subject:"Re\: \[FairfieldLife\] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea\?"


On 4/22/2014 12:48 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:

All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...


Has anyone else noticed that Barry hasn't presented anything but 
emotions on this subject, compared to Xeno, Curtis, and Judy?



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/22/2014 8:01 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


We are so fortunate to have Barry here with us to set us all straight 
about what exists and what doesn't. ;-)




Barry doesn't seem to want to talk about human levitation, which is kind 
of paranormal, except when it is performed by The Last Incarnation of 
God Vishnu, aka Frederick Lenz III, and then it's REAL levitation, which 
is not paranormal, but normal things a guy does with light and air to 
impress gullible Americans like Barry. Go figure.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
 

 It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just 
flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, especially if 
Despicable Me is more your speed.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread salyavin808


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
 

 It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just 
flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, especially if 
Despicable Me is more your speed.
 

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/22/2014 8:56 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
*/
/*
*It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row 
just flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, 
especially if Despicable Me is more your speed.*


It's not the words or ideas that drive me crazy, it's the colors of the 
text. And why all the bold?



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
 

 It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just 
flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, especially if 
Despicable Me is more your speed.
 

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?
 

 I summarized what I thought to Ricky the other day. I will repeat. I am not a 
philosopher, I am not a scientist and I'm not religious. I do not talk about 
life - I live it as deeply and as intensely as I can. I think that those who 
have the patience and the time to listen to the great thinkers and the books of 
those who wish to try and figure out this mystery of God or no God are 
different from how I roll. I think the process of delving into the intellectual 
aspects of this subject can bring one closer to a deeper understanding, just by 
engaging in the process of intense enquiry. What I don't understand is Bawwy's 
lack of tolerance for those who chose to speak and think and write and 
contemplate about the existence of God. He simply dismisses it all as if he has 
it all figured out and would never consider any other possibility for how this 
existence is structured. In other words, he has closed himself off as if he was 
deaf, dumb and blind. 
 

 You see, I do believe there is something akin to God but this is what I have 
come to as a result of living for 57 years and having experienced what I have 
experienced. I will take experience over argument or debate (although these are 
both good things) but it does not seem that I can come to any other conclusion 
based on brilliant yet unprovable theories espoused through dialogue. What I 
know is that life is big, mysterious and extraordinarily beautiful and horrific 
at the same time. However, I think underneath it all lies an infinitely 
embracing love and glorious perfection that virtually no one is privy to while 
we still live and breath here on Earth. 
 

 So, debate away, compare ideas of great and not so great thinkers but I'll be 
out in the field stirring up dandelion fluff or inhaling the dander from some 
horse I'm grooming. Any of these things can bring us all to the same 
conclusions - none of which will be provable and yet the process of trying to 
discover and find out about God or no God is maybe more important than the 
answer.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread TurquoiseBee

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...

It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just 
flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, especially if 
Despicable Me is more your speed.

But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god as 
opposed to more materialistic approaches?

Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend

Actually, the fire hydrant analogy is a perfect one for Barry's near-total 
ignorance of metaphyics. (As well as of Robin.) 

 Discussions of God and theology make Barry very nervous; that's why he's 
especially irritable and gratuitously nasty this morning.
 

 

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?
 
 
Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread TurquoiseBee

I'll reply just because it's perversely pleasing to see Judy trying to steal 
someone else's funny insult because she's incapable of thinking up her own. 
She's been reduced to I know she is, but so are you!  :-)  :-)  :-)

 From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

Actually, the fire hydrant analogy is a perfect one for Barry's near-total 
ignorance of metaphyics. (As well as of Robin.)

Discussions of God and theology make Barry very nervous; that's why he's 
especially irritable and gratuitously nasty this morning.

But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god as 
opposed to more materialistic
approaches?

Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend

You missed the point, dimwit. It's not that the insult was funny, it's that it 
was, like so many of your insults and accusations, a projection of your own 
flaws onto someone else, in this case your abysmal ignorance of metaphysics. I 
suspect everyone recognized that but you. 

 Oooopsie!
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 I'll reply just because it's perversely pleasing to see Judy trying to steal 
someone else's funny insult because she's incapable of thinking up her own. 
She's been reduced to I know she is, but so are you!  :-)  :-)  :-)
 

 
 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:44 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?
 
 
   Actually, the fire hydrant analogy is a perfect one for Barry's near-total 
ignorance of metaphyics. (As well as of Robin.)
 

 Discussions of God and theology make Barry very nervous; that's why he's 
especially irritable and gratuitously nasty this morning.
 

 

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?
 
 
Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/22/2014 11:25 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
This is a person who actually believed Robin Carlsen was bright and 
charismatic and worth following as a spiritual teacher. 


As opposed to Barry who actually believed Fred Lenz was bright enough to 
turn huge halls golden and worth following as a spiritual teacher 
because he could levitate for real? Yeah, that's it.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend

Projection, as I just pointed out. 

 This is a person who actually believed Robin Carlsen was bright and 
charismatic and worth following as a spiritual teacher. 
 As opposed to Barry who actually believed Fred Lenz was bright enough to turn 
huge halls golden and worth following as a spiritual teacher because he could 
levitate for real? Yeah, that's it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread steve.sundur


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 AWhat I don't understand is Bawwy's lack of tolerance for those who chose to 
speak and think and write and contemplate about the existence of God. He simply 
dismisses it all as if he has it all figured out and would never consider any 
other possibility for how this existence is structured. In other words, he has 
closed himself off as if he was deaf, dumb and blind. 
 

 Ann, there doesn't seem to be anyone here who feels the need to proclaim more 
loudly, I Am An Atheist than Barry.  But in practice and belief, he seems 
more a classic theist.  And perhaps this causes him some degree of cognitive 
dissonance. I say this because he seems to believe in an underlying 
intelligence.  (classic theism) He believes in rebirth, and surfing along on 
the Bardo. (standard Buddhist beliefs).  He doesn't want to take a stab at 
explaining how rebirth and the bardo might play out, preferring to use a 
blanket explanation that it plays out automatically, not realizing that 
automatically does not preclude a precise intelligence at work.
 

 But I think the perceived renegade status he gets by stating he is an 
atheist is too hard for him to pass up.  Even if he would be denied card 
carrying status.
 

 The other atheist here, at least seem more comfortable in that belief, (or non 
belief, I guess), and don't feel the need to repeatedly make that declaration.
 

 God Forbid, don't ask him to explain anything.
 

 That said, I do like him.
 

 You see, I do believe there is something akin to God but this is what I have 
come to as a result of living for 57 years and having experienced what I have 
experienced. I will take experience over argument or debate (although these are 
both good things) but it does not seem that I can come to any other conclusion 
based on brilliant yet unprovable theories espoused through dialogue. What I 
know is that life is big, mysterious and extraordinarily beautiful and horrific 
at the same time. However, I think underneath it all lies an infinitely 
embracing love and glorious perfection that virtually no one is privy to while 
we still live and breath here on Earth. 
 

