Excel to Analyze Q Verses in 1400 Themes - Useless??

[godelian]

However you present it, the final resultant is based on the consensus of a group of humans, not by a God.

That is the same for a blockchain. The final result is a consensus amongst the miners as to what the authoritative fork (=version) is. These machines try to speed up the consensus by following the longest chain. It usually works, but sometimes it may take some time. Shit happens.

Whatever are mathematical axioms, they are not absolutely independent of the collective of humans.

That is ontological psychologism. I am against that view because theorem provers are computer programs and not humans.

I am asking you to exercise common sense like if you have two apples and you then eat, what is left is one apple. This is common sense and rational.

That is a simple question with a simple answer. Not all questions are simple.

Here again:
I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;
If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
-must be killed upon the slightest threat
-cannot be a friend,
-dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
-insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
would you agree that the above is not evil?
Don't be a coward, give a common sense and rational answer to the above.

These are not even verses from the Quran but paraphrased interpretations taken out of context. In fact, verse interpretation is not even "al fiqh". The field is called "tafsir". I have not even read any publication on tafsir. So, what do I know about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير, romanized: tafsīr [tafˈsiːr]; English: Explanation[1]) refers to exegesis, usually of the Quran. An author of a tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسّر; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون, romanized: mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will.[2]

One reason why I do not spend time on Tafsir, is because it is not particularly practical. It does not consist of rulings but of "commentary". What can you even "do" with "commentary"? It is also quite boring. In my opinion, the interesting field is jurisprudence. Is a particular behavior halal or haram? Yes or no? That is what I read.

You should rather ask your question to a tafsir expert, which is not me. But then again, you'd better quote the verses literally, instead of providing your own interpretation. This site seems to provide experts in tafsir:

https://quranexpert.com/online-tafsir-quran/

Quran Expert – A Comprehensive Quran Tasfeer Teaching Realm

The best online Islamic lectures and tutorials are offered by Quran Expert, an online Quran Tafseer institute. Muslims’ minds will be stimulated by Quran experts through top-notch instruction that uses contemporary technology in order to help them acquire discipline, sharpen their abilities, and continue to adhere to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH. We’re here to aid in your comprehension of the Quran. By looking for an incredibly ingrained viewpoint on Islam, we enable you to harness the power of knowledge.

I am more a fan of "al fiqh" than "tafsir" but some people seem to like "tafsir" quite a lot. They can surely help with doing "commentary on verses".

[Veritas Aequitas]

However you present it, the final resultant is based on the consensus of a group of humans, not by a God.

That is the same for a blockchain. The final result is a consensus amongst the miners as to what the authoritative fork (=version) is. These machines try to speed up the consensus by following the longest chain. It usually works, but sometimes it may take some time. Shit happens.

My principle is,
whatever is reality is conditioned upon an embodied human-based Framework and System of realization of reality and knowledge. [FSRC]
A real apple is something that is solid, physical, as verified by the science-biology FSRC.
However, in the case of ordinary currencies at present, there is no real physical reality attached to currencies; this is same as crypto-currencies [by miners] which is based on consensus [within a program and block chain] without anything really real behind it. If there is no consensus with the crypto-FSRC, then the currency is just empty air.
This same mechanism is the same with the theological FRSC where what is deemed to be a real God with its moral Laws is based on consensus without any thing really real behind it.

Just like currencies, e.g. crypto, your God and its moral laws are based on mental consensus which ultimately is an illusion.

Whatever are mathematical axioms, they are not absolutely independent of the collective of humans.

That is ontological psychologism. I am against that view because theorem provers are computer programs and not humans.

Can you prove mathematical axioms exist absolutely independent of humans interactions?

I am asking you to exercise common sense like if you have two apples and you then eat, what is left is one apple. This is common sense and rational.

That is a simple question with a simple answer. Not all questions are simple.

Here again:
I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;
If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
-must be killed upon the slightest threat
-cannot be a friend,
-dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
-insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
would you agree that the above is not evil?
Don't be a coward, give a common sense and rational answer to the above.

These are not even verses from the Quran but paraphrased interpretations taken out of context. In fact, verse interpretation is not even "al fiqh". The field is called "tafsir". I have not even read any publication on tafsir. So, what do I know about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير, romanized: tafsīr [tafˈsiːr]; English: Explanation[1]) refers to exegesis, usually of the Quran. An author of a tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسّر; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون, romanized: mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will.[2]

One reason why I do not spend time on Tafsir, is because it is not particularly practical. It does not consist of rulings but of "commentary". What can you even "do" with "commentary"? It is also quite boring. In my opinion, the interesting field is jurisprudence. Is a particular behavior halal or haram? Yes or no? That is what I read.

