Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Share Long]

Carde are you saying one needs a shastra to cut through my shAstra?  ha ha  
Nothing like a little Sanskrit pun to show turq that FFL is not just all about 
cat pictures and arguments with strangers and antennas sticking out of heads (-:




 From: card 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:20 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
 

  

I'm quite sure their mutual relationship is somewhat like that
of, say, 'fatter' and 'father', etc. I guess that would be
called a nearly homophonic(?) relationship. But, OTOH, you might be
on the right track.

Perhaps I'll try to find out more thoroughly 
later..

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> But Card I can definitely see how these 3 are related:
> with 1 and 3 it seems rather obvious that they're almost identical
> how 2 is similar is that an instruction or rule might be seen as a knife 
> cutting through delusion.   
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
>  From: card 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:52 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> 
> 
>   
> 
> The fact, that in Sanskrit vowel length is semantically
> crucial, is usually taken into account only in at least 
> semiscientific texts, and Wikipedia... :D
> 
> As a further example:
> 
> 1 shastra 1 n. a kind of recitation (r.).
> 
> 2 shastra 2 n. knife, dagger 
> 
> 3 shAstra ( = shaastra)   n. instruction, precept, rule, theory, a 
> scientific or canonical work.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, really good to know and have never run across the distinction 
> > before.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____
> >  From: card 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
> > CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':
> > 
> > nyaya   m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste 
> > Pa1n2. 3-3 , 37 Sch. L.
> > 2   nyAya   m. (fr. 4. %{ni}) that into which a thing goes back i.e. an 
> > original type , standard , method , rule , (esp.) a general
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[card]

I'm quite sure their mutual relationship is somewhat like that
of, say, 'fatter' and 'father', etc. I guess that would be
called a nearly homophonic(?) relationship. But, OTOH, you might be
on the right track.

 Perhaps I'll try to find out more thoroughly 
later..

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> But Card I can definitely see how these 3 are related:
> with 1 and 3 it seems rather obvious that they're almost identical
> how 2 is similar is that an instruction or rule might be seen as a knife 
> cutting through delusion.   
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
>  From: card 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:52 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
>  
> 
>   
> 
> The fact, that in Sanskrit vowel length is semantically
> crucial, is usually taken into account only in at least 
> semiscientific texts, and Wikipedia... :D
> 
> As a further example:
> 
> 1 shastra 1 n. a kind of recitation (r.).
> 
> 2 shastra 2 n. knife, dagger 
> 
> 3 shAstra ( = shaastra)   n. instruction, precept, rule, theory, a 
> scientific or canonical work.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, really good to know and have never run across the distinction 
> > before.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____
> >  From: card 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
> > CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':
> > 
> > nyaya   m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste 
> > Pa1n2. 3-3 , 37 Sch. L.
> > 2   nyAya   m. (fr. 4. %{ni}) that into which a thing goes back i.e. an 
> > original type , standard , method , rule , (esp.) a general
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Share Long]

But Card I can definitely see how these 3 are related:
with 1 and 3 it seems rather obvious that they're almost identical
how 2 is similar is that an instruction or rule might be seen as a knife 
cutting through delusion.   

What do you think?



 From: card 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
 

  

The fact, that in Sanskrit vowel length is semantically
crucial, is usually taken into account only in at least 
semiscientific texts, and Wikipedia... :D

As a further example:

1   shastra 1 n. a kind of recitation (r.).

2   shastra 2 n. knife, dagger 

3   shAstra ( = shaastra)   n. instruction, precept, rule, theory, a 
scientific or canonical work.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Thanks, really good to know and have never run across the distinction 
> before.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: card 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> 
> 
>   
> 
> And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
> CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':
> 
> nyaya m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste 
> Pa1n2. 3-3 , 37 Sch. L.
> 2 nyAya   m. (fr. 4. %{ni}) that into which a thing goes back i.e. an 
> original type , standard , method , rule , (esp.) a general 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[card]

The fact, that in Sanskrit vowel length is semantically
crucial, is usually taken into account only in at least 
semiscientific texts, and Wikipedia... :D

As a further example:

1   shastra 1 n. a kind of recitation (r.).

2   shastra 2 n. knife, dagger 

3   shAstra ( = shaastra)   n. instruction, precept, rule, theory, a 
scientific or canonical work.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Thanks, really good to know and have never run across the distinction 
> before.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: card 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
>  
> 
>   
> 
> And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
> CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':
> 
> nyaya m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste 
> Pa1n2. 3-3 , 37 Sch. L.
> 2 nyAya   m. (fr. 4. %{ni}) that into which a thing goes back i.e. an 
> original type , standard , method , rule , (esp.) a general 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Share Long]

Thanks, really good to know and have never run across the distinction before.  





 From: card 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
 

  

And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':