 So, debate away, compare ideas of great and not so great thinkers but I'll be 
out in the field stirring up dandelion fluff or inhaling the dander from some 
horse I'm grooming. Any of these things can bring us all to the same 
conclusions - none of which will be provable and yet the process of trying to 
discover and find out about God or no God is maybe more important than the 
answer.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 AWhat I don't understand is Bawwy's lack of tolerance for those who chose to 
speak and think and write and contemplate about the existence of God. He simply 
dismisses it all as if he has it all figured out and would never consider any 
other possibility for how this existence is structured. In other words, he has 
closed himself off as if he was deaf, dumb and blind. 
 

 Ann, there doesn't seem to be anyone here who feels the need to proclaim more 
loudly, I Am An Atheist than Barry.  But in practice and belief, he seems 
more a classic theist.  And perhaps this causes him some degree of cognitive 
dissonance. I say this because he seems to believe in an underlying 
intelligence.  (classic theism) He believes in rebirth, and surfing along on 
the Bardo. (standard Buddhist beliefs).  He doesn't want to take a stab at 
explaining how rebirth and the bardo might play out, preferring to use a 
blanket explanation that it plays out automatically, not realizing that 
automatically does not preclude a precise intelligence at work.
 

 But I think the perceived renegade status he gets by stating he is an 
atheist is too hard for him to pass up.  Even if he would be denied card 
carrying status.
 

 The other atheist here, at least seem more comfortable in that belief, (or non 
belief, I guess), and don't feel the need to repeatedly make that declaration.
 

 God Forbid, don't ask him to explain anything.
 

 That said, I do like him.
 

 Well, clearly, I don't. But when and if he ever reveals a side of himself that 
could change that, I am all ears and eyes and readiness to reverse my opinion.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

   ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...

 It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just 
flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, especially if 
Despicable Me is more your speed.

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?

Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics. :-)

 Poor, dear Bawwy. Robin would have been far too intellectual for you. You seem 
to have been drawn to the more flashier, vaudeville-style spectacle as 
allegedly displayed by your blow-dried and styled guru - Herr Frederick Lenz. I 
guess there are advantages to the 25 cent sideshow charlatans but they aren't 
my favorite. I like a little meat, something you can really put your teeth into 
when joining/choosing a cult.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread nablusoss1008


 Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only 
guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my music would be a way to 
make me feel badly about myself The reason I pointed to your big hat wasn't to 
try to make you feel bad but because you have the nerve to verbally abuse the 
only Saint you ever met. That's showing quite some nerve and doesn't correspond 
very well to how I see you come through in RL. You are not the exception that 
can sit in a glass house throwing stones and get away with it.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.

All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of 
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in 
execution what we hear or see in our heads. This is a long period of self 
flagellation where your chops are not able to pull off what you dream about. 
Then they begin to match more closely. This process continues forever as you 
set your own bar higher, but at some point for me I was sounding how I wanted 
to sound. I know some artists live in a world of the glass half full, but 
somehow I have a comfort with what I am doing while still keeping goals of what 
I want to do.

 I believe that it is the inner critic that is more responsible for derailing 
possible artists than external ones during the growth stage. You have to suck 
for a long time by your OWN standards to become a performer. I have taped my 
shows my whole career and notice that many performers hate to do this. I 
recently convinced a guitar student of mine to do this even though he really 
did not want to. But with that feedback, painful at first, he was able to 
tighten up all sorts of things quickly by hearing it all objectively after 
performing, and letting his inner critic have a voice. 

After I got the sound I wanted I had to find people who shared my taste. That 
is a key way to frame it because people who don't share my taste in blues style 
will NEVER like my music. And it goes both ways too. I had two gigs at the 
National Theater last week. It is a prestige gig and it gives me pride to say 
that I was chosen to play there. But inside it doesn't alter one bit how I feel 
about my music. When I saw the videos of my performances I still had things I 
wished I had done differently and things I was proud of by my own internal 
standard. The same mix just like EVERY other gig!

Nabbie is not the only guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my 
music would be a way to make me feel badly about myself. Little do they know 
that their dickishnes could NEVER match the inner tyrant who drives me to be 
the kind of musician I want to be. And that is the one that I can never escape 
from. 

I'm sure you understand this from your own passionate pursuits. 



 




 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.
 

 LIke I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art of an artist in 
order to deal some sort of personal body blow that has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand. I love and respect your music and your drive toward the art 
form and the passion that characterizes the blues from the earlier time period 
you embrace. You put an incredible amount of energy and love into expressing 
that music and I really dig it, on all sorts of levels. Just wanted to say that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread TurquoiseBee

From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only 
guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my music would be a way to 
make me feel badly about myself The reason I pointed to your big hat wasn't to 
try to make you feel bad but because you have the nerve to verbally abuse the 
only Saint you ever met. That's showing quite some nerve and doesn't correspond 
very well to how I see you come through in RL. You are not the exception that 
can sit in a glass house throwing stones and get away with it.

So in other words you're ADMITTING to being a cultist, and to attacking someone 
personally because they dissed your cult leader Maharishi. Again, as with 
Richard yesterday, at least you admit it. Several here still cannot. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.

All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of 
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in 
execution what we hear or see in our heads. This is a long period of self 
flagellation where your chops are not able to pull off what you dream about. 
Then they begin to match more closely. This process continues forever as you 
set your own bar higher, but at some point for me I was sounding how I wanted 
to sound. I know some artists live in a world of the glass half full, but 
somehow I have a comfort with what I am doing while still keeping goals of what 
I want to do.

 I believe that it is the inner critic that is more responsible for derailing 
possible artists than external ones during the growth stage. You have to suck 
for a long time by your OWN standards to become a performer. I have taped my 
shows my whole career and notice that many performers hate to do this. I 
recently convinced a guitar student of mine to do this even though he really 
did not want to. But with that feedback, painful at first, he was able to 
tighten up all sorts of things quickly by hearing it all objectively after 
performing, and letting his inner critic have a voice. 

After I got the sound I wanted I had to find people who shared my taste. That 
is a key way to frame it because people who don't share my taste in blues style 
will NEVER like my music. And it goes both ways too. I had two gigs at the 
National Theater last week. It is a prestige gig and it gives me pride to say 
that I was chosen to play there. But inside it doesn't alter one bit how I feel 
about my music. When I saw the videos of my performances I still had things I 
wished I had done differently and things I was proud of by my own internal 
standard. The same mix just like EVERY other gig!

Nabbie is not the only guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my 
music would be a way to make me feel badly about myself. Little do they know 
that their dickishnes could NEVER match the inner tyrant who drives me to be 
the kind of musician I want to be. And that is the one that I can never escape 
from. 

I'm sure you understand this from your own passionate pursuits. 

--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

-In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.