You should rather ask your question to a tafsir expert, which is not me. But then again, you'd better quote the verses literally, instead of providing your own interpretation. This site seems to provide experts in tafsir:

https://quranexpert.com/online-tafsir-quran/

Quran Expert – A Comprehensive Quran Tasfeer Teaching Realm

The best online Islamic lectures and tutorials are offered by Quran Expert, an online Quran Tafseer institute. Muslims’ minds will be stimulated by Quran experts through top-notch instruction that uses contemporary technology in order to help them acquire discipline, sharpen their abilities, and continue to adhere to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH. We’re here to aid in your comprehension of the Quran. By looking for an incredibly ingrained viewpoint on Islam, we enable you to harness the power of knowledge.

I am more a fan of "al fiqh" than "tafsir" but some people seem to like "tafsir" quite a lot. They can surely help with doing "commentary on verses".

I did not state the below are from the Quran [yet];

I asked, if MY moral system dictates the following;
If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer,
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
-must be killed upon the slightest threat
-cannot be a friend,
-dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
-insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
would you agree that the above is not evil?
Don't be a coward, give a common sense and rational answer to the above.

[godelian]

My principle is,
whatever is reality is conditioned upon an embodied human-based Framework and System of realization of reality and knowledge. [FSRC]
A real apple is something that is solid, physical, as verified by the science-biology FSRC.
However, in the case of ordinary currencies at present, there is no real physical reality attached to currencies; this is same as crypto-currencies [by miners] which is based on consensus [within a program and block chain] without anything really real behind it. If there is no consensus with the crypto-FSRC, then the currency is just empty air.

Religion and mathematics are axiomatic abstractions while Bitcoin is a virtuality, i.e. a network of communicating processes running on distributed computers. What Bitcoin and the database of Islamic jurisprudential rulings have in common, is the problem of decentralized updating of distributed databases. This problem requires addressing the notorious Byzantine Generals' problem:

https://river.com/learn/what-is-the-byz ... s-problem/
What Is the Byzantine Generals Problem?

The Byzantine Generals Problem is a game theory problem, which describes the difficulty decentralized parties have in arriving at consensus without relying on a trusted central party. In a network where no member can verify the identity of other members, how can members collectively agree on a certain truth?

It is fundamentally a problem of decentralization. There are solutions but they take quite a bit of effort to implement.

This same mechanism is the same with the theological FRSC where what is deemed to be a real God with its moral Laws is based on consensus without any thing really real behind it.
Just like currencies, e.g. crypto, your God and its moral laws are based on mental consensus which ultimately is an illusion.

You seem to have a problem grasping abstract knowledge domains and even virtual words that exist on computer systems, i.e. virtualities.
Sorry, but that is a you-problem.

Can you prove mathematical axioms exist absolutely independent of humans interactions?

To prove, from what exactly? The ontology of mathematics is itself not a mathematical theory. Therefore, there is nothing provable about the various ontologies that I tend to refer to, i.e. Platonism, constructivism, logicism, structuralism, and formalism. I may refer to one of these ontologies in particular arguments because it happens to be in my opinion the most relevant view on the subject, in that particular context.

Here again:
I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;
If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
...

You want me to write commentary on commentary on something unspecified? The idea appears to me as totally meaningless. I have no opinion on that. It is not related to anything I know about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My principle is,
whatever is reality is conditioned upon an embodied human-based Framework and System of realization of reality and knowledge. [FSRC]
A real apple is something that is solid, physical, as verified by the science-biology FSRC.
However, in the case of ordinary currencies at present, there is no real physical reality attached to currencies; this is same as crypto-currencies [by miners] which is based on consensus [within a program and block chain] without anything really real behind it. If there is no consensus with the crypto-FSRC, then the currency is just empty air.

Religion and mathematics are axiomatic abstractions while Bitcoin is a virtuality, i.e. a network of communicating processes running on distributed computers. What Bitcoin and the database of Islamic jurisprudential rulings have in common, is the problem of decentralized updating of distributed databases. This problem requires addressing the notorious Byzantine Generals' problem:

https://river.com/learn/what-is-the-byz ... s-problem/
What Is the Byzantine Generals Problem?

