Do you indeed have a well fitting definition of religious? On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 2 May 2014, at 6:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya The only thing you are sharing on this list is your deep personal emotional need for people to show respect for your holy book. Like all those smitten by some ancient text, you are only vaguely concealing the fact that you are out to proselytise for your favourite religion. You are clearly a soldier in the army of Islam and you are out to convert the infidel. I must say you are getting pretty boring. You have tried every conceivable angle by now to fixate everyone onto the Qu'ran and you simply won't give up until people love you for your deep religious fervour. Buddy - it simply ain't gonna happen in this place. You are not advancing anything other than arguments from authority as you have been told multiple times by now. This kind of thing cannot be concealed by any amount of contrived scholarly nonsense, most of which serves only to bore people on this list to death, mainly because of the selective and tendentious reasoning behind your posts. I'm afraid there isn't much meat in your sandwich. I had a friend from Saudi Arabia who opened a cafe* near my house at the time. He practiced Islam but was very discrete about it. He was a smart guy, and willing to discuss his beliefs without any intent to proselytise. He never started that conversation, I was the one curious about it. Once he was insisting with me that I should try some new import beer that he just got. I asked him how could he encourage me to drink, if he was my friend and believed that to be a sin. He said: you are lucky. you don't know any better, so Allah doesn't mind. So I follow his advice to this day and steer clear of any religious enlightenment that could interfere with life's little pleasures! :) Cheers, Telmo. * in the european sense, so it also served booze Kim Jones 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 5/2/2014 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 May 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Someone said: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.. So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said: Let愀 give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for the people aware of the pattern creation. Existence is relative to theory. Theoretical existence might. What's theoretical existence? But the idea is that some theory can be correct, and in that case, even if *we* cannot be sure, such an existence will be independent of you and the theories. That's the idea that there is some mind-independent reality. A very good theory, or should I say meta-theory. So electrons existed before Millican That contradicts above. Not at all. The theory of elementary particles is that they have existed since the reheating at the end of inflation. and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks. Just as the Moon exists after we discovered atoms. ? Are you serious? The far away, and thus very old, galaxies exist since Hubble (the telescope) detected them? For a logician you make a lot unjustified inferences. I'd say protons failed to exist before Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks. I was just making the point that even if you show, relative to some theory, that the Moon can made of arithmetic it doesn't mean the Moon ceases to exist or that we can't still define Moon by pointing to that shiny thing in the sky. Brent This contradicts your post to me where you told me that the moon is defined by ostentation. Humans refer to that light spot in the sky before they knew about atoms. You lost me. (Typo error?) I think there are many sort of existence, and I prove that all machines can discover them by instrospection: they are ExP(x), [] Ex [] P(x), for each of the many arithmetical modalities. In arithmetic, those modal existences emerge logically from the ontic existence: ExP(x). Isn't ontic existence a redundancy, like really real existence. I agree that there are different kinds of existence, but I doubt that you can get from mathematical satisfaction to Dr. Johnson. Brent 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:21:19 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I say that human beings (first-person) experience reality only in terms of words, You think that we were born with words? many words with some measure of meaning and some without any meaning at all. Even the physics you mentioned are conveyed to the public as words, and the math that is conveyed between physicists is expressed in words, including Robinson's 1,2,3... arithmetic. You see some words, particularly mathematical and physical terms, have special properties that are in some measure truthful...Richard Ruquist 20140501 On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. Craig 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:07:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 2 May 2014 04:42, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. Do you believe that mathematical truths are true independent of mind? I'm not sure what mind is. I understand that nothing can exist independently of sensory experience, including mathematical truths. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. To define, is a reasonable precise sense, expectations, sequence, identity, position, or motivation (which I doubt is a simple notion) you need arithmetic. How can arithmetic exist without sequence and then define sequence? It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist without sequence. It is, I think, your unwillingness to study a bit of math and logic which prevents you from seeing this. Just the opposite. It is your unwillingness to question the supremacy of math and logic which prevents you from even seeing that there is something to question. You get a lot about the numbers with few axioms written in first order language. I don't see why any axioms would be possible. Where do they come from? Who is writing them? I doubt you can define expectation of sequence in such a simple way. How can you doubt it? How will you define sequence without mentioning some function from N (the set of natural numbers) to some set? With rhythmic patterns and pointing - the way that everyone learns to count. A horse can understand sequence without a formal definition derived from set theory. What you are saying sounds to me like 'you cannot make an apple unless you ask an apple pie how to do it'. Again, I remind you that simple means simple in the 3p sharable sense, not simple in the 1p personal experiential sense. Why is that not an arbitrary bias? If I don't allow the possibility of 3p without 1p, then simplicity can only be 1p. All scientists agree on the arithmetic axioms, If that's true, its an argument from authority, and it could be the reason why all scientists fail to solve the hard problem. (which is exactly my argument). and I have to almost lie to myself to fake me into doubting them. I can't remember what it was like before I learned arithmetic, but I can still understand that we all live for years without those notions. There is at least one culture today that has no arithmetic. Something like expectation might already have a different meaning for spiders, for different humans, etc. Either way, it is undeniably more primitive than arithmetic in my view. Craig 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 3 May 2014 06:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: John asks: Name one scientific fact in the Bible or the Koran that you wouldn't expect members of a Bronze Age tribe in 1500BC to know. 1. Worker honey bees who collect food are females 2. More than one stomach in a honey bee's body 3. Description of human embryo which can only be studied with a microscope 4. Sex of the baby determined by the father's semen 5. Lying is associated with the frontal brain 6. Shape of the Earth is ovoid 7. Iron is not indigenous to Earth 8. Time is relative You can explore these and more topics on the following links: http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/ http://www.4islam.com/amazingquran.shtml I don't have time to explore those links, but if you can cut and paste the relevant passages for each of the above claims, then I (and everyone else) can decide whether they are true or not. -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Evolution from Scripture
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:36 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Evolution from Scripture Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: What evidence is there, that life was created? The belief that life as created is rooted in faith. Faith is accepted and once accepted it remains – at least mostly and for the most part -- unexamined. It seems rather more likely that life emerged. The organized organic-carbon chemistry of life is more likely to actually be what it reveals itself to be, than it is to be the result of some “magical” process invoked by some bronze/iron age mythology of the Abrahamic lineage. Cheers, Chris http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
