...on the statement "in the field of consciousness". Everything is already "in
the field of consciousness" AS MEST (matter, energy, space, and time). If you
mean by Consciousness, "Being", this is not a "field". The latter term in
physics refers to something relative, pursuant to the discoveries
Yifu,
3.> Anyway, due to various limitations, pure math can often expand faster than
experimental, leaving us with such hypotheses as "BRANES"; i.e. sheets of
pre-existing matter/energy fields which collide, generating Big Bangs. This is
a typical string-theory outcome that Hagelin might have
> What I'm wondering is do MUM philosophy majors really study
> > Indian philosophy. Apparently Curtis has read Hume and Kant,
> > but not Kapila or Shankara.
> >
curtisdeltablues:
> My degree was in Western philosophy so I had to read Shankara
> on my own.
>
Don't give up on your night job!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > But in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" he said a deity no longer has any
> > place in theories on the creation of the universe in the light of a series
>
thx, excellent analysis and conclusions! I agree completely (on the higher
dimensions), fwiw; but more important, the notion of higher or extra dimensions
as hypothesized by string theorists seems to mesh well with extra-dimensional
metaphysical systems which may included supposed realms of the
Yifu,
2.> Due to this and other limitations on what we can know scientifically,
researchers in recent decades have resorted to pure mathematics to speculate on
what's possible rather than what can be experimentally proven (although that's
important also, for example in finding a possible Higgs
thanks for that, most interesting!. Susskind is one of my favorites. He - like
me, passed through Ft. Ord long ago (an Army base no longer in existence which
is probably by now a lot of housing tracts in very expensive Monterrey
territory).
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
> > > And note that he appears to be taking issue with the
> > > anthropomorphic God-concept while at least allowing the
> > > possibility of one that's more abstract.
> > >
> John:
> > Aside from my latest comment to Curtis, Hawking does
Yifu,
1.> Right...but again you're embedding the premise "caused" into an enquiry.
One limitation on scientific knowledge relating to "cannot see anything else
beyond or before the Big Bang" is the expanding fabric of space-time, expanding
faster than the speed of Light. As a result, the actua
> > And note that he appears to be taking issue with the
> > anthropomorphic God-concept while at least allowing the
> > possibility of one that's more abstract.
> >
John:
> Aside from my latest comment to Curtis, Hawking does not
> appear to believe in the existence of consciousness in
> the uni
> > The latest results in cosmological research show
> > that the universe may have started as quantum
> > mechanical fluctuations at a very high temperature
> > scale that can't be duplicated here on earth...
> >
Curtis:
> I think this guy's opinion should be considered...
>
Maybe so, but do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
>
> > I think this guy's opinion should be considered:
> >
> > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/stephen-hawking-dismisses-idea-of-a-universal-creator-calls
Right...but again you're embedding the premise "caused" into an enquiry. One
limitation on scientific knowledge relating to "cannot see anything else beyond
or before the Big Bang" is the expanding fabric of space-time, expanding faster
than the speed of Light. As a result, the actual physical u
Curtis,
I now understand that Hawking is a true scientist. He can only see what is
shown by experiments conducted in the conditions of this universe. He cannot
see anything else beyond or before the Big Bang.
He is obviously not a philosopher and cannot answer the question, "Who or what
caus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> I think this guy's opinion should be considered:
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/stephen-hawking-dismisses-idea-of-a-universal-creator-calls-heaven-a-fairy-story/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campaign=8ee5f9d
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > C
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> But in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" he said a deity no longer has any
> place in theories on the creation of the universe in the light of a series of
> developments in physics.>
Methinks that's a bit like one of my brain
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Curtis and Judy,
>
> The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may have
> started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high temperature scale
> that can't be duplicated here on earth.
>
> But for discussion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
> > > > > wrong with attempt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > > > Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
> > > > wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
> > > > argument for a premise that on
Judy
> > Being wrong about whether God exists? Or being wrong
> > about the correctness of your logical reasoning?
This section below should read "their premises and reasoning" not "your" which
means I was directing it to you Judy. I am not.
ME:
>
> Wrong about what ever premise you are propo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
> > > wrong with attempting to c
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
> > wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
> > argument for a premise that one has alread
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> >
> > Curtis and Judy,
> >
> > The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may
> have started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high
> tem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> Hi just stopping by this morning on my way to Quaker Meeting.