LIke I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art of an artist in 
order to deal some sort of personal body blow that has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand. I love and respect your music and your drive toward the art 
form and the passion that characterizes the blues from the earlier time period 
you embrace. You put an incredible amount of energy and love into expressing 
that music and I really dig it, on all sorts of levels. Just wanted to say that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread awoelflebater


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only 
guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my music would be a way to 
make me feel badly about myself The reason I pointed to your big hat wasn't to 
try to make you feel bad but because you have the nerve to verbally abuse the 
only Saint you ever met. That's showing quite some nerve and doesn't correspond 
very well to how I see you come through in RL. You are not the exception that 
can sit in a glass house throwing stones and get away with it.
 

 First Nabby, it's your opinion that MMY is a saint and for someone else to 
feel otherwise is hardly grounds for insults. It is just a difference of 
opinion. Bringing up Curtis' musical abilities (or lack of ability in your 
opinion) has nothing at all to do with MMY and how Curtis feels about him. I'm 
not trying to defend Curtis here, he doesn't require defending, but simply 
pointing out that referring to Curtis' musical pursuits in less than glowing 
terms has absolutely nothing to do with your differing opinions on Maharishi or 
theism or atheism or any other subject other than music. It's kind of like 
insulting someone's mother or bringing up the fact that they have a balding 
head or bad acne during a debate on climate change. 
 

 Just chalk it up to one of my little pet peeves if it was something less than 
what I am making it out to be. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.

All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of 
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in 
execution what we hear or see in our heads. This is a long period of self 
flagellation where your chops are not able to pull off what you dream about. 
Then they begin to match more closely. This process continues forever as you 
set your own bar higher, but at some point for me I was sounding how I wanted 
to sound. I know some artists live in a world of the glass half full, but 
somehow I have a comfort with what I am doing while still keeping goals of what 
I want to do.

 I believe that it is the inner critic that is more responsible for derailing 
possible artists than external ones during the growth stage. You have to suck 
for a long time by your OWN standards to become a performer. I have taped my 
shows my whole career and notice that many performers hate to do this. I 
recently convinced a guitar student of mine to do this even though he really 
did not want to. But with that feedback, painful at first, he was able to 
tighten up all sorts of things quickly by hearing it all objectively after 
performing, and letting his inner critic have a voice. 

After I got the sound I wanted I had to find people who shared my taste. That 
is a key way to frame it because people who don't share my taste in blues style 
will NEVER like my music. And it goes both ways too. I had two gigs at the 
National Theater last week. It is a prestige gig and it gives me pride to say 
that I was chosen to play there. But inside it doesn't alter one bit how I feel 
about my music. When I saw the videos of my performances I still had things I 
wished I had done differently and things I was proud of by my own internal 
standard. The same mix just like EVERY other gig!

Nabbie is not the only guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my 
music would be a way to make me feel badly about myself. Little do they know 
that their dickishnes could NEVER match the inner tyrant who drives me to be 
the kind of musician I want to be. And that is the one that I can never escape 
from. 

I'm sure you understand this from your own passionate pursuits. 



 




 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.
 

 LIke I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art of an artist in 
order to deal some sort of personal body blow that has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand. I love and respect your music and your drive toward the art 
form and the passion that characterizes the blues from the earlier time period 
you embrace. You put an incredible amount of energy and love into expressing 
that music and I really dig it,

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread Richard J. Williams


On 4/21/2014 3:12 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
So in other words you're ADMITTING to being a cultist, and to 
attacking someone personally because they dissed your cult leader 
Maharishi. Again, as with Richard yesterday, at least you admit it. 
Several here still cannot. 


But, it is strange that you'd want to call others cultists, when 
everyone knows you were the leader of two cults. Why not just ADMIT it?


From: Uncle Tantra
Subject: Open Letter To Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-08-06 08:53:26 PST

I also saw myself portrayed on the front page of newspapers as a
dangerous, evil cultist because I was in their community teaching
people how to meditate for free, paying for every poster I put up,
every hall I rented, ever tape or CD or book I gave away myself.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread awoelflebater

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

 Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only 
guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my music would be a way to 
make me feel badly about myself The reason I pointed to your big hat wasn't to 
try to make you feel bad but because you have the nerve to verbally abuse the 
only Saint you ever met. That's showing quite some nerve and doesn't correspond 
very well to how I see you come through in RL. You are not the exception that 
can sit in a glass house throwing stones and get away with it.

So in other words you're ADMITTING to being a cultist, and to attacking someone 
personally because they dissed your cult leader Maharishi. Again, as with 
Richard yesterday, at least you admit it. Several here still cannot. 

A bunch of people here can't admit all sorts of things and who made you the 
police of the revelation and honesty brigade? You don't have the chops or the 
qualificationf  necessary for you to hold this self-appointed position here, 
Bawwwyyy.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread Richard J. Williams


On 4/21/2014 11:24 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:


Look, this was your idea, Curtis. You wrote:

I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or 
invalid inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by 
example, you will claim, 'that was not the good one, you cherry picked.'


It's almost impossible to follow this thread anymore because it's not 
formatted for easy reading and reply. I don't even know who is saying 
what. Have any of you guys ever considered snipping? It's not complicated.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread curtisdeltablues

My responses are interwoven into her last post. I marked our responses with our 
initials before each response. In my web browser it shows up right at the top 
of all the discussion posts in this thread.

Snipping anything often leads to accusations around here so I stopped doing it. 
But if you just read the top of the pile you are reading the most recent.
I don't know how to format it any better than that. 

Your input would be welcome Richard.

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote :

 On 4/21/2014 11:24 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote:

 
 Look, this was your idea, Curtis. You wrote:
 
 
 I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or invalid 
inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by example, you will 
claim, 'that was not the good one, you cherry picked.'

 
 It's almost impossible to follow this thread anymore because it's not 
formatted for easy reading and reply. I don't even know who is saying what. 
Have any of you guys ever considered snipping? It's not complicated.
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread emilymaenot

Reads just fine to me.  Snipping this will only confuse those who want to 
follow the discussion, like myself.  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 My responses are interwoven into her last post. I marked our responses with 
our initials before each response. In my web browser it shows up right at the 
top of all the discussion posts in this thread.

Snipping anything often leads to accusations around here so I stopped doing it. 
But if you just read the top of the pile you are reading the most recent.
I don't know how to format it any better than that. 

Your input would be welcome Richard.

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote :

 On 4/21/2014 11:24 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote:

 
 Look, this was your idea, Curtis. You wrote:
 
 
 I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or invalid 
inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by example, you will 
claim, 'that was not the good one, you cherry picked.'

 
 It's almost impossible to follow this thread anymore because it's not 
formatted for easy reading and reply. I don't even know who is saying what. 
Have any of you guys ever considered snipping? It's not complicated.
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread authfriend


 
Summary!
 

 my own summery

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread authfriend

Xenosophistry: you can't beat it. 