The Byzantine Generals Problem is a game theory problem, which describes the difficulty decentralized parties have in arriving at consensus without relying on a trusted central party. In a network where no member can verify the identity of other members, how can members collectively agree on a certain truth?

It is fundamentally a problem of decentralization. There are solutions but they take quite a bit of effort to implement.

This same mechanism is the same with the theological FRSC where what is deemed to be a real God with its moral Laws is based on consensus without any thing really real behind it.
Just like currencies, e.g. crypto, your God and its moral laws are based on mental consensus which ultimately is an illusion.

You seem to have a problem grasping abstract knowledge domains and even virtual words that exist on computer systems, i.e. virtualities.
Sorry, but that is a you-problem.

Can you prove mathematical axioms exist absolutely independent of humans interactions?

To prove, from what exactly? The ontology of mathematics is itself not a mathematical theory. Therefore, there is nothing provable about the various ontologies that I tend to refer to, i.e. Platonism, constructivism, logicism, structuralism, and formalism. I may refer to one of these ontologies in particular arguments because it happens to be in my opinion the most relevant view on the subject, in that particular context.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.
Proof is not confined to Mathematics, proof is applicable to science, legal, and in general;
proof =evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
I will not be bothered with the above.

Here again:
I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;
If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
...

You want me to write commentary on commentary on something unspecified? The idea appears to me as totally meaningless. I have no opinion on that. It is not related to anything I know about.

I'll rephrase and ask again; it has nothing to do with a commentary on commentary; it is not meaningless. It is just common sense for any normal rational human.

• If a group has a moral system which dictates that 'you' as a non-believer of their beliefs;
  
  -must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
  -must be killed upon the slightest threat
  -cannot be a friend,
  -dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
  -insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
  
  would you agree that the above is very evil?

It is very relevant to the discussion so far, give a common sense and rational answer to the above and I will get back to topic.

[godelian]

Proof is not confined to Mathematics, proof is applicable to science, legal, and in general;
proof =evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Proof is exclusively deductive. It means that a conclusion necessarily follows from its premises. Science uses experimental testing to look for counterexamples for a stubborn observable pattern. Science is inductive. Science does not use proof. Science is not an axiomatic system. You cannot produce evidence for a scientific theory by merely reasoning about it. Instead, you must conduct experimental tests.

Mathematics revolves around provability while science revolves around testability.

I'll rephrase and ask again; it has nothing to do with a commentary on commentary; it is not meaningless. It is just common sense for any normal rational human.
It is very relevant to the discussion so far, give a common sense and rational answer to the above and I will get back to topic.

Commenting on some bullshit is not "common sense"! What is even the origin of these things? You are not even properly quoting or referencing. Or did you just invent these things?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Proof is not confined to Mathematics, proof is applicable to science, legal, and in general;
proof =evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Proof is exclusively deductive. It means that a conclusion necessarily follows from its premises. Science uses experimental testing to look for counterexamples for a stubborn observable pattern. Science is inductive. Science does not use proof. Science is not an axiomatic system. You cannot produce evidence for a scientific theory by merely reasoning about it. Instead, you must conduct experimental tests.

Mathematics revolves around provability while science revolves around testability.

Are you really that ignorant?

Re the meaning of 'what is proof';

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... sh/proof_1

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... lish/proof

Now tell me why you are right and the above dictionaries are wrong.

I'll rephrase and ask again; it has nothing to do with a commentary on commentary; it is not meaningless. It is just common sense for any normal rational human.
It is very relevant to the discussion so far, give a common sense and rational answer to the above and I will get back to topic.

Commenting on some bullshit is not "common sense"! What is even the origin of these things? You are not even properly quoting or referencing. Or did you just invent these things?

How is that you don't understand a simple question:

If X insists A ought to be killed merely because A's belief is different from his, is that an evil belief?

This is common sense and you cannot give an answer?

[godelian]

Are you really that ignorant?
Re the meaning of 'what is proof';
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... sh/proof_1
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... lish/proof
Now tell me why you are right and the above dictionaries are wrong.