> This is an excellent talk by this Craig guy about spiritual doubt. His
> starting first
> from context of experience or lack there of; got spiritual experience
> or you don't.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
> wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
> argument for a premise that one has already accepted on
> faith or on the basis of personal experience, and that
> any s
Hi just stopping by this morning on my way to Quaker Meeting.
This is an excellent talk by this Craig guy about spiritual doubt. His
starting first
from context of experience or lack there of; got spiritual experience
or you don't. And
then differently that variability of reasoning without expe
and I thought you had the newest trend of the GIYFFR "Guru in You" fake
foam routine in mind [:((]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> You are too kind. Thanks.
>
> Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine.
>
> OK I'll admit it. I LIKE wearing men's underwear!
>
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
argument for a premise that one has already accepted on
faith or on the basis of personal experience, and that
any such argument must necessarily be flawed because it's
designed to achiev
You are too kind. Thanks.
Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine.
OK I'll admit it. I LIKE wearing men's underwear!
And I wear them on the INSIDE of my pants so no one knows I have them on.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogrou
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
"but you have no clothes." We were wearing them on the INSIDE.
that's the phrase of the week [:D]
I'm so drawn
up in your zone
All the kids have always known
That the emperor wears no clothes
But they bow down to him anyway
It's
Great rap, Curtis. I have nothing to add to it, because
it pretty much covers the bases.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> Thanks for watching it Barry. It is an important insight into the
> guy. I feel such an affinity with him since I spent 4 years at MIU
> w
Thanks for watching it Barry. It is an important insight into the guy. I feel
such an affinity with him since I spent 4 years at MIU
with this exact agenda. I believe he is sincere just as I was.
He is obviously a smart guy. So he feels confident that he can take
on any intellectual challeng
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Curtis and Judy,
>
> The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may
have started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high
temperature scale that can't be duplicated here on earth.
John, are absolutely sure
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> OK I guess we are all over it. The link I provide where Craig reveals his
> true epistemology is interesting.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ
That's it exactly. "Start with faith in unproven
and unprovable id
Curtis and Judy,
The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may have
started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high temperature scale
that can't be duplicated here on earth.
But for discussion of the KC, one can ask, "what caused the fluctuations or
waves to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Curtis,
>
> Ahem...you and Judy are doing just fine with your KCA discussion. I don't
> believe I have to add to anything to what you've discussed so far.
OK I guess we are all over it. The link I provide where Craig reveals his true
ep
Curtis,
Ahem...you and Judy are doing just fine with your KCA discussion. I don't
believe I have to add to anything to what you've discussed so far.
JR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> I was trying to respond to John. Sorry for the confusion.
>
>
>
> --
I was trying to respond to John. Sorry for the confusion.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't make it clear in my intro to the last post, but it
> > contains comments interspersed bel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> I didn't make it clear in my intro to the last post, but it
> contains comments interspersed below if you are interested.
No idea what you mean. Below you've quoted a post of mine,
but you haven't added anything beyond what I wa
I didn't make it clear in my intro to the last post, but it contains comments
interspersed below if you are interested.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
>
> > You haven't advanced the idea any
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
> 1.> OK, one last attempt to see whether there is any
> > there there in JohnR to converse with:
>
> As I recall, you weren't there when you bailed out of
> the KCA discussion.
YOU bailed from the discussion, declaring that you
curtisdeltablues:
> Sorry Richard, you brought this up before. I haven't picked up the
> habit of hard returns as I type because it looks fine to me on the
> Web. Is this formatting better? I'll give it a try and appreciate
> your reading anything I write here. But for the effort of creating
> a
Barry,
1.> OK, one last attempt to see whether there is any
> there there in JohnR to converse with:
>
As I recall, you weren't there when you bailed out of the KCA discussion.
2.> > The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of
> > human existence.
>
> What leads you to believe tha
turquoiseb:
> That's a True Believer pastime, and IMO an ego-
> bound pastime. As Curtis pointed out, the argument
> proposed as some kind of "proof" is really nothing
> more than a set of beliefs, declared as truths...
>
So, TB, this is your true set of beliefs.
OK, one last attempt to see whether there is any
there there in JohnR to converse with:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of
> human existence.
What leads you to believe that humans can know
the meaning of human existenc
The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of human existence. With
human reasoning and logic (consciousness), people can have a better basis for
knowing and living. IOW, we are not biological robots mindlessly living our
short lives here on earth.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.c
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
>
> From Wiki, "Cosmological Argument":
>
> "However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning
> is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with
> the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.