 Metaphysical ultimacy = divine simplicity. Being Itself. Doesn't get much 
simpler than that.
 

 Quantum mechanics, most successful theory in the history of science. And the 
simple formula that everyone can understand is...?
 

 “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it 
be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from 
which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. 
http://izquotes.com/quote/228636”--Richard Feynman 
http://izquotes.com/author/richard-feynman on quantum mechanics
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 The best way to show someone there is such a thing as an apple, is to show 
him/her/it one. In the absence of an apple, you could string arguments to the 
end of the universe and an eternity of time, and still not produce knowledge of 
an apple. Now theism and enlightenment are special cases since they are 
arguments like the set of all sets in mathematics. These particular items have 
no objectivity. If they are real, they are subjectively real. Meditation and 
internal inquiry are traditional methods for this investigation, but they have 
the liability that any knowledge so derived is not objective, and no external 
argumentation can demonstrate its value or detriment. The best arguments in any 
case are clear and simple and usually easily understood. The length or 
complexity of an argument is generally not favourable for its correctness, if 
we assume that underlying the universe is simplicity. If god were ultimate 
simplicity, why need then an ultra complex argument, one that few can 
understand? General relativity tends to be difficult for people to understand, 
but one of its formulae, e=mc^2, is extraordinarily simple, and even someone 
without much sophistication can grasp something of its significance, 
particularly if they have seen a nuclear reactor or films of atomic fission or 
hydrogen fusion bombs. 

 Note that great spiritual figures typically express themselves in clear simple 
expressions. When someone is trying to put something over on you, then the 
complexity begins. The longer a circular argument, the less likely one will 
notice the tail meets the head.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread anartaxius

I was not speaking of metaphysics except for the mention of theism. 
Enlightenment is not about metaphysics.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Xenosophistry: you can't beat it. 

 Metaphysical ultimacy = divine simplicity. Being Itself. Doesn't get much 
simpler than that.
 

 Quantum mechanics, most successful theory in the history of science. And the 
simple formula that everyone can understand is...?
 

 “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it 
be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from 
which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. 
http://izquotes.com/quote/228636”--Richard Feynman 
http://izquotes.com/author/richard-feynman on quantum mechanics
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 The best way to show someone there is such a thing as an apple, is to show 
him/her/it one. In the absence of an apple, you could string arguments to the 
end of the universe and an eternity of time, and still not produce knowledge of 
an apple. Now theism and enlightenment are special cases since they are 
arguments like the set of all sets in mathematics. These particular items have 
no objectivity. If they are real, they are subjectively real. Meditation and 
internal inquiry are traditional methods for this investigation, but they have 
the liability that any knowledge so derived is not objective, and no external 
argumentation can demonstrate its value or detriment. The best arguments in any 
case are clear and simple and usually easily understood. The length or 
complexity of an argument is generally not favourable for its correctness, if 
we assume that underlying the universe is simplicity. If god were ultimate 
simplicity, why need then an ultra complex argument, one that few can 
understand? General relativity tends to be difficult for people to understand, 
but one of its formulae, e=mc^2, is extraordinarily simple, and even someone 
without much sophistication can grasp something of its significance, 
particularly if they have seen a nuclear reactor or films of atomic fission or 
hydrogen fusion bombs. 

 Note that great spiritual figures typically express themselves in clear simple 
expressions. When someone is trying to put something over on you, then the 
complexity begins. The longer a circular argument, the less likely one will 
notice the tail meets the head.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

-In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread awoelflebater


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.
 

 LIke I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art of an artist in 
order to deal some sort of personal body blow that has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand. I love and respect your music and your drive toward the art 
form and the passion that characterizes the blues from the earlier time period 
you embrace. You put an incredible amount of energy and love into expressing 
that music and I really dig it, on all sorts of levels. Just wanted to say that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend

Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of 
it is an attempt to deceive readers here. 

 I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's 
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism 
per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in 
it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights:
 

 Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to 
get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and 
requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to 
support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with 
their wieners.
 

 (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their 
wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.)
 

 It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is 
not directly related to that single sentence:
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837

 
 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not 
supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's 
just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest 
that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact 
rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting 
personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free 
hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical 
Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
 

 In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on 
social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance 
of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm 
interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox 
News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure.
 

 BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's 
Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship 
between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, 
it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with the focus on Jesus as 
the Son of God, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on. All just wishful 
thinking, as far as I'm concerned.)
 

 As to Curtis's challenge, he's welcome to do a post that actually makes an 
effort to rebut the philosophical case for classical theism as presented by 
Feser. If it's straightforward and nonpolemical, I may decide to comment.
 

 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
 
 Barry, I know you're upset because your hero Curtis didn't have the decisive 
victory you were hoping for,
C: I figured that Judy snipe at me from post to other people. My opinion piece 
could have inspired a discussion but you went with your typical personal attack 
anti-intellectualism. Of course you are not really in a position to debate 
anything in philosophy, but it was you who waved Feser around here as if he has 
made some wonderful contribution to anti-atheist posturing. 
snip
 

 J:All Curtis could contribute was hand-waving and a lot of ill-considered 
personal attacks against Feser. That doesn't say much for his mastery of 
philosophy, especially not his understanding of the classical theism he was 
making such an intellectually dishonest show of demolishing.

C: But here you go too far and are entering the territory of what is known in 
modern linguistic philosophy as a lying sack of shit. (Epistemological 
speaking of course.)

To sum up my opinion piece on Feser as ill-considered personal attacks is not 
only wrong, it demeans my objection to his use of classical philosophy to argue 
for denying gay rights. It is not a personal attack to object to such a 
thing. You seemed very upset with my comparison with Palin, but that was my 
opinion of his appeal. Giving sloganeering ammo to people who share opinions 
right wing I do not. (To say it mildly.) He could easily be a commentator for 
FOX news and I will have to do a check to see if he has already appeared on 
that scourge on the national mental landscape.

But to the real teeth of your charge here, that I did not express a concise 
formula for seeing the problem with all of the classical proofs of a version 
of the god idea, I have a challenge for you:
I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or invalid 
inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by example, you will 
claim, that was not the good one, you cherry picked.

So you pick one. Please do not try to escape into the bogus, it is all too 
complicated, you can cut and paste the entire Aristotle's Metaphysics for all I 
care.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread nablusoss1008


 awoelflebater, I certainly wasn't after dealing any kind of personal blow, I 
simply got fed up of the HUGE feathers when in reality the fellow can't sing. 
He does put forward a lot of energy though, he is trying very, very hard, 
agreed. And that's the sign of an amateur at work. All hat no cattle as the 
Americans say. 
 I suspect he's carrying over the same symptoms in his philosophy, long 
strings of impressive words with little content.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :


 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.
 