A layman's dictionary is not a particularly good source for epistemology. You have clearly not read anything on the subject of whether "proof in science" even exists:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 470a4b2fb1

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
______________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24]
______________________________________________________
https://theconversation.com/forget-what ... -thing-578

Forget what you’ve read, science can’t prove a thing

When people ask for proof, they generally just mean “evidence”. Scientists may have lots of “evidence”, but will never claim to have “proof,” because proof does not exist in science.
Proof has a technical meaning that only applies in mathematics.
All we can do in science is collect evidence – lots of it – much the way we do in testing gravitational theory.
So long as the evidence is consistent with the theory, we consider the theory validated. But it will never be proven.
______________________________________________________
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... ific-proof

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
______________________________________________________
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/1 ... ood-thing/

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything.
______________________________________________________
https://www.mysportscience.com/post/why ... e-anything

Why science does not "prove" anything

We often read that science has “proven” something…. However, for a scientist this is an immediate red flag, as we should never use the term "proven" in a scientific context. Here I will explain why everyone should see red flags when they read “science-proven” or “scientifically proven”.

There are 4 main reasons why science cannot "prove" anything:

Can we never use the word "proven"?

We can… there are certain contexts where the word "proven" is justified. It is possible to use the word proven in situations where there is 100% certainty. In Maths and in logic this is possible. 1+1=2 in all situations. This is different in science where we will never achieve 100% certainty.
______________________________________________________
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017 ... 38474d5392

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about. And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.
______________________________________________________
https://theconversation.com/wheres-the- ... none-30570

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Those people looking for proof to come from any research in science will be sadly disappointed.

But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

What has science proved?

In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing.

The problem with people like you is that you are so incredibly sure that you know, but in reality you know fuck all.
What do you know or understand about the epistemology of science? Obviously, fuck all.

How is that you don't understand a simple question:
If X insists A ought to be killed merely because A's belief is different from his, is that an evil belief?

Your question is meaningless without context. Example:
A believes that he should detonate an enormous bomb in the Moscow Pushkin theatre.
X insists that A ought to be killed because A's belief is different from his.
The belief of X is obviously not evil.

This is common sense and you cannot give an answer?

I can give you 10 examples where the belief of X is evil and 10 examples where it is not. It depends on the interpretation, i.e. by filling in the details. Your template is not categorical. There are an unlimited number of interpretations possible for it.

You are clearly unfamiliar with model theory:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/

Sometimes we write or speak a sentence S that expresses nothing either true or false, because some crucial information is missing about what the words mean. If we go on to add this information, so that S comes to express a true or false statement, we are said to interpret S, and the added information is called an interpretation of S. If the interpretation I happens to make S state something true, we say that I is a model of S, or that I satisfies S, in symbols ‘I⊨S’.

For example I might say:

He is killing all of them,

and offer the interpretation that ‘he’ is Alfonso Arblaster of 35 The Crescent, Beetleford, and that ‘them’ are the pigeons in his loft. This interpretation explains (a) what objects some expressions refer to, and (b) what classes some quantifiers range over.

You fail to understand that theories are rarely categorical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_theory

In mathematical logic, a theory is categorical if it has exactly one model (up to isomorphism).[a] Such a theory can be viewed as defining its model, uniquely characterizing the model's structure. In first-order logic, only theories with a finite model can be categorical.

It is hard to design a categorical scenario. You clearly did not manage to pull it off. Therefore, your question is fundamentally stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you really that ignorant?
Re the meaning of 'what is proof';
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... sh/proof_1
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... lish/proof
Now tell me why you are right and the above dictionaries are wrong.

A layman's dictionary is not a particularly good source for epistemology. You have clearly not read anything on the subject of whether "proof in science" even exists:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 470a4b2fb1

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
______________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24]
______________________________________________________
https://theconversation.com/forget-what ... -thing-578

Forget what you’ve read, science can’t prove a thing

When people ask for proof, they generally just mean “evidence”. Scientists may have lots of “evidence”, but will never claim to have “proof,” because proof does not exist in science.
Proof has a technical meaning that only applies in mathematics.
All we can do in science is collect evidence – lots of it – much the way we do in testing gravitational theory.
So long as the evidence is consistent with the theory, we consider the theory validated. But it will never be proven.
______________________________________________________
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... ific-proof

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
______________________________________________________
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/1 ... ood-thing/

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything.
______________________________________________________
https://www.mysportscience.com/post/why ... e-anything

Why science does not "prove" anything

We often read that science has “proven” something…. However, for a scientist this is an immediate red flag, as we should never use the term "proven" in a scientific context. Here I will explain why everyone should see red flags when they read “science-proven” or “scientifically proven”.

There are 4 main reasons why science cannot "prove" anything:

Can we never use the word "proven"?

We can… there are certain contexts where the word "proven" is justified. It is possible to use the word proven in situations where there is 100% certainty. In Maths and in logic this is possible. 1+1=2 in all situations. This is different in science where we will never achieve 100% certainty.
______________________________________________________
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017 ... 38474d5392

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about. And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.
______________________________________________________
https://theconversation.com/wheres-the- ... none-30570

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Those people looking for proof to come from any research in science will be sadly disappointed.