nyaya   m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste Pa1n2. 3-3 , 
37 Sch. L.
2   nyAya   m. (fr. 4. %{ni}) that into which a thing goes back i.e. an 
original type , standard , method , rule , (esp.) a general or universal rule , 
model , axiom , system , plan , manner , right or fit manner or way , fitness , 
propriety TS. Br. Mn. MBh. &c. (%{nyAyena} and %{-yAt} ind. either `" in the 
right manner , regularly , duly "' , or ifc. `" after the manner of , by way of 
"') ; a lawsuit , legal proceeding , judicial sentence , judgment Mr2icch. 
Pan5c. ; a logical or syllogistic argument or inference (consisting of a 
combination of enthymeme and syllogism , and so having , according to the 
Naiya1yikas 5 members , viz. %{pratijJA} , %{hetu} , %{udAharaNa} , %{upanaya} 
, %{nigamana} , or according to the Veda1ntins 3 members) ; a system of 
philosophy delivered by Gotama or Gautama (it is one of the six %{darzanas} 
q.v. , and is perhaps so called , because it `" goes into "' all subjects 
physical and metaphysical according to the above
 syllogistic method treated of in one division of the system*** ; its branch is 
called Vais3eshika) ; likeness , analogy , a popular maxim or apposite 
illustration (cf. %{kAkA7kSi-} , %{ghuNA7kSara-} , %{daNDA7pUpa}. &c.) ; 
(%{am}) ind. after a finite verb expresses either censure or repetition Pa1n2. 
8-1 , 27.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> It's actually called Nyaya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: "doctordumbass@..." 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:49 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> 
> 
>   
> Thanks for the clear and useful explanation. Could also be understood 
> cyclically, so that we can move both from consciousness to total natural law, 
> as well as continuing to expand consciousness, by moving towards it, through 
> the agency of total natural law, intelligence and awareness.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > 
> > > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
> > > > is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
> > > > means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
> > > >
> > > >
> > ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years 
> > > from various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven 
> > > impulse to assign a creator for creation.  Therefore the concept that the 
> > > universe just 'IS' is a very frightening concept.  But it is that very 
> > > experience of 'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the 
> > > basis of our concsiousness as well.  From the attitude of your post, you 
> > > will most likely not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, Maharishi's Naya or logic is, 'Time and space' are a 
> > duality.  'Matter and energy' are a duality.  These four 
> > combine to form 'causation'.
> > 
> > The basis of causation is 'total natural law'.
> > 
> > The basis of 'total natural law' is intelligence.
> > 
> > The basis of intelligence is awareness.
> > 
> > The basis of awareness is consciousness.
> > 
> > Thus Maharishi's naya or indian logic ends in Vedanta.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
> > > > a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
> > > > themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we 
> > > > wouldn't have all the evidence lying around.
> > > > 
> > > >
> > ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> > >
> > > If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that 
> > > would mean the 'universe' is '

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[card]

And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':

nyaya   m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste 
Pa1n2. 3-3 , 37 Sch. L.
2   nyAya   m. (fr. 4. %{ni}) that into which a thing goes back i.e. an 
original type , standard , method , rule , (esp.) a general or universal rule , 
model , axiom , system , plan , manner , right or fit manner or way , fitness , 
propriety TS. Br. Mn. MBh. &c. (%{nyAyena} and %{-yAt} ind. either `" in the 
right manner , regularly , duly "' , or ifc. `" after the manner of , by way of 
"') ; a lawsuit , legal proceeding , judicial sentence , judgment Mr2icch. 
Pan5c. ; a logical or syllogistic argument or inference (consisting of a 
combination of enthymeme and syllogism , and so having , according to the 
Naiya1yikas 5 members , viz. %{pratijJA} , %{hetu} , %{udAharaNa} , %{upanaya} 
, %{nigamana} , or according to the Veda1ntins 3 members) ; a system of 
philosophy delivered by Gotama or Gautama (it is one of the six %{darzanas} 
q.v. , and is perhaps so called , because it `" goes into "' all subjects 
physical and metaphysical according to the above syllogistic method treated of 
in one division of the system*** ; its branch is called Vais3eshika) ; likeness 
, analogy , a popular maxim or apposite illustration (cf. %{kAkA7kSi-} , 
%{ghuNA7kSara-} , %{daNDA7pUpa}. &c.) ; (%{am}) ind. after a finite verb 
expresses either censure or repetition Pa1n2. 8-1 , 27.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> It's actually called Nyaya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: "doctordumbass@..." 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:49 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
>  
> 
>   
> Thanks for the clear and useful explanation. Could also be understood 
> cyclically, so that we can move both from consciousness to total natural law, 
> as well as continuing to expand consciousness, by moving towards it, through 
> the agency of total natural law, intelligence and awareness.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > 
> > > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
> > > > is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
> > > > means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
> > > >
> > > >
> > ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years 
> > > from various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven 
> > > impulse to assign a creator for creation.  Therefore the concept that the 
> > > universe just 'IS' is a very frightening concept.  But it is that very 
> > > experience of 'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the 
> > > basis of our concsiousness as well.  From the attitude of your post, you 
> > > will most likely not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, Maharishi's Naya or logic is, 'Time and space' are a 
> > duality.  'Matter and energy' are a duality.  These four 
> > combine to form 'causation'.
> > 
> > The basis of causation is 'total natural law'.
> > 
> > The basis of 'total natural law' is intelligence.
> > 
> > The basis of intelligence is awareness.
> > 
> > The basis of awareness is consciousness.
> > 
> > Thus Maharishi's naya or indian logic ends in Vedanta.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
> > > > a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
> > > > themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we 
> > > > wouldn't have all the evidence lying around.
> > > > 
> > > >
> > ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> > >
> > > If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that 
> > > would mean the 'universe' is 'God' if it creates itself.  In other words 
> > > if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  If God is what created the Universe, and the 
> > > Universe created itself, then the Universe is God.  That is of course if 
> > > you define &#

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust!  And Happy Birthday day Prof. 
> Hawkings!  So glad you outlived all their predictions.  Would LOVE to see 
> his jyotish chart!  

LOL, I can't imagine what Hawking would say about Jyotish, I'm
sure he'd be polite though, if not exactly convinced ;-)

 
> Ok, I googled event horizon and I read it twice.  But I still do not 
> understand.  The part I understand least is the part about how from the 
> observer's POV the object never makes it past the event horizon.  But from 
> the object's POV it does, and at regular time.

Yep, time passes relative to the speed you are moving through space
and being near a source of gravity is the same as moving at speed. This has 
been proved with clocks telling a different time the further away from the 
surface of the earth they are* Black holes have infinite density and thus also 
gravity and so the time dilation effects will be much more extreme.