 LIke I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art of an artist in 
order to deal some sort of personal body blow that has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand. I love and respect your music and your drive toward the art 
form and the passion that characterizes the blues from the earlier time period 
you embrace. You put an incredible amount of energy and love into expressing 
that music and I really dig it, on all sorts of levels. Just wanted to say that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread Michael Jackson

and you think Donovan can sing??? - I haven't heard you say squat about him 
and he is bad even for a has been.

On Sun, 4/20/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, April 20, 2014, 7:34 PM

 awoelflebater, I
 certainly wasn't after dealing any kind of
 personal blow, I simply got fed up of the
 HUGE feathers when in reality the fellow can't sing. He
 does put forward a lot of energy though, he is trying very,
 very hard, agreed. And that's the sign of an
 amateur at work. All hat no cattle as the Americans say.
 I
 suspect he's carrying over the same symptoms in his
 philosophy, long strings of impressive words
 with little content.

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 awoelflebater@... wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 Ah
 Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big
 letters proclaimed himself an ARTIST,

 C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have
 been lobbying for years to get people to refer to me in
 their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they
 continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

 N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a
 badly hurt pig.

 C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for
 years to sound like that, so I hardly think it is fair to
 blame them for sounding like me by choice.
 LIke
 I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art
 of an artist in order to deal some sort of personal body
 blow that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I love
 and respect your music and your drive toward the art form
 and the passion that characterizes the blues from the
 earlier time period you embrace. You put an incredible
 amount of energy and love into expressing that music and I
 really dig it, on all sorts of levels. Just wanted to say
 that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread nablusoss1008

At least he is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend

It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can 
effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely 
what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest 
argument for it. 

 If he does this well and responsibly, with intellectual honesty, and refrains 
from polemics and gratuitous insults and/or irrelevant criticism of Feser's 
social positions, I very well might agree with him that the argument isn't 
convincing. I'm not attached to it; I simply don't want to see those opposed to 
theism make their case on the basis of ignorant, arrogant straw-man arguments 
against the weaker theistic claims (one god less being an example)--or, 
worse, misstate the classical theist position--and then congratulate themselves 
on having disposed of the issue.
 

 One more thing: I cited Feser to Salyavin because (1) I'd been reading his 
blog with interest; (2) he is one of those who has claimed classical theism is 
the strongest argument for theism; (3) he's a very clear writer (even Curtis 
acknowledges his summary post on classical theism was a good one--I believe I 
even pasted it in on FFL awhile back). I hold no particular brief for Feser 
personally, especially not for his social views. It's just very satisfying to 
me to see him expose the New Atheist types as intellectual frauds. One more 
time: He isn't the only philosopher or theologian who has done this; Feser's 
just especially good at it, in my view.
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of 
it is an attempt to deceive readers here. 

 I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's 
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism 
per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in 
it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights:
 

 Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to 
get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and 
requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to 
support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with 
their wieners.
 

 (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their 
wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.)
 

 It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is 
not directly related to that single sentence:
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837

 
 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not 
supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's 
just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest 
that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact 
rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting 
personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free 
hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical 
Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
 

 In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on 
social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance 
of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm 
interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox 
News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure.
 

 BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's 
Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship 
between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, 
it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with the focus on Jesus as 
the Son of God, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on. All just wishful 
thinking, as far as I'm concerned.)
 

 As to Curtis's challenge, he's welcome to do a post that actually makes an 
effort to rebut the philosophical case for classical theism as presented by 
Feser. If it's straightforward and nonpolemical, I may decide to comment.
 

 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
 
 Barry, I know you're upset because your hero Curtis didn't have the decisive 
victory you were hoping for,
C: I figured that Judy snipe at me from post to other people. My opinion piece 
could have inspired a discussion but you went with your typical personal attack 
anti-intellectualism. Of course you are not really in a position to debate 
anything in philosophy, but it was you who waved Feser around here as if he has 
made some wonderful contribution to anti-atheist posturing. 
snip
 

 J:All Curtis could contribute was hand-waving and a lot

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

We both know this will end with you accusing me of something nefarious. It is a 
foregone conclusion.But I am not gunna start there so pick one, post it and I 
will apply the precise principles I laid out in my critique of Feser to show 
you the problem with the classical proofs for god.

You know why it is always taught as the history of philosophy and not the 
guys who got it right at the beginning? Because philosophical thought evolves 
as people become aware of issues.


 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can 
effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely 
what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest 
argument for it. 

 If he does this well and responsibly, with intellectual honesty, and refrains 
from polemics and gratuitous insults and/or irrelevant criticism of Feser's 
social positions, I very well might agree with him that the argument isn't 
convincing. I'm not attached to it; I simply don't want to see those opposed to 
theism make their case on the basis of ignorant, arrogant straw-man arguments 
against the weaker theistic claims (one god less being an example)--or, 
worse, misstate the classical theist position--and then congratulate themselves 
on having disposed of the issue.
 

 One more thing: I cited Feser to Salyavin because (1) I'd been reading his 
blog with interest; (2) he is one of those who has claimed classical theism is 
the strongest argument for theism; (3) he's a very clear writer (even Curtis 
acknowledges his summary post on classical theism was a good one--I believe I 
even pasted it in on FFL awhile back). I hold no particular brief for Feser 
personally, especially not for his social views. It's just very satisfying to 
me to see him expose the New Atheist types as intellectual frauds. One more 
time: He isn't the only philosopher or theologian who has done this; Feser's 
just especially good at it, in my view.
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of 
it is an attempt to deceive readers here. 

 I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's 
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism 
per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in 
it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights:
 

 Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to 
get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and 
requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to 
support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with 
their wieners.
 

 (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their 
wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.)
 

 It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is 
not directly related to that single sentence:
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837

 
 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not 
supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's 
just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest 
that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact 
rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting 
personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free 
hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical 
Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
 

 In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on 
social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance 
of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm 
interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox 
News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure.
 

 BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's 
Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship 
between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, 
it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with the focus on Jesus as 
the Son of God, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on. All just wishful 
thinking, as far as I'm concerned.)
 

 As to Curtis's challenge, he's welcome to do a post that actually makes an 
effort to rebut the philosophical case for classical theism as presented by 
Feser. If it's straightforward and nonpolemical, I may decide to comment.
 

 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
 
 Barry, I

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.

All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of 
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in 
execution what we hear or see in our heads. This is a long period of self 
flagellation where your chops are not able to pull off what you dream about. 
Then they begin to match more closely. This process continues forever as you 
set your own bar higher, but at some point for me I was sounding how I wanted 
to sound. I know some artists live in a world of the glass half full, but 
somehow I have a comfort with what I am doing while still keeping goals of what 
I want to do.

 I believe that it is the inner critic that is more responsible for derailing 
possible artists than external ones during the growth stage. You have to suck 
for a long time by your OWN standards to become a performer. I have taped my 
shows my whole career and notice that many performers hate to do this. I 
recently convinced a guitar student of mine to do this even though he really 
did not want to. But with that feedback, painful at first, he was able to 
tighten up all sorts of things quickly by hearing it all objectively after 
performing, and letting his inner critic have a voice. 