But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

What has science proved?

In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing.

The problem with people like you is that you are so incredibly sure that you know, but in reality you know fuck all.
What do you know or understand about the epistemology of science? Obviously, fuck all.

How is that you don't understand a simple question:
If X insists A ought to be killed merely because A's belief is different from his, is that an evil belief?

Your question is meaningless without context. Example:
A believes that he should detonate an enormous bomb in the Moscow Pushkin theatre.
X insists that A ought to be killed because A's belief is different from his.
The belief of X is obviously not evil.

This is common sense and you cannot give an answer?

I can give you 10 examples where the belief of X is evil and 10 examples where it is not. It depends on the interpretation, i.e. by filling in the details. Your template is not categorical. There are an unlimited number of interpretations possible for it.

You are clearly unfamiliar with model theory:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/

Sometimes we write or speak a sentence S that expresses nothing either true or false, because some crucial information is missing about what the words mean. If we go on to add this information, so that S comes to express a true or false statement, we are said to interpret S, and the added information is called an interpretation of S. If the interpretation I happens to make S state something true, we say that I is a model of S, or that I satisfies S, in symbols ‘I⊨S’.

For example I might say:

He is killing all of them,

and offer the interpretation that ‘he’ is Alfonso Arblaster of 35 The Crescent, Beetleford, and that ‘them’ are the pigeons in his loft. This interpretation explains (a) what objects some expressions refer to, and (b) what classes some quantifiers range over.

You fail to understand that theories are rarely categorical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_theory

In mathematical logic, a theory is categorical if it has exactly one model (up to isomorphism).[a] Such a theory can be viewed as defining its model, uniquely characterizing the model's structure. In first-order logic, only theories with a finite model can be categorical.

It is hard to design a categorical scenario. You clearly did not manage to pull it off. Therefore, your question is fundamentally stupid.

Your thinking is narrow, shallow and stupid.

Note your reference:

Can we never use the word "proven"?

We can… there are certain contexts where the word "proven" is justified. It is possible to use the word proven in situations where there is 100% certainty. In Maths and in logic this is possible. 1+1=2 in all situations. This is different in science where we will never achieve 100% certainty.

I did not ask for proof in the sense of certainty but merely as indicated in the dictionaries above. I mentioned common-sense and rationality.

Are you diagnosed with autism? in not being reading the mind of others or exercising the Principle of Charity:

To bring it home:

X believes that he should denote a bomb in your house where your family, parents and siblings live.
X insists that they ought to be killed because yours and theirs belief is different from his.
Is the belief of X immoral & evil [as defined earlier]?

[godelian]

I did not ask for proof in the sense of certainty but merely as indicated in the dictionaries above. I mentioned common-sense and rationality.

I quote 10+ papers on the epistemology of science in which the author insist that you should never use the term "proof" in science, and you still want to do it. What's wrong with you? There is a broad consensus that you should not do that and you do it anyway. Go figure !! Why don't you first read up on the epistemology of science before making that kind of stupid claims?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 90542815D0

1 - The Epistemology of Science

Scientific epistemology begins from the idea that the truth of a universal statement, such as a scientific law, can never be conclusively proved. No matter how successful a hypothesis has been in the past, it can always turn out to make incorrect predictions when applied in a new situation. Karl Popper argued that the most important experimental results are those that falsify a theory, and he proposed falsifiability as a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

What you have argued, is in violation of chapter 1, paragraph 1, of the most basic course on the epistemology of science.

Is that what you call "common sense" ?
Is that what you call "rationality" ?

You know nothing about a subject -- not even the beginning of the beginning. Next, you fantasize about how it works. Furthermore, you are also too lazy to do any homework or read up about it. Moreover, you keep arguing the same stupid refuted point again and again.

You use the term "proof" in the context of science while it is strictly forbidden to do that. What is there that you do not understand about that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you really that ignorant?
Re the meaning of 'what is proof';
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... sh/proof_1
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... lish/proof
Now tell me why you are right and the above dictionaries are wrong.