*Without knowledge of Einstein's relativity, the GPS system wouldn't
work properly and would always tell us we are several miles away from where we 
thought we were because the clocks on the satellites move
slightly slower than those on the ground. A convincing proof.

 
> Anyway, here's what comes to mind, having just listened to interview about 
> vimanas, about universe not having a creator, from Veda:
> Curving back onto myself I create again and again.  
> 
> For several years now I have been using God and Universe and Life 
> interchangeably.  I don't think they are separate.  So yes, I think 
> Universe is God and is creating itself again and again.  
> 
> 
> Fabulous post, thank you. 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
> > > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only 
> > > a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
> > > I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to 
> > > exist.  Especially given the sentence just before!  As Spock would 
> > > say:
> > > Their logic is flawed.
> > 
> > I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible
> > states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes
> > that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon
> > based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations 
> > in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside
> > stars.
> 
> I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed
> inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You,
> me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh?
> 
> > Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is
> > why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who 
> > wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's!
> > 
> > Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by
> > being the first person to work out how the quantum world might
> > interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that
> > black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's
> > all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at 
> > the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book "A brief history 
> > of time" but only because the bits about quarks twist my
> > head inside too much for comfort!
> > 
> > *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding
> > on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most
> > powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't 
> > recommend.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: salyavin808 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > > 
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Share Long]

It's actually called Nyaya.





 From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
 

  
Thanks for the clear and useful explanation. Could also be understood 
cyclically, so that we can move both from consciousness to total natural law, 
as well as continuing to expand consciousness, by moving towards it, through 
the agency of total natural law, intelligence and awareness.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
> > > is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
> > > means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
> > >
> > >
> ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> >
> > From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years 
> > from various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven 
> > impulse to assign a creator for creation.  Therefore the concept that the 
> > universe just 'IS' is a very frightening concept.  But it is that very 
> > experience of 'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the basis 
> > of our concsiousness as well.  From the attitude of your post, you will 
> > most likely not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'. 
> > 
> 
> Well, Maharishi's Naya or logic is, 'Time and space' are a 
> duality.  'Matter and energy' are a duality.  These four 
> combine to form 'causation'.
> 
> The basis of causation is 'total natural law'.
> 
> The basis of 'total natural law' is intelligence.
> 
> The basis of intelligence is awareness.
> 
> The basis of awareness is consciousness.
> 
> Thus Maharishi's naya or indian logic ends in Vedanta.
> 
> 
> > 
> > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
> > > a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
> > > themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't 
> > > have all the evidence lying around.
> > > 
> > >
> ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> >
> > If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that 
> > would mean the 'universe' is 'God' if it creates itself.  In other words if 
> > A=B and B=C, then A=C.  If God is what created the Universe, and the 
> > Universe created itself, then the Universe is God.  That is of course if 
> > you define 'God' as that which created 'all that is'. 
> > 
> > I truly think a lot of people here on FFL are disturbed by the concept that 
> > God created the universe because of the vast ego-driven explanations of God 
> > over the past few thousand years.  Therefore, we would probably prefer to 
> > do away with the concept just to avoid the stupidity that comes along with 
> > believing in these concepts. 
> > 
> > A problem I see is that we don't know if there is or isn't a God, and 
> > moreover, in order to determine whether there is or isn't one, we would 
> > have to place a definition of what God is in the first place.  So in other 
> > words, we're trying to define something we don't even know if it exists in 
> > the first place in order to find out if 'it' exists.  An oxymoron from the 
> > start. 
> > 
> > Of course, who are any of us to argue with Stephen Hawking regarding the 
> > existence of the Universe?  But just because his thinking, which is much 
> > more vast and deeper than damn near anyone else on the planet, doesn't see 
> > God is no guarantee that there is no God.  Nor is a belief system that says 
> > there is a God capable of proving it either. 
> > 
> > In other words, we all have our own egotistical need to provide answers 
> > NOW.  We just can't live our lives peacefully and admit that we just don't 
> > fucking know.  So anyone who's even involved in this argument is simply 
> > projecting their ego. 
> > 
> > I think we could be thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of 
> > years from truly being able to answer this question.
> > 
> > Enough thoughts.  I'm going to go eat some Cinammon Toast Crunch now. 
> > 
> > seekliberation
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[doctordumbass]