Even this seems to miss t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
>
> From Wiki, "Cosmological Argument":
>
> "However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable
> still remains a matter of debate,
The value to our practical lives is huge for both. We must be able to use
inductive logi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
> "1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. "
>
> Me: The tip-off for inductive logic was the use of the word "Whatever."
> This is a universal statement and indicates
that the single example given to support it was being used i
>From Wiki, "Cosmological Argument":
"However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still
remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is
prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not
necessarily apply to the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > > *My* point was that at least one of the detailed
> > > supportive arguments for the syllogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > *My* point was that at least one of the detailed
> > supportive arguments for the syllogism starts with the
> > same example John used about procreation, but it doesn
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> The essay at the link, as I noted before, is actually
> Craig versus four other guys. It covers three attempted
> rebuttals, Craig's counter-rebuttal, and then a counter-
> counter-rebuttal. Most likely Craig would have a counter-
> coun
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, "I believe
> > > this." And y
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:44 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Sorry Richard, you brought this up before. I haven't picked u
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
>
> > You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, "I believe
> > this." And you have every right. I know this isn't your
> > argument, you didn't create this
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote:
>
> And then when you figure that out, maybe
> you can also tell us:
> Who let the dogs out?
> Who wrote the book of love?
> Who knows where the time goes?
> Who'll stop the rain?
> Who's got the pain?
> And who cares about any of this cr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tartbrain wrote:
>
> > Well, at least FFL fits the bill. And did Rick create FFL? I mean did he
> > create Yahoo? And the internet? And Turq, Curtis, Mark,LB, Rory, Peter,
> > Marek, Phil, Vashti and all
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H94S44pMb0Y/TWhz1oS32AI/AEw/GRGPf9jF2Ok/s1600/creation%2B2.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tartbrain wrote:
>
> > Well, at least FFL fits the bill. And did Rick create FFL? I mean did he
> > create Y
And then when you figure that out, maybe
you can also tell us:
Who let the dogs out?
Who wrote the book of love?
Who knows where the time goes?
Who'll stop the rain?
Who's got the pain?
And who cares about any of this crap?
On May 9, 2011, at 9:14 AM, tartbrain wrote:
Who put the bomp
In the bo
On May 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tartbrain wrote:
> Well, at least FFL fits the bill. And did Rick create FFL? I mean did he
> create Yahoo? And the internet? And Turq, Curtis, Mark,LB, Rory, Peter,
> Marek, Phil, Vashti and all the people who made FFL what it is today?
Yes, Rick did all that.
He'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
> You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, "I believe
> this." And you have every right. I know this isn't your
> argument, you didn't create this syllogism but whoever did
> was not being as clever as they thought. It
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.> > Your statements above states that you disagree with the fi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> >
> > Curtis,
> >
> >
> > 1.> > Your statements above states that you disagree with the first
> > premise. If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I do
Curtis,
I don't really get my need for God either. I'm pretty sure it was how I was
raised and that I'm just "working it." A theory.
I'm convinced that there's the divine dichotomy -- the transcendent and the
manifest. It's my everyday experience that there's something and that there's
also
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote:
That is really interesting Edg. But I don't really get the need for a God?
Unless he is being used as metaphor for the deepest level of matter. I am
inclined just to give a primacy to matter itself and drop the God idea as
unnecessary.
Curtis,
In light of the concept "quantum foam" it's become difficult for me to believe
in "nothing." Every where, every time we look, we find some THING.even if
it's not "there" long enough to say it was "here" with our timing apparatus
that's limited by the uncertainty principle. A parti
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Curtis,
>
>
> 1.> > Your statements above states that you disagree with the first premise.
> If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I don't think you can
> straddle the fence on this one.
> >
> >
> > No, I do not acce
Curtis,
1.> > Your statements above states that you disagree with the first premise.
If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I don't think you can
straddle the fence on this one.
>
>
> No, I do not accept the first premise.>
Thank you. Now we know where you stand.
2.>
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You're jumping ahead of the game.
> > >
> tartbrain:
> > I hear Curtis hears that a lot on Saturday nights.
> >
> Maybe so, but when Curtis's finger strums the
> guitar, sound comes out, and when he opens
> his mouth, a tune co
> > You're jumping ahead of the game.