A layman's dictionary is not a particularly good source for epistemology. You have clearly not read anything on the subject of whether "proof in science" even exists:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 470a4b2fb1

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
______________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24]
______________________________________________________
https://theconversation.com/forget-what ... -thing-578

Forget what you’ve read, science can’t prove a thing

When people ask for proof, they generally just mean “evidence”. Scientists may have lots of “evidence”, but will never claim to have “proof,” because proof does not exist in science.
Proof has a technical meaning that only applies in mathematics.
All we can do in science is collect evidence – lots of it – much the way we do in testing gravitational theory.
So long as the evidence is consistent with the theory, we consider the theory validated. But it will never be proven.
______________________________________________________
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... ific-proof

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
______________________________________________________
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/1 ... ood-thing/

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything.
______________________________________________________
https://www.mysportscience.com/post/why ... e-anything

Why science does not "prove" anything

We often read that science has “proven” something…. However, for a scientist this is an immediate red flag, as we should never use the term "proven" in a scientific context. Here I will explain why everyone should see red flags when they read “science-proven” or “scientifically proven”.

There are 4 main reasons why science cannot "prove" anything:

Can we never use the word "proven"?

We can… there are certain contexts where the word "proven" is justified. It is possible to use the word proven in situations where there is 100% certainty. In Maths and in logic this is possible. 1+1=2 in all situations. This is different in science where we will never achieve 100% certainty.
______________________________________________________
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017 ... 38474d5392

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about. And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.
______________________________________________________
https://theconversation.com/wheres-the- ... none-30570

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Those people looking for proof to come from any research in science will be sadly disappointed.

But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

What has science proved?

In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing.

The problem with people like you is that you are so incredibly sure that you know, but in reality you know fuck all.
What do you know or understand about the epistemology of science? Obviously, fuck all.

Take it easy, don't 'fuck' around if you are fasting.

I did a search
"scientific proof"
About 4,740,000 results (0.38 seconds)

scientific proof of islam
About 17,400,000 results (0.30 seconds)

You are too rigid, pedantic and stupid:

Do you understand Wittgenstein's language games.
The point is whatever the word, it has meaning based it's use and confined within the rules of a language game.
This is applicable to the word 'proof' which is applicable in the context I had intended to use.

How is that you don't understand a simple question:
If X insists A ought to be killed merely because A's belief is different from his, is that an evil belief?

Your question is meaningless without context. Example:
A believes that he should detonate an enormous bomb in the Moscow Pushkin theatre.
X insists that A ought to be killed because A's belief is different from his.
The belief of X is obviously not evil.

This is common sense and you cannot give an answer?

I can give you 10 examples where the belief of X is evil and 10 examples where it is not. It depends on the interpretation, i.e. by filling in the details. Your template is not categorical. There are an unlimited number of interpretations possible for it.

You are clearly unfamiliar with model theory:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/

Sometimes we write or speak a sentence S that expresses nothing either true or false, because some crucial information is missing about what the words mean. If we go on to add this information, so that S comes to express a true or false statement, we are said to interpret S, and the added information is called an interpretation of S. If the interpretation I happens to make S state something true, we say that I is a model of S, or that I satisfies S, in symbols ‘I⊨S’.

For example I might say:

He is killing all of them,

and offer the interpretation that ‘he’ is Alfonso Arblaster of 35 The Crescent, Beetleford, and that ‘them’ are the pigeons in his loft. This interpretation explains (a) what objects some expressions refer to, and (b) what classes some quantifiers range over.

You fail to understand that theories are rarely categorical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_theory

In mathematical logic, a theory is categorical if it has exactly one model (up to isomorphism).[a] Such a theory can be viewed as defining its model, uniquely characterizing the model's structure. In first-order logic, only theories with a finite model can be categorical.

It is hard to design a categorical scenario. You clearly did not manage to pull it off. Therefore, your question is fundamentally stupid.

Why you are going all over the place.
I asked a very simple question:

• X believes that he should denote a bomb in your house where your family, parents and siblings live.
  X insists that they ought to be killed because yours and theirs belief is different from his.
  Is the belief of X immoral & evil [as defined earlier]?

[godelian]

I did a search
"scientific proof"
About 4,740,000 results (0.38 seconds)

scientific proof of islam
About 17,400,000 results (0.30 seconds)

It is not "proof of Islam" but "proof in Islam". It is obviously possible to prove that a particular conclusion necessarily follows from the Quran. This proof is established by using premises from the Quran and demonstrating logically that a particular conclusion necessarily follows. Such proof is logical. It has nothing to do with the experimental testing of a stubborn observable pattern, as in science. There is no scientific laboratory in which religious scholars conduct and repeat experiments in order to experimentally test the Quran.