Thanks for the clear and useful explanation. Could also be understood 
cyclically, so that we can move both from consciousness to total natural law, 
as well as continuing to expand consciousness, by moving towards it, through 
the agency of total natural law, intelligence and awareness.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
> > > is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
> > > means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
> > >
> > >
> ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> >
> > From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years 
> > from various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven 
> > impulse to assign a creator for creation.  Therefore the concept that the 
> > universe just 'IS' is a very frightening concept.  But it is that very 
> > experience of 'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the basis 
> > of our concsiousness as well.  From the attitude of your post, you will 
> > most likely not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'.  
> > 
> 
> Well, Maharishi's Naya or logic is, 'Time and space' are a 
> duality.  'Matter and energy' are a duality.  These four 
> combine to form 'causation'.
> 
> The basis of causation is 'total natural law'.
> 
> The basis of 'total natural law' is intelligence.
> 
> The basis of intelligence is awareness.
> 
> The basis of awareness is consciousness.
> 
> Thus Maharishi's naya or indian logic ends in Vedanta.
> 
> 
> > 
> > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
> > > a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
> > > themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't 
> > > have all the evidence lying around.
> > > 
> > >
> ---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
> >
> > If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that 
> > would mean the 'universe' is 'God' if it creates itself.  In other words if 
> > A=B and B=C, then A=C.  If God is what created the Universe, and the 
> > Universe created itself, then the Universe is God.  That is of course if 
> > you define 'God' as that which created 'all that is'.
> > 
> > I truly think a lot of people here on FFL are disturbed by the concept that 
> > God created the universe because of the vast ego-driven explanations of God 
> > over the past few thousand years.  Therefore, we would probably prefer to 
> > do away with the concept just to avoid the stupidity that comes along with 
> > believing in these concepts.  
> > 
> > A problem I see is that we don't know if there is or isn't a God, and 
> > moreover, in order to determine whether there is or isn't one, we would 
> > have to place a definition of what God is in the first place.  So in other 
> > words, we're trying to define something we don't even know if it exists in 
> > the first place in order to find out if 'it' exists.  An oxymoron from the 
> > start.  
> > 
> > Of course, who are any of us to argue with Stephen Hawking regarding the 
> > existence of the Universe?  But just because his thinking, which is much 
> > more vast and deeper than damn near anyone else on the planet, doesn't see 
> > God is no guarantee that there is no God.  Nor is a belief system that says 
> > there is a God capable of proving it either.  
> > 
> > In other words, we all have our own egotistical need to provide answers 
> > NOW.  We just can't live our lives peacefully and admit that we just don't 
> > fucking know.  So anyone who's even involved in this argument is simply 
> > projecting their ego.  
> > 
> > I think we could be thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of 
> > years from truly being able to answer this question.
> > 
> > Enough thoughts.  I'm going to go eat some Cinammon Toast Crunch now.  
> > 
> > seekliberation
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > > > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > > > > world—no gods required
> > > > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > > > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll 
> > > > > and
> > > > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > > > > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > > > > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > > > > they ran around banging on pots.
> > > > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate 
> > > > > many
> > > > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, 
> > > > > people
> > > > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > > > > of intuition—to decipher th

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Jason]

> 
> ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > 
> > Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
> > is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
> > means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
> >
> >
---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
>
> From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years 
> from various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven 
> impulse to assign a creator for creation.  Therefore the concept that the 
> universe just 'IS' is a very frightening concept.  But it is that very 
> experience of 'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the basis 
> of our concsiousness as well.  From the attitude of your post, you will most 
> likely not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'.  
> 

Well, Maharishi's Naya or logic is, 'Time and space' are a 
duality.  'Matter and energy' are a duality.  These four 
combine to form 'causation'.

The basis of causation is 'total natural law'.

The basis of 'total natural law' is intelligence.

The basis of intelligence is awareness.

The basis of awareness is consciousness.

Thus Maharishi's naya or indian logic ends in Vedanta.


> 
> ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
> > a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
> > themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't 
> > have all the evidence lying around.
> > 
> >
---  "seekliberation"  wrote:
>
> If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that 
> would mean the 'universe' is 'God' if it creates itself.  In other words if 
> A=B and B=C, then A=C.  If God is what created the Universe, and the Universe 
> created itself, then the Universe is God.  That is of course if you define 
> 'God' as that which created 'all that is'.
> 
> I truly think a lot of people here on FFL are disturbed by the concept that 
> God created the universe because of the vast ego-driven explanations of God 
> over the past few thousand years.  Therefore, we would probably prefer to do 
> away with the concept just to avoid the stupidity that comes along with 
> believing in these concepts.  
> 
> A problem I see is that we don't know if there is or isn't a God, and 
> moreover, in order to determine whether there is or isn't one, we would have 
> to place a definition of what God is in the first place.  So in other words, 
> we're trying to define something we don't even know if it exists in the first 
> place in order to find out if 'it' exists.  An oxymoron from the start.  
> 
> Of course, who are any of us to argue with Stephen Hawking regarding the 
> existence of the Universe?  But just because his thinking, which is much more 
> vast and deeper than damn near anyone else on the planet, doesn't see God is 
> no guarantee that there is no God.  Nor is a belief system that says there is 
> a God capable of proving it either.  
> 
> In other words, we all have our own egotistical need to provide answers NOW.  
> We just can't live our lives peacefully and admit that we just don't fucking 
> know.  So anyone who's even involved in this argument is simply projecting 
> their ego.  
> 
> I think we could be thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of 
> years from truly being able to answer this question.
> 
> Enough thoughts.  I'm going to go eat some Cinammon Toast Crunch now.  
> 
> seekliberation
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > > > world—no gods required
> > > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > > > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > > > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > > > they ran around banging on pots.
> > > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > > > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > > > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > > > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > > > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > > > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > > > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > > > exception.
> > > > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > > > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he mainta

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[raunchydog]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104200/cripple-fight

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is 
> > > more of a caricature.
> > 
> > Yes, it was stupid of him to get motor neurone disease, 
> > and leave himself open to such ridicule. I bet he's 
> > really kicking himself.
> 
> He's probably just pretending to be disabled to
> get attention. Y'know...the same way some people
> pretend to be enlightened to get attention. :-)
> 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that 
> > > > > bright.:-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit 
> > > > > the socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and 
> > > > > everyone loves him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian 
> > > > > phenomenon.
> > > > 
> > > > So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum 
> > > > physics and black holes got promoted as some sort of positive 
> > > > discrimination? That's a really astonishingly stupid and offensive 
> > > > idea. 
> > > > 
> > > > I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not 
> > > > > > > Create The Universe",
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> > > > > > creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> > > > > > a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as 
> > > > > > time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> > > > > > no-one else does.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on 
> > > > > > cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen 
> > > > > > Hawking all that bright.:-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is 
> > more of a caricature.
> 
> Yes, it was stupid of him to get motor neurone disease, 
> and leave himself open to such ridicule. I bet he's 
> really kicking himself.