After I got the sound I wanted I had to find people who shared my taste. That 
is a key way to frame it because people who don't share my taste in blues style 
will NEVER like my music. And it goes both ways too. I had two gigs at the 
National Theater last week. It is a prestige gig and it gives me pride to say 
that I was chosen to play there. But inside it doesn't alter one bit how I feel 
about my music. When I saw the videos of my performances I still had things I 
wished I had done differently and things I was proud of by my own internal 
standard. The same mix just like EVERY other gig!

Nabbie is not the only guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my 
music would be a way to make me feel badly about myself. Little do they know 
that their dickishnes could NEVER match the inner tyrant who drives me to be 
the kind of musician I want to be. And that is the one that I can never escape 
from. 

I'm sure you understand this from your own passionate pursuits. 



 




 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like me by choice.
 

 LIke I've said before, I hate it when people attack the art of an artist in 
order to deal some sort of personal body blow that has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand. I love and respect your music and your drive toward the art 
form and the passion that characterizes the blues from the earlier time period 
you embrace. You put an incredible amount of energy and love into expressing 
that music and I really dig it, on all sorts of levels. Just wanted to say that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend

Depends on whether you say something nefarious, Curtis. Maybe you're just too 
entrenched in the behavior to change. 

 Interesting that you can't acknowledge anything I wrote in this post. Doesn't 
bode well, but we'll see.
 

 Here's Feser's post on classical theism, the one you said was a good summary. 
Have at it:
 

 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 We both know this will end with you accusing me of something nefarious. It is 
a foregone conclusion.But I am not gunna start there so pick one, post it and I 
will apply the precise principles I laid out in my critique of Feser to show 
you the problem with the classical proofs for god.

You know why it is always taught as the history of philosophy and not the 
guys who got it right at the beginning? Because philosophical thought evolves 
as people become aware of issues.


 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can 
effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely 
what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest 
argument for it. 

 If he does this well and responsibly, with intellectual honesty, and refrains 
from polemics and gratuitous insults and/or irrelevant criticism of Feser's 
social positions, I very well might agree with him that the argument isn't 
convincing. I'm not attached to it; I simply don't want to see those opposed to 
theism make their case on the basis of ignorant, arrogant straw-man arguments 
against the weaker theistic claims (one god less being an example)--or, 
worse, misstate the classical theist position--and then congratulate themselves 
on having disposed of the issue.
 

 One more thing: I cited Feser to Salyavin because (1) I'd been reading his 
blog with interest; (2) he is one of those who has claimed classical theism is 
the strongest argument for theism; (3) he's a very clear writer (even Curtis 
acknowledges his summary post on classical theism was a good one--I believe I 
even pasted it in on FFL awhile back). I hold no particular brief for Feser 
personally, especially not for his social views. It's just very satisfying to 
me to see him expose the New Atheist types as intellectual frauds. One more 
time: He isn't the only philosopher or theologian who has done this; Feser's 
just especially good at it, in my view.
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of 
it is an attempt to deceive readers here. 

 I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's 
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism 
per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in 
it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights:
 

 Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to 
get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and 
requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to 
support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with 
their wieners.
 

 (People here apparently means men, who actually do things with their 
wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.)
 

 It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is 
not directly related to that single sentence:
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837

 
 Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not 
supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout Amen, maybe even join in. It's 
just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest 
that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact 
rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting 
personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free 
hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, Is Classical 
Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
 

 In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on 
social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance 
of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm 
interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox 
News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure.
 

 BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled God's 
Wounds. It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship 
between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again, 
it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

I already posted what I thought about the unnecessary assumptive in the 
doctrine of simplicity. It doesn't pass the can we imagine it otherwise test. 
Is there some other aspect of the post you want me to focus on?. Again, I need 
you to pin down something specific that you think is the best argument. Him 
just stating that the doctrine of divine simplicity is central is not a proof. 
I used it to show how he starts with assumptions and works from there. I could 
comment on this aspect I guess:
Feser: Why is divine simplicity regarded by classical theists as so important? 
One reason is that in their view, nothing less than what is absolutely simple 
could possibly be divine, because nothing less than what is absolutely simple 
could have the metaphysical ultimacy that God is supposed to have.

C: So the classical theists define the qualities god is supposed to have and 
then declares that he has them because he must by definition. This is one of 
their most common assumptive mistakes.
It is a tautology and this is precisely the kind of error common before the 
linguistic philosophers took us all to task for letting words get ahead of 
meaning. This is not a proof of anything except how they were defining the 
words being used. It is not even connected with anything other than an 
assumptive thought experiment.

I think we can find a more condensed argument to deal with and my have to go 
beyond Feser to find a more contained argument.

Do you understand what I am getting at here?




 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Depends on whether you say something nefarious, Curtis. Maybe you're just too 
entrenched in the behavior to change. 

 Interesting that you can't acknowledge anything I wrote in this post. Doesn't 
bode well, but we'll see.
 

 Here's Feser's post on classical theism, the one you said was a good summary. 
Have at it:
 

 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 We both know this will end with you accusing me of something nefarious. It is 
a foregone conclusion.But I am not gunna start there so pick one, post it and I 
will apply the precise principles I laid out in my critique of Feser to show 
you the problem with the classical proofs for god.

You know why it is always taught as the history of philosophy and not the 
guys who got it right at the beginning? Because philosophical thought evolves 
as people become aware of issues.


 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can 
effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely 
what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest 
argument for it. 

 If he does this well and responsibly, with intellectual honesty, and refrains 
from polemics and gratuitous insults and/or irrelevant criticism of Feser's 
social positions, I very well might agree with him that the argument isn't 
convincing. I'm not attached to it; I simply don't want to see those opposed to 
theism make their case on the basis of ignorant, arrogant straw-man arguments 
against the weaker theistic claims (one god less being an example)--or, 
worse, misstate the classical theist position--and then congratulate themselves 
on having disposed of the issue.
 

 One more thing: I cited Feser to Salyavin because (1) I'd been reading his 
blog with interest; (2) he is one of those who has claimed classical theism is 
the strongest argument for theism; (3) he's a very clear writer (even Curtis 
acknowledges his summary post on classical theism was a good one--I believe I 
even pasted it in on FFL awhile back). I hold no particular brief for Feser 
personally, especially not for his social views. It's just very satisfying to 
me to see him expose the New Atheist types as intellectual frauds. One more 
time: He isn't the only philosopher or theologian who has done this; Feser's 
just especially good at it, in my view.
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of 
it is an attempt to deceive readers here. 

 I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's 
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism 
per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in 
it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights:
 

 Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to 
get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and 
requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to 
support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with 
their wieners.
 