Why you are going all over the place.
I asked a very simple question:

Your scenario is not "simple" but "ambiguous". It has an unlimited number of interpretations.

• X believes that he should denote a bomb in your house where your family, parents and siblings live.
  X insists that they ought to be killed because yours and theirs belief is different from his.
  Is the belief of X immoral & evil [as defined earlier]?

This sounds like the Hannibal directive of the Israeli Waffe IDF. So, the family are Israeli and the Waffe IDF believes that they will be taken captive by Hamas. The Waffe IDF therefore intends to bomb the house and kill everyone inside. My belief is different from the Waffe IDF because I believe that they will not be taken captive.

https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/ha ... n-15574953

‘Hannibal Directive’: Did Israel kill its own?

The high civilian death toll during the recent Hamas attack has sparked a debate on whether Israel employed a notorious military doctrine.

An eye-opening article, however, published by Mondoweiss has thrown into question how responsible Hamas is for the Israeli deaths. Authored by someone who decided to remain anonymous to avoid reprisal, the piece specifically points to how it was not Hamas necessarily behind them.

Instead, it was Israeli forces themselves.

The possibility that Israeli forces killed the hostages is also consistent with the testimony of one of the Hamas hostages: Yasmin Porat.

“They [Israeli forces] eliminated everyone, including the hostages,” shared Porat during a radio interview transcribed by The Electronic Intifada.

The approach or procedure alluded to by Porat, whereby Israeli forces unleash lethal force that kills Israelis and non-Israelis alike, is known as the “Hannibal Directive”.

Technically, the directive refers to the killing of Israeli soldiers. However, given that those killed in the Kibbutz Beeri are a diverse group of Israelis – not all of whom are soldiers – such violence still recalls the directive and mimics it insofar as it targets Israelis who do not necessarily pose any threat whatsoever.

Further, as where the directive is enacted strictly against Israeli soldiers (among other non-Israeli victims such as Palestinian civilians), what ensued at Kibbutz Beeri may confirm that Israel is willing, as it were, to kill its own. It arguably would rather do this than to negotiate with Hamas to save the lives of Israeli hostages, in return for what Hamas is reasonably asking for such as Palestinian prisoners who’ve been imprisoned by Israel without trial or charge.

Your scenario neatly applies to the practices of the Israeli Waffe and Schutzstaffeln IDF, because that is exactly what the Leibstandarte Benjamin Netanyahu did in Kibbutz Beeri. Reichsführer Netanyahu himself apparently gave the order for the massacre of civilian families. So, yes, it is evil that the Waffe IDF routinely bombs houses with Israeli civilians, killing everyone inside, when there is a risk that the inhabitants might be taken captive by Hamas.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is using Excel to Analyze the 6236 Quranic Verses in main themes and >1400 sub-Themes - is Useless??

Yes, it serves no point at all. The resultant spreadsheet cannot have any value.

The impulse to spend years doing so (including the years you spent learning Arabic for the unnecessary task of doing your own translation) is an expression of your autism. In that sense it sits alongside the 113 sub-directories within your "General Morality & Ethics Folder" which is a silly excess of organisation for 1800 files you will never read.

And all this feeds into your quite autistic notion that you can answer all the questions of philosophy by making very long lists and sorting them using imaginary numbers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did a search
"scientific proof"
About 4,740,000 results (0.38 seconds)

scientific proof of islam
About 17,400,000 results (0.30 seconds)

It is not "proof of Islam" but "proof in Islam". It is obviously possible to prove that a particular conclusion necessarily follows from the Quran. This proof is established by using premises from the Quran and demonstrating logically that a particular conclusion necessarily follows. Such proof is logical. It has nothing to do with the experimental testing of a stubborn observable pattern, as in science. There is no scientific laboratory in which religious scholars conduct and repeat experiments in order to experimentally test the Quran.

You are contradicting yourself.
You insisted ''proof" is only relevant to mathematics, now you are accepting the above sort of "proof" as defined generally.

My point is 'prove' and 'proof' [as defined generally] are applicable anywhere as long as the meaning is defined and agreed upon. So we can have scientific proofs, legal proofs, etc.

Why you are going all over the place.
I asked a very simple question:

Your scenario is not "simple" but "ambiguous". It has an unlimited number of interpretations.


This sounds like the Hannibal directive of the Israeli Waffe IDF. So, the family are Israeli and the Waffe IDF believes that they will be taken captive by Hamas. The Waffe IDF therefore intends to bomb the house and kill everyone inside. My belief is different from the Waffe IDF because I believe that they will not be taken captive.

https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/ha ... n-15574953

‘Hannibal Directive’: Did Israel kill its own?