He's probably just pretending to be disabled to
get attention. Y'know...the same way some people
pretend to be enlightened to get attention. :-)

> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that 
> > > > bright.:-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > > 
> > > > Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the 
> > > > socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone 
> > > > loves him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon.
> > > 
> > > So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum 
> > > physics and black holes got promoted as some sort of positive 
> > > discrimination? That's a really astonishingly stupid and offensive idea. 
> > > 
> > > I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not 
> > > > > > Create The Universe",
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> > > > > creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> > > > > a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as 
> > > > > time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> > > > > no-one else does.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. 
> > > > > My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that 
> > > > > bright.:-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is more of a caricature.

Yes, it was stupid of him to get motor neurone disease, and 
leave himself open to such ridicule. I bet he's really kicking himself.




> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that 
> > > bright.:-)
> > > > 
> > > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > 
> > > Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the 
> > > socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves 
> > > him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon.
> > 
> > So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum physics 
> > and black holes got promoted as some sort of positive discrimination? 
> > That's a really astonishingly stupid and offensive idea. 
> > 
> > I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create 
> > > > > The Universe",
> > > > 
> > > > Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> > > > creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> > > > a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time 
> > > > for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> > > > no-one else does.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My 
> > > > little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that 
> > > > bright.:-)
> > > > 
> > > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[doctordumbass]

His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is more of a caricature.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that 
> > bright.:-)
> > > 
> > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > 
> > Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the 
> > socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves 
> > him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon.
> 
> So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum physics 
> and black holes got promoted as some sort of positive discrimination? That's 
> a really astonishingly stupid and offensive idea. 
> 
> I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create 
> > > > The Universe",
> > > 
> > > Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> > > creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> > > a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time 
> > > for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> > > no-one else does.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My 
> > > little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> > > 
> > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Emily Reyn]

Yes, I've posted this before...Stardust.Joni Mitchell...I came upon a child 
of godwalkin' down a roadI asked him, where are you goin'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a24wVSVLtLQ&feature=related




>
> From: Share Long 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> 
>
>  
>It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust!  And Happy Birthday day Prof. 
>Hawkings!  So glad you outlived all their predictions.  Would LOVE to see his 
>jyotish chart!  
>
>Ok, I googled event horizon and I read it twice.  But I still do not 
>understand.  The part I understand least is the part about how from the 
>observer's POV the object never makes it past the event horizon.  But from the 
>object's POV it does, and at regular time.
>
>Anyway, here's what comes to mind, having just listened to interview about 
>vimanas, about universe not having a creator, from Veda:
>Curving back onto myself I create again and again.  
>
>For several
 years now I have been using God and Universe and Life interchangeably.  I 
don't think they are separate.  So yes, I think Universe is God and is creating 
itself again and again.  
>
>
>
>Fabulous post, thank you. 
>
>
>________________
> From: salyavin808 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> 
>
>  
>
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> 
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>> >
>> > Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
>> > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a 
>> > very few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
>> > I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to 
>> > exist.  Especially given the sentence just before!  As Spock would say:
>> > Their logic is flawed.
>> 
>> I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible
>> states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes
>> that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon
>> based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations 
>> in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside
>> stars.
>
>I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed
>inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You,
>me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh?
>
>> Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is
>> why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who 
>> wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's!
>> 
>> Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by
>> being the first person to work out how the quantum world might
>> interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that
>> black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's
>> all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at 
>> the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book "A brief history of 
>> time" but only because the bits about quarks twist my
>> head inside too much for comfort!
>> 
>> *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding
>> on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most
>> powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend.
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> >  From: salyavin808 
>> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM
>> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.
>> > 
>> > 
>> >   
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
>> > 
>> > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€"no 
>> > gods required
>> > 
>> > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
>> > 
>> > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and 
>> > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make 
>> > lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people 
>> > must have noticed that the eclipses end

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Share Long]

It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust!  And Happy Birthday day Prof. 
Hawkings!  So glad you outlived all their predictions.  Would LOVE to see his 
jyotish chart!  

Ok, I googled event horizon and I read it twice.  But I still do not 
understand.  The part I understand least is the part about how from the 
observer's POV the object never makes it past the event horizon.  But from the 
object's POV it does, and at regular time.

Anyway, here's what comes to mind, having just listened to interview about 
vimanas, about universe not having a creator, from Veda:
Curving back onto myself I create again and again.  

For several years now I have been using God and Universe and Life 
interchangeably.  I don't think they are separate.  So yes, I think Universe is 
God and is creating itself again and again.  


Fabulous post, thank you. 



 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
> > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a 
> > very few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
> > I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
> >  Especially given the sentence just before!  As Spock would say:
> > Their logic is flawed.
> 
> I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible
> states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes
> that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon
> based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations 
> in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside
> stars.

I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed
inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You,
me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh?

> Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is
> why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who 
> wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's!
> 
> Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by
> being the first person to work out how the quantum world might
> interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that
> black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's
> all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at 
> the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book "A brief history of 
> time" but only because the bits about quarks twist my
> head inside too much for comfort!
> 
> *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding
> on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most
> powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend.
> 
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > 
> > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€"no 
> > gods required
> > 
> > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > 
> > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and 
> > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make 
> > lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people 
> > must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran 
> > around banging on pots.
> > 
> > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many 
> > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people 
> > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâ€"with a good dose of 
> > intuitionâ€"to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics 
> > and experimental testâ€"in other words, modern science.
> > 
> > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe 
> > is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad 
> > day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its 
> > own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.
&g

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> > 
> > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> 
> Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the 
> socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves him 
> for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon.

So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum physics and 
black holes got promoted as some sort of positive discrimination? That's a 
really astonishingly stupid and offensive idea. 