> >
tartbrain:
> I hear Curtis hears that a lot on Saturday nights.
>
Maybe so, but when Curtis's finger strums the
guitar, sound comes out, and when he opens
his mouth, a tune comes out - not out of nowhere
do the sounds come. This is a fact requiring no
p
> > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> >
> > Do you agree with this premise or not?
> >
turquoiseb:
> I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling
> for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> first premise has the same problem as the second.
> The problem is not with th
Me:
>
> snip>
> > > >
> > > > I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps.
> > > > But I am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first
> > > > assertion. >
> > >
> > >
> > > It sounds like you disagree with the first premise: "Whatever begins to
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
>
> The question is dude, have you ever been to the Anza-Borrego Desert WITHOUT
> Rama?
>
If "you" have the answers to questions, "you" are not "there" or "here" or
"now". (You are only at level 48,765 of the grand heirarchy of judg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> >
> > Curtis,
> >
> > 1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree
> > with the first premise or not.
> > >
> > > I'm gunna go with a no on t
Barry,
1. > Can you give us a specific example that presents your
> > case and does not follow the statement under the first
> > premise?
>
> I'm out in the Anza-Borrego desert, at night,
> in a certain canyon I know of. Sometimes, when
> I go there, there is a certain rock face in the
> side
The question is dude, have you ever been to the Anza-Borrego Desert WITHOUT
Rama?
and if that is the case, and you continue to see "a portal with beings of light
walking around in it" on a rock face, I suggest you empty the bottle, put out
the roach and find a nearby motel to sleep it off...:-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Curtis,
>
> 1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with
> the first premise or not.
> >
> > I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most
> > obvious example of something that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude
> > > > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> > > >
> > John:
> > > IMO, the Supreme Being is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> >
> > Barry,
> >
> > 1.> Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > > >
> > > > Do you agree with this premise or not?
> > >
> > > I'm going back to play "catch up" after travel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
> 1.> Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > >
> > > Do you agree with this premise or not?
> >
> > I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling
> > for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> > first premise h
Curtis,
1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with
the first premise or not.
>
> I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most
> obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause. It also
> seems to be in contradi
Barry,
1.> Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> >
> > Do you agree with this premise or not?
>
> I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling
> for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> first premise has the same problem as the second.
> The problem is not with the word "c
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude
> > > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> > >
> John:
> > IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human
> > religions.
> >
> So, now it's a metaphysical ar
By the Supreme Being you mean Brahman. An eternal Brahman both both aspects:
relative and Absolute; requires no "cause" other than Itself. It's self-caused.
To repeat - refer to the Wiki on Cosmological arguments, specificically
rebuttals to the major flaws of "causation". All aspects have been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey John,
> >
> > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly
> > discussion with you having been challenged!
> >
> > I was pointing out that y
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > wrot
> > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude
> > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> >
John:
> IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human
> religions.
>
So, now it's a metaphysical argument?
In physics, causation is the relationship between
any single event and
> > Ah ha!. You've done it Curtis. You have proved
> > John's point with Barry's own words. It is a
> > small bang that creates human life, but it is the
> > big bang that creates the universe. Case closed!
> >
turquoiseb:
> Not at all. I'm frankly surprised that you're so
> simplistic. Wha
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility
> > > between the tw
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoo
Yifu,
>
1.> The premises and statements below (1, 2, 3, basically) = "The Cosmological
Argument" [Cf. Wiki, with "objections and counterarguments"]. (has serious
flaws).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument>
You are quoting your sources from the opponents of KCA. You have not a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote:
> >
> > Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility between the
two ideas? The one premise is that birth of the universe began, and the
other, th
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> But as, by definition, an infinite series can never
> be traversed, how could we be here 'now'?
>
Ask Ram Das. I think he wrote a book about it.
The premises and statements below (1, 2, 3, basically) = "The Cosmological
Argument" [Cf. Wiki, with "objections and counterarguments"]. (has serious
flaws).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
...
Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude that a "Deity" created the
Universe,
Yeah, I have heard the big bang theory. I don't have a problem with it, though
if someone wants to believe in an eternal model of stuff going on, that is OK
too. I figure I can't rule out either possibility, so I'll accept 'em both,
unless it somehow increases my taxes...
--- In FairfieldLife@y
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