 (People here apparently means men, who

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-20 Thread awoelflebater


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.

All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of 
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in 
execution what we hear or see in our heads. This is a long period of self 
flagellation where your chops are not able to pull off what you dream about. 
Then they begin to match more closely. This process continues forever as you 
set your own bar higher, but at some point for me I was sounding how I wanted 
to sound. I know some artists live in a world of the glass half full, but 
somehow I have a comfort with what I am doing while still keeping goals of what 
I want to do.

 I believe that it is the inner critic that is more responsible for derailing 
possible artists than external ones during the growth stage. You have to suck 
for a long time by your OWN standards to become a performer. I have taped my 
shows my whole career and notice that many performers hate to do this. I 
recently convinced a guitar student of mine to do this even though he really 
did not want to. But with that feedback, painful at first, he was able to 
tighten up all sorts of things quickly by hearing it all objectively after 
performing, and letting his inner critic have a voice. 

After I got the sound I wanted I had to find people who shared my taste. That 
is a key way to frame it because people who don't share my taste in blues style 
will NEVER like my music. And it goes both ways too. I had two gigs at the 
National Theater last week. It is a prestige gig and it gives me pride to say 
that I was chosen to play there. But inside it doesn't alter one bit how I feel 
about my music. When I saw the videos of my performances I still had things I 
wished I had done differently and things I was proud of by my own internal 
standard. The same mix just like EVERY other gig!

Nabbie is not the only guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my 
music would be a way to make me feel badly about myself. Little do they know 
that their dickishnes could NEVER match the inner tyrant who drives me to be 
the kind of musician I want to be. And that is the one that I can never escape 
from. 

I'm sure you understand this from your own passionate pursuits. 
 

 Thanks for the reply. I suspected as much with regard to the inner critic 
that must reside in all those who produce work or art that is laid out for the 
public to sample in some way. It is inevitable that the artist or writer or 
musician is going to be his or her harshest critic. We are often our own worst 
critics in everyday things, let alone in creative matters where a far deeper or 
vulnerable place within ourselves has to be put out there for others to 
touch/see/hear/feel. 
 

 I think it can be a bit like producing your home-bred puppy or prize petunia 
all the while bursting with anticipation and pride thinking the world is going 
to love them as much as you do only to be amazed when these things are deemed 
inferior or even ridiculous in some way. There are so many levels of work 
and/or creativity that are produced in various individuals and I have 
tremendous respect for those who have a passion or a deep need to pursue an art 
form or a craft, often seemingly for no other reason than because it is a 
passion - not for any other gain, monetary or otherwise, or need to be 
recognized for the sake of attaining some degree of fame or notoriety.
 

 Certainly, when you talk about the need to tape your own sessions and 
performances, this would seem logical and obvious for a performer to have to 
do. This can result in mortification; very few people like to watch themselves 
let alone listen to their own voices. It can be a shock for sure. Just having 
been behind the camera as well as in front of the camera  in various low-budget 
productions and documentaries, I have seen enough of myself to have gotten used 
to it over the years but it can produce an unpleasant sensation, especially 
initially, and I wasn't even performing something dear to my heart!
 

 Anyway, it always bothers me to see gratuitous insults slung around, 
especially when it involves someone's life's work. 



 




 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST,

C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years 
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo Scientist but they 
continue to insist that music is part of the arts.

N: then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

C: Well in defense of hurt pigs, they don't train for years to sound like that, 
so I hardly think it is fair to blame them for sounding like

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-19 Thread salyavin808


 Because he doesn't understand it. Maybe he should ask for an explanation 
instead of assuming he's found some wiggle room for whatever god he's believing 
in. Maybe Hawking shouldn't assume prior knowledge before writing about such 
abstract things. Maybe if I had the book to hand I could work out what he 
meant. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Not sorted, sorry. You claimed Hawking couldn't have written what Feser quoted 
him as saying because it was appallingly inaccurate, but in fact Hawking did 
write it, twice. So why was Feser wrong to have called him on it? 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which 
we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction
 

 Now read the bit I posted earlier about the unfolding from nothing and there 
you are. Sorted.
 

 Mr Ed should read more physics, maybe starting with a primer about cosmology 
like the first 3 minutes book I recommended earlier.
 

 That's it, I'm done with Ed Fess and his funny ideas. 
 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong... 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 It's deja vu all over again!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph 
containing the same sentence: 

 “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design 
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the 
multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need 
for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there 
is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. 
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why 
the Universe exists, why we exist.” 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-19 Thread Richard J. Williams


On 4/18/2014 6:02 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:


It's really funny when you think about how Judy masterfully pulls
them into the rabbit hole again and again. It's simply amazing!
They sound well-read but would anyone like to wager they probably
never even heard of Feser before this dialog? If they actually
know what Judy is talking about, they're even further down the
rabbit hole than I realized. They sound like doctors of
metaphysics. In their zeal to discredit Judy, they won't even
acknowledge Barry's levitation claims. Go figure.

I'm not a philosopher. I'm not a scientist. I'm not religious.
I know there are wonders all around me. I know that I know
virtually nothing and yet my life seems to continue with some
degree of order and flow. This probably means there is
intelligence beyond what I contain and what I consciously
know. That is good enough for me. The fact that I'm not
ultimately the driver behind the wheel is a huge relief.
That's about all I want to say about it.



A Chinese sage once fell down into a ditch because he was always
walking around looking up at the sky.



We don't even know what credentials these guys have. While it is 
believable that Judy has read Feser and maybe others, it's not clear how 
well-read the others are. But it is funny how easily they get drawn into 
a religious debate. It's almost like they are trying to convince 
themselves of something. They don't seem to be familiar with the 
Singularity or the Field in quantum physics. I'm not sure they are up on 
the latest speculations and theories in theology or comparative 
religions. As an editor, I'd think Judy has much more exposure to 
current writings on theism. Go figure.


I believe in life; what it does to you, and what you do back.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-19 Thread Richard J. Williams


On 4/19/2014 10:19 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:

Judy Stein Argumentation Clinic, Lesson #1


It's all about Judy.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread TurquoiseBee

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

The trouble I had with the Ed Fess blog is that he accuses Stephen Hawking of 
being a poor thinker because he didn't understand that the laws of nature 
would have to be around before the particles they govern. 

This incorrect and funnily enough it does to Hawking exactly what Ed Fess 
accuses everyone else of doing to theists. Paying them an injustice by not 
understanding their position! 

I'll have to dig up Hawking's quote on why philosophy is dead.

BTW Judy, I will torment you no longer. Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey 
thing people do to names these days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit 
of ironic street cred. We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to 
take it seriously.

It is indeed the very practice of *robbing* pomposity of its seriousness. 
Pomposity like Uncle Fester's is *based on* the belief that someday someone 
will toss his name around as if it's authoritative. Just as...dare I say 
it...Judy does. Making fun of the name drives the appeal to authority poseurs 
CRAZY. 