I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The 
> > > Universe",
> > 
> > Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> > creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> > a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for 
> > him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> > no-one else does.
> > 
> > 
> >  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My 
> > little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> > 
> > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> IMO, Hawking was becoming senile when he wrote this essay.  It should be 
> noted that he retired as the chairman of the physics department in Oxford 
> University soon after he wrote his book which states the same information 
> contained in this essay.  He should have known that his ideas will not be 
> received well by university's officials since Oxford is a historically and 
> predominantly Christian institution.

You think Hawking is senile because he doesn't believe god
made the universe? hmm.

Oxford is a scientific institution John, they don't care if
christians are offended by any inconvenient things they uncover.
Can you imagine the likes of Richard Dawkins (Oxford professor)
having to edit their work so as not to offend the religious?


> Or, it could have been his way of saying, "Take this job and shove it!"
> 
> JR
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > world—no gods required
> > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > they ran around banging on pots.
> > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > exception.
> > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> > benevolent creator.
> > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> > billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> > obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> > world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> > satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> > The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> > environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> > the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> > exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> > separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> > were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> > freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> > content of the laws of nature themselves.
> > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> > our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> > life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> > laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> > us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> > much more difficult to explain.
> > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> > lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
> > intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
> > nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
> > carbon—could be produced from 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[John]

IMO, Hawking was becoming senile when he wrote this essay.  It should be noted 
that he retired as the chairman of the physics department in Oxford University 
soon after he wrote his book which states the same information contained in 
this essay.  He should have known that his ideas will not be received well by 
university's officials since Oxford is a historically and predominantly 
Christian institution.

Or, it could have been his way of saying, "Take this job and shove it!"

JR



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> world—no gods required
> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> they ran around banging on pots.
> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> exception.
> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> benevolent creator.
> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> content of the laws of nature themselves.
> The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> much more difficult to explain.
> The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
> intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
> nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
> carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain
> stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed
> in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars
> and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny
> inhomogeneities in the early universe.
> Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such
> that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could
> disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of
> nature had to dictate that those remnants could re

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[doctordumbass]

My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> 
> Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?

Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the socially 
acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves him for it. 
Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The 
> > Universe",
> 
> Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for 
> him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> no-one else does.
> 
> 
>  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My 
> little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> 
> Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The 
> > Universe",
> 
> Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for 
> him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> no-one else does.
> 
> 
>  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My 
> little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> 
> Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?

Leonard Susskind, a physics professor from Stanford University.  For the 
record, he collected on a bet with Hawking by theorizing that information of 
matter going into a Black Hole is not lost.


> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > > world—no gods required
> > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > > they ran around banging on pots.
> > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > > exception.
> > > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> > > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> > > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> > > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> > > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> > > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> > > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> > > benevolent creator.
> > > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> > > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> > > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> > > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> > > billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> > > obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> > > world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> > > satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> > > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> > > The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> > > environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> > > the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> > > exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> > > separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> > > were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> > > freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> > > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> > > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> > > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> > > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> > > content of the laws of nature themselves.
> > > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> > > our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> > > life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> > > laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> > > us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> > > much more difficult to explain.
> > > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> > > lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[doctordumbass]

You are agreeing with me - no *concept* of God can create the universe. Yes, 
there are other worlds and beings not subscribed to the same laws of time and 
space as we are. They can't be accessed with physical instrumentation.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The 
> > Universe",
> 
> Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
> creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
> a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for 
> him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
> no-one else does.
> 
> 
>  thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My 
> little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
> 
> Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > > world—no gods required
> > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > > they ran around banging on pots.
> > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > > exception.
> > > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> > > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> > > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> > > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> > > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> > > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> > > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> > > benevolent creator.
> > > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> > > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> > > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> > > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> > > billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> > > obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> > > world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> > > satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> > > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> > > The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> > > environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> > > the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> > > exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> > > separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> > > were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> > > freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> > > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> > > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> > > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> > > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> > > content of the laws of nature themselves.
> > > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> > > our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> > > life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> > > laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> > > us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> > > much more difficult to explain.
> > > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> > > lithium evolved to a univ

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[seekliberation]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> 
> Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
> is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
> means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?

>From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years from 
>various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven impulse to 
>assign a creator for creation.  Therefore the concept that the universe just 
>'IS' is a very frightening concept.  But it is that very experience of 
>'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the basis of our 
>concsiousness as well.  From the attitude of your post, you will most likely 
>not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'.  


> Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
> a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
> themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't 
> have all the evidence lying around.

If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that would 
mean the 'universe' is 'God' if it creates itself.  In other words if A=B and 
B=C, then A=C.  If God is what created the Universe, and the Universe created 
itself, then the Universe is God.  That is of course if you define 'God' as 
that which created 'all that is'.

I truly think a lot of people here on FFL are disturbed by the concept that God 
created the universe because of the vast ego-driven explanations of God over 
the past few thousand years.  Therefore, we would probably prefer to do away 
with the concept just to avoid the stupidity that comes along with believing in 
these concepts.  

A problem I see is that we don't know if there is or isn't a God, and moreover, 
in order to determine whether there is or isn't one, we would have to place a 
definition of what God is in the first place.  So in other words, we're trying 
to define something we don't even know if it exists in the first place in order 
to find out if 'it' exists.  An oxymoron from the start.  

Of course, who are any of us to argue with Stephen Hawking regarding the 
existence of the Universe?  But just because his thinking, which is much more 
vast and deeper than damn near anyone else on the planet, doesn't see God is no 
guarantee that there is no God.  Nor is a belief system that says there is a 
God capable of proving it either.  

In other words, we all have our own egotistical need to provide answers NOW.  
We just can't live our lives peacefully and admit that we just don't fucking 
know.  So anyone who's even involved in this argument is simply projecting 
their ego.  