The high civilian death toll during the recent Hamas attack has sparked a debate on whether Israel employed a notorious military doctrine.

An eye-opening article, however, published by Mondoweiss has thrown into question how responsible Hamas is for the Israeli deaths. Authored by someone who decided to remain anonymous to avoid reprisal, the piece specifically points to how it was not Hamas necessarily behind them.

Instead, it was Israeli forces themselves.

The possibility that Israeli forces killed the hostages is also consistent with the testimony of one of the Hamas hostages: Yasmin Porat.

“They [Israeli forces] eliminated everyone, including the hostages,” shared Porat during a radio interview transcribed by The Electronic Intifada.

The approach or procedure alluded to by Porat, whereby Israeli forces unleash lethal force that kills Israelis and non-Israelis alike, is known as the “Hannibal Directive”.

Technically, the directive refers to the killing of Israeli soldiers. However, given that those killed in the Kibbutz Beeri are a diverse group of Israelis – not all of whom are soldiers – such violence still recalls the directive and mimics it insofar as it targets Israelis who do not necessarily pose any threat whatsoever.

Further, as where the directive is enacted strictly against Israeli soldiers (among other non-Israeli victims such as Palestinian civilians), what ensued at Kibbutz Beeri may confirm that Israel is willing, as it were, to kill its own. It arguably would rather do this than to negotiate with Hamas to save the lives of Israeli hostages, in return for what Hamas is reasonably asking for such as Palestinian prisoners who’ve been imprisoned by Israel without trial or charge.

Your scenario neatly applies to the practices of the Israeli Waffe and Schutzstaffeln IDF, because that is exactly what the Leibstandarte Benjamin Netanyahu did in Kibbutz Beeri. Reichsführer Netanyahu himself apparently gave the order for the massacre of civilian families. So, yes, it is evil that the Waffe IDF routinely bombs houses with Israeli civilians, killing everyone inside, when there is a risk that the inhabitants might be taken captive by Hamas.

Why you are going all over the place.
I asked a very simple question:

Your scenario is not "simple" but "ambiguous". It has an unlimited number of interpretations.

I edited, belief based on ideology A.

• X believes [based on ideology A] that he should denote a bomb in your house where your family, parents and siblings live.
  X insists that they ought to be killed because yours and theirs belief is different from his.
  Is the belief of X from ideology A immoral & evil [as defined earlier]?

There is no ambiguity to X's belief [based on ideology A] which is plain and simple.

If you don't want to give a plain answer, let's skip it aside temporary.

Here is a Question:
[I presume you understand the Principles of Contract - explicit and implied?]
Does your religion necessitate you to sign a "CONTRACT" [covenant] with your God?
If so, are the terms of the contract confined within the sole holy text from your God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is using Excel to Analyze the 6236 Quranic Verses in main themes and >1400 sub-Themes - is Useless??

Yes, it serves no point at all. The resultant spreadsheet cannot have any value.

The impulse to spend years doing so (including the years you spent learning Arabic for the unnecessary task of doing your own translation) is an expression of your autism. In that sense it sits alongside the 113 sub-directories within your "General Morality & Ethics Folder" which is a silly excess of organisation for 1800 files you will never read.

And all this feeds into your quite autistic notion that you can answer all the questions of philosophy by making very long lists and sorting them using imaginary numbers.

As usual you are very ignorant and insulting your intelligence in desperately jumping to conclusion.
Your focus is merely based on your usual cherry picking on specific points without taking into account the full contexts, likely due to certain cognitive deficit.

The fact that at present I have total of 105,463 files in 6252 folders [with repetitions] in my Document Folder reflect my wide interests in all sort of knowledge other than philosophy and religion.

Your Document Folder [..I speculate] has 5000 files in 50 folders? reflect your narrow, shallow views and is bankrupt of knowledge necessary for philosophy proper?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your Document Folder [..I speculate] has 5000 files in 50 folders?

Nope, what a dumb move. Your obsessive need to organise files you will never read instead of just reading stuff is not normal. I've told you that exact thing a bunch of times, so you ought to realise I don't do anything like that at all. Nor do most peope.

Because of your autism - for which you should be seeking diagnosis so that you can access healthcare services tailored to your needs - you have a lot of difficulty understanding that other people don't really think the same way you do about things like lists and hierarchies as is evidenced by this whole conversation. That is in fact the biggest giveaway that you have autism.