Hi Fr. Ivo,
For a supurlo goenkar to get sincere blessings from a padre is real meaningful.
Perhaps you did not read my last post to you. Here is a repeat posting since I
appreciate your thoughts on this topic:
Every one had an opportunity to seek Fr. Ivo's opinion. My questions are not
---
2008 International Goan Convention
Toronto, Canada
Early Bird Discount Registration closes March 31, 2008
http://www.2008goanconvention.com
Dear Dr.Gilbert Lawrence,
You wrote: Whatever happened to: There is one God
and there are several ways to get to heaven? Of course
to get to heaven, the soul has to live after death.
Oops! did I say something heretical - like soul, life after death, heaven
and God?
*Thank you, Dr.Gilbert,
Dear Selma,
Thanks for your reaction and congratulations for your curiosity and
concern for Science and Philosophy.
I referred to the principle of causality since your posting was addressed
to Dr.Santosh,
and I found that there was a reference to what I said in my posting.
Dear Fr. Ivo,
Dear Santosh,
Both Goanet and America have been a great source of
learning for me
..
that traditional philosophy itself has become
obsolete in light of advances made by science.
Dear Selma,
You are quite
--- Gilbert Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So your conclusion below - most likely wrong is a
mistake. Such basic mistakes are not good for a
scientist.:=))
Hi Gilbert,
You are most likely wrong about Spinoza because of the
wrong assumptions you make in the following quote of
yours:
He did
--- Fr. Ivo da C. Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*You are wrong on this point. Let me repeat here
that the principle of
causality has not become obsolete in light of
advances made by science.
--
Dear Fr. Ivo,
Thanks for responding. However, I was not referring to
Hi Santosh,
As I will be away for 10 days, I am breaking my own rules in sending two posts
to goanet in one day.
Accepting what one does not know or has limited knowledge or understanding off
is the first step to progress and learning. So I am not wrong about Spinoza. I
state, I do not know
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:59:16 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
goanet@lists.goanet.org Subject: Re: [Goanet] Science and Churchy reasoning
--- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Selma,
I am pleasant surprised that you are pursuing the ideas that we discussed
Dear Teotonio:
Thanks for your intervention. I fully agree with you.
I have been interested in this topic from my young days.
Science has advanced to such an extent that it cannot either prove or
disprove the existence of God. Religion has advanced to such an extent
as not to need the support of
Dear Selma,
I read with interest your comments addressed to Dr.Santosh.
They refer, to some extent, to my write-ups.
I would like to react to them briefly.
You wrote: Recently I borrowed a copy of Spinoza from the library
determined to read about consciousness and modes
(didn't get
My understanding of religion and theological / philosophical concepts is
limited. So, I like to read writings on Religion made simple.
So now I (GL) am trying to figure out what Selma (SC) says in her post below.
Here are some questions ... por favor
SC: Recently I borrowed a copy of Spinoza
--- Gilbert Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding of religion and theological /
philosophical concepts is limited. So, I like to
read writings on Religion made simple.
Since Gilbert is not a philosopher, and because his
understanding of philosophical concepts is limited, by
his
--- Gilbert Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When did Goan society loose that equilibrium
between science and spirituality? Anytime in the
last 200 years?
--
Dear vodlo irmao Gilbert,
Since I don't read 3/4th of Goanet posts, I almost
missed yours. Perhaps it
--- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Selma,
I am pleasant surprised that you are pursuing the
ideas that we discussed in the past in a substantive
way. It is very rare that anybody takes what I say
seriously in this lay public forum.
Dear Santosh,
Hi Teotoniobab,
Yes, such discussions are going on for a long time.
But I am sure you will agree that from a scientific
perspective the light is much brighter today. Most of
the progress that has occurred since then is because
of the discovery of new natural facts, methods and
ideas. This is true
Dear Santosh, Fr. Ivo, et al
I have been following your discussions with some interest. They date back to
the days of 18th century enlightenment in Europe! And they are still going
on because it is difficult to reconcile human interests? Were the ardent
defenders of enlightenment necessarily
--- Teotonio R. de Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear Santosh, Fr. Ivo, et al
I have been following your discussions with some
interest. They date back to
the days of 18th century enlightenment in Europe!
And they are still going
on because it is difficult to reconcile human
interests?
18 matches
Mail list logo