I think we could be thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years 
from truly being able to answer this question.

Enough thoughts.  I'm going to go eat some Cinammon Toast Crunch now.  

seekliberation
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > > world—no gods required
> > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > > they ran around banging on pots.
> > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > > exception.
> > > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> > > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> > > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> > > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> > > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> > > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> > > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> > > benevolent creator.
> > > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> > > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours wer

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Bhairitu]

I think you're right. Hawking would only think that broader concepts of 
"God" such as "everything that ever was, is and will ever be" like one 
big machine would only be understood by a very tiny minority so he is 
addressing instead the "great unwashed." ;-)

On 01/08/2013 10:33 AM, seekliberation wrote:
> I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration 
> different concepts of God.  I think it only takes into consideration a very 
> elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard 
> standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down 
> at us in a judgmental state.  Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable 
> and deserves its ridicule.  But I also think he is lacking a great depth of 
> education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God 
> in much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics.
>
> seekliberation
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
>> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
>> world—no gods required
>> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
>> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
>> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
>> make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
>> people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
>> they ran around banging on pots.
>> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
>> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
>> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
>> of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
>> mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
>> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
>> universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
>> on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
>> going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
>> exception.
>> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
>> out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
>> the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
>> him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
>> of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
>> back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
>> Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
>> the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
>> benevolent creator.
>> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
>> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
>> system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
>> systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
>> billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
>> obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
>> world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
>> satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
>> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
>> The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
>> environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
>> the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
>> exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
>> separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
>> were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
>> freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
>> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
>> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
>> strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
>> constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
>> content of the laws of nature themselves.
>> The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
>> our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
>> life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
>> laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
>> us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
>> much more difficult to explain.
>> The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
>> lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
>> intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
>> nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
>> carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Bhairitu]

On 01/08/2013 10:30 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> So if "God" did not create the universe, who did?
> So who said it was created?

Then it must not exist.  I must be imagining things. :-D

>
>> Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them?
> If no Creation took place, there is no need to
> look for a Creator.
>
> Seriously, why can't the universe be eternal?
> Never created, never ending?

That means we aren't really.

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  wrote:
>
> I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration 
> different concepts of God.  I think it only takes into consideration a very 
> elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard 
> standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down 
> at us in a judgmental state.  Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable 
> and deserves its ridicule.  But I also think he is lacking a great depth of 
> education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God 
> in much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics.

Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
is saying here. Or can you explain what "more recent discoveries" 
means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?

Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have
a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing
themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't have 
all the evidence lying around.


 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > world—no gods required
> > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > they ran around banging on pots.
> > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > exception.
> > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> > benevolent creator.
> > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> > billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> > obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> > world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> > satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> > The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> > environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> > the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> > exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> > separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> > were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> > freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> > content of the laws of nature themselves.
> > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> > our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> > life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> > laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> > us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> > much more difficult to explain.
> > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> > lithi

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[card]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > So if "God" did not create the universe, who did? 
> 
> So who said it was created?
> 
> > Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them? 
> 
> If no Creation took place, there is no need to 
> look for a Creator. 
> 
> Seriously, why can't the universe be eternal? 
> Never created, never ending?
> 
> > Or maybe perhaps the brightest of the human species 
> > aren't even smart enough to figure it out. I go with 
> > the latter. :-D
> 
> Nonsense. "Man is rated the highest animal, at 
> least among all the animals that returned the 
> questionnaire."  - Robert Brault
> 
> :-)
>

FWIW, oldies but goldies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8

Recently saw an even faster version of that. Slowed
it down 8 times, still could see only one or two numbers
before they were covered!

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  wrote:
>
> I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes 
> into consideration different concepts of God. I think 
> it only takes into consideration a very elementary 
> authoritarian version of God where God is an old man 
> with a beard standing in a kitchen baking up the 
> recipe of the universe and staring down at us in a 
> judgmental state. Such an elementary concept is 
> clearly laughable and deserves its ridicule. But I 
> also think he is lacking a great depth of education 
> on various theological and philosophical studies that 
> explain God in much better terms that coincides with 
> more recent discoveries in physics.

Please explain. 

Do any of these different concepts of God believe
that what they call God is sentient, and capable
of creating the universe? 

If so, I don't see how they're that much different
than the image of the old man with the beard. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[seekliberation]

I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration 
different concepts of God.  I think it only takes into consideration a very 
elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard 
standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down at 
us in a judgmental state.  Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable and 
deserves its ridicule.  But I also think he is lacking a great depth of 
education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God in 
much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics.

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> world—no gods required
> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> they ran around banging on pots.
> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> exception.
> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> benevolent creator.
> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> content of the laws of nature themselves.
> The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> much more difficult to explain.
> The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
> intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
> nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
> carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain
> stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed
> in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars
> and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny
> inhomogeneities in the early universe.
> Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such
> that some would eventually explode, precisely in a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> So if "God" did not create the universe, who did? 

So who said it was created?

> Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them? 

If no Creation took place, there is no need to 
look for a Creator. 

Seriously, why can't the universe be eternal? 
Never created, never ending?

> Or maybe perhaps the brightest of the human species 
> aren't even smart enough to figure it out. I go with 
> the latter. :-D

Nonsense. "Man is rated the highest animal, at 
least among all the animals that returned the 
questionnaire."  - Robert Brault

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
> > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a 
> > very few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
> > I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
> >  Especially given the sentence just before!  As Spock would say:
> > Their logic is flawed.
> 
> I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible
> states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes
> that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon
> based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations 
> in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside
> stars.

I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed
inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You,
me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh?


> Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is
> why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who 
> wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's!
> 
> Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by
> being the first person to work out how the quantum world might
> interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that
> black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's
> all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at 
> the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book "A brief history of 
> time" but only because the bits about quarks twist my
> head inside too much for comfort!
> 
> *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding
> on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most
> powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend.
> 
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > 
> > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€"no 
> > gods required
> > 
> > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > 
> > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and 
> > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make 
> > lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people 
> > must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran 
> > around banging on pots.
> > 
> > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many 
> > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people 
> > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâ€"with a good dose of 
> > intuitionâ€"to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics 
> > and experimental testâ€"in other words, modern science.
> > 
> > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe 
> > is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad 
> > day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its 
> > own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.
> > 
> > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise 
> > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the 
> > order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to 
> > this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the 
> > extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the 
> > idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the 
> > latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem 
> > tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.
> > 
> > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly 
> > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar 
> > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar 
> > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions 
> > of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the 
> > beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they 
> > are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they 
> > require to exist.
> > 
> > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The 
> > fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment 
> > in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance 
> > from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow 
> > us to put bounds on

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
> Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a 
> very few would allow creatures like us to exist. 
> I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist.  
> Especially given the sentence just before!  As Spock would say:
> Their logic is flawed.

I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible
states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes
that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon
based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations 
in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside
stars.

Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is
why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who 
wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's!

Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by
being the first person to work out how the quantum world might
interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that
black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's
all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at 
the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book "A brief history of 
time" but only because the bits about quarks twist my
head inside too much for comfort!

*They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding
on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most
powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend.


> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> 
> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€"no gods 
> required
> 
> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> 
> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and 
> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make 
> lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must 
> have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around 
> banging on pots.
> 
> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many 
> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people 
> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâ€"with a good dose of 
> intuitionâ€"to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and 
> experimental testâ€"in other words, modern science.
> 
> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is 
> that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the 
> universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. 
> Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.
> 
> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise out 
> of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the order 
> in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day 
> in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the extreme 
> fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that 
> this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances 
> in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for 
> humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.
> 
> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly 
> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system 
> in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and 
> few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our 
> galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a 
> planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to 
> find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> 
> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The 
> fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in 
> which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from 
> the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to 
> put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need 
> liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil 
> off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" 
> anthropic principle.
> 
> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a 
> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong 
> anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The 
> Universe",

Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for 
him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that
no-one else does.


 thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little 
secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)

Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> > world—no gods required
> > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> > they ran around banging on pots.
> > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> > of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> > mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> > exception.
> > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> > benevolent creator.
> > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> > billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> > obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> > world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> > satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> > The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> > environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> > the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> > exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> > separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> > were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> > freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> > content of the laws of nature themselves.
> > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> > our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> > life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> > laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> > us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> > much more difficult to explain.
> > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> > lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
> > intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
> > nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
> > carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain
> > stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed
> > in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars
> > and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of ti

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Emily Reyn]

Kinda like the "immaculate conception?"



>
> From: Ann 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:15 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
> 
>
>  
>Thanks for posting this. The most interesting part of the article was, for me, 
>this excerpt. Also the most exciting:
>
>As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum 
>theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous 
>creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the 
>universe exists, why we exist. 
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
>> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
>> world—no gods required
>> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
>> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
>> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
>> make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
>> people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
>> they ran around banging on pots.
>> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
>> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
>> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
>> of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
>> mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
>> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
>> universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
>> on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
>> going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
>> exception.
>> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
>> out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
>> the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
>> him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
>> of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
>> back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
>> Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
>> the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
>> benevolent creator.
>> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
>> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
>> system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
>> systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
>> billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
>> obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
>> world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
>> satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
>> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
>> The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
>> environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
>> the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
>> exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
>> separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
>> were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
>> freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
>> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
>> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
>> strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
>> constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
>> content of the laws of nature themselves.
>> The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
>> our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
>> life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
>> laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
>> us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
>> much more difficult to explain.
>> The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
>> lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
>> intelligent life like us

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[doctordumbass]

Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The 
Universe", thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. 
My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> world—no gods required
> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> they ran around banging on pots.
> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> exception.
> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> benevolent creator.
> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> content of the laws of nature themselves.
> The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> much more difficult to explain.
> The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
> intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
> nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
> carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain
> stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed
> in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars
> and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny
> inhomogeneities in the early universe.
> Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such
> that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could
> disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of
> nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new
> generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly
> formed heavy elements.
> By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of
> physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of chan

[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....

[Ann]

Thanks for posting this. The most interesting part of the article was, for me, 
this excerpt. Also the most exciting:

As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory 
allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is 
the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why 
we exist. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why God Did Not Create the Universe.
> There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our
> world—no gods required
> By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
> According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and
> Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would
> make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time,
> people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether
> they ran around banging on pots.
> Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many
> myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people
> turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose
> of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason,
> mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
> Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the
> universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes
> on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each
> going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without
> exception.
> Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise
> out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that
> the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by
> him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently
> of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some
> back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand
> Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of
> the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a
> benevolent creator.
> Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly
> design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar
> system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar
> systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the
> billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and
> obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the
> world around them, they are bound to find that their environment
> satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
> It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle:
> The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of
> environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know
> the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us
> exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun
> separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth
> were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
> freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
> The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a
> stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The
> strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes
> constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and
> content of the laws of nature themselves.
> The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of
> our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human
> life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its
> laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support
> us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is
> much more difficult to explain.
> The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of
> lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with
> intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of
> nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially
> carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain
> stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed
> in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars
> and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny
> inhomogeneities in the early universe.
> Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such
> that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could
> disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of
> nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new
> generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly
> formed heavy elements.