Just imagine how Judy and Robin would get their buttons pushed if we 
intentionally misspelled another supposed authority they love to throw 
around, Ackwhinus. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Starting the day with an Oooopsie: Barry doesn't even know what McCarthyism 
was: 
 Just to point it out to those who still don't get it, highlighted below in red 
is another classic example of Judy's intellectual McCarthyism ploy. I have in 
my hand a list of detailed refutations of each of Curtis' points, but I won't 
show it to you unless someone asks me to. 
 

 Apparently Barry doesn't realize that the problem with McCarthy saying, I 
have here in my hand... was that he didn't have there in his hand what he 
claimed to have. He couldn't have shown it to anyone, no matter who asked, 
because it was nonexistent.
 

 (Just out of curiosity, to whom is the pseudoquote supposed to be addressed? 
Who is you? Barry got tangled up in his rhetoric again, it looks like.)

 
And all of this just because neither Curtis nor myself was as impressed by 
Uncle Fester as Judy was. It's the Robin story all over again.  :-)
 

 Barry never even looked at Feser, first of all. Second of all, even if he had, 
he wouldn't have understood enough of it to be impressed or otherwise. It's 
just way, way over his head. So was Robin, for that matter. ;-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Barry is such a buffoon. This is much funnier than he can possibly imagine. 
Remember, I was in constant private contact with Robin; I know why he left. 
(Curtis does too, but he'll never admit it.) 

 Now ask Curtis why he left shortly thereafter, Barry.
 

 No, never mind, he'll lie.
 
 It really is all about her still being pissed off that you bested Robin so 
badly that he ran away with his tail between his leg, isn't it? She'll never 
get over that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 12:49 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
Curtis makes some good points about Fester being just an attack dog 
for those challenged by atheism, but my question is why is he so 
damned funny-looking?


Speaking of funny looking - you're looking pretty funny after mistaking 
a levitation event for the real thing. If you can't tell the 
difference between reality and a stage show, how would you understand 
Feser, or even get his name right?


If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, 
it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they 
ontradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the 
true believer closely, we will find that at some times he relies 
principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different 
senses corroborate an error, the naive realist is still more baffled. Go 
figure.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 12:57 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
And all of this just because neither Curtis nor myself was as 
impressed by Uncle Fester as Judy was.


Curtis didn't seem to be very impressed with your proof for the 
non-existence of God - that you witnessed Rama in a levitation event. 
Maybe it's time for you to 'fess up, or keep your big pie hole shut 
about Judy.


The naive realist is unaware that he has no criterion of the reality or 
unreality of objects experienced. He has faith in the reality of movie 
action while it lasts, otherwise he could not really enjoy it. He has 
faith in his own action, otherwise how could he really enjoy life. But 
how reliable is such faith?


Dozens of times -- probably more like hundreds, actually -- over
a 14-year period starting in 1981.- TurquoiseB

Author: TurquoiseB
Subject: Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying?
Forum: Yahoo FairfieldLife - Message 16
Date: July 23, 2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 1:09 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
It really is all about her still being pissed off that you bested 
Robin so badly that he ran away with his tail between his leg, isn't 
it? She'll never get over that.


Maybe you're still pissed off for Shemp McGurk calling you on your big 
lie about the Rama levitation events. It's not complicated.


Comparison of present paradoxes with past experiences simply involves 
greater possibilities of error and greater paradoxes. For past 
experiences, to be compared, must be remembered. But memory often fails 
us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing you again? Yet, 
your past experiences may have been erroneous consistently.


The true believer, Barry, thinks he sees directly back into an existing 
past which in reality has ceased to exist or never even existed! Go figure.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 1:41 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey thing people do to names these 
days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit of ironic street cred. 
We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to take it 
seriously.


Apparently nobody took Barry's claims of having seen Rama levitate 
seriously, except for you, Sally. Go figure.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 1:53 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
Just imagine how Judy and Robin would get their buttons pushed if we 
intentionally misspelled another supposed authority they love to 
throw around,


So, it's all about Judy. Go figure.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO? 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even 
some scientists.
 

 I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's 
juvenile.
 

 BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical 
scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real?
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 

The trouble I had with the Ed Fess blog is that he accuses Stephen Hawking of 
being a poor thinker because he didn't understand that the laws of nature 
would have to be around before the particles they govern.  

 This incorrect and funnily enough it does to Hawking exactly what Ed Fess 
accuses everyone else of doing to theists. Paying them an injustice by not 
understanding their position! 
 

 I'll have to dig up Hawking's quote on why philosophy is dead.
 

 BTW Judy, I will torment you no longer. Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey 
thing people do to names these days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit 
of ironic street cred. We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to 
take it seriously.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread nablusoss1008

Curtis, yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST, then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig 
claiming it is ART :-)
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread awoelflebater


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread nablusoss1008

Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an 
ARTIST, then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread anartaxius

This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the 
effort it takes him to do anything!
 

 I believe he is also the person with the most guest appearances on the 
Simpsons.
 

 I looked on youtube for a link but no deal, dang copyright. Where's the harm?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread TurquoiseBee

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the 
effort it takes him to do anything!

I believe he is also the person with the most guest appearances on the Simpsons.

I looked on youtube for a link but no deal, dang copyright. Where's the harm?

From the IMDB:

Actor:
1. The Big Bang Theory  Stephen Hawking (2 episodes, 2012) 
- The Extract Obliteration (2012) TV episode (voice)    Stephen Hawking
- The Hawking Excitation (2012) TV episode  Stephen Hawking
2. London 2012 Paralympic Opening Ceremony: Enlightenment (2012) (TV)   
    Narrator 
3. The Simpsons  Stephen Hawking (4 episodes, 1999-2010) 
- Elementary School Musical (2010) TV episode (voice)    Stephen Hawking
- Stop or My Dog Will Shoot (2007) TV episode (voice)    Stephen Hawking
- Don't Fear the Roofer (2005) TV episode (voice)    Stephen Hawking
- They Saved Lisa's Brain (1999) TV episode (voice)    Stephen Hawking

4. Late Night with Conan O'Brien  Voice (1 episode, 2003) 
- Episode dated 25 July 2003 (2003) TV episode (voice)    Voice

5. Star Trek: The Next Generation  Stephen Hawking (1 episode, 
1993) 
... aka Star Trek: TNG - USA (promotional abbreviation) 
- Descent: Part 1 (1993) TV episode (as Professor Stephen Hawking)    
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

From the IMDB:

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even 
some scientists.
 

 Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me!
 

 It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you.
 

 

 I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's 
juvenile.
 

 Heh, heh..
 

 BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical 
scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real?
 

 Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? 
 

 

 Here's a question for you:
 

 Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that 
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe 
different? 
 

 When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, 
futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are 
so into?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

If classical theism is wrong, the universe is no different, of course. Is that 
what you really meant to ask?
 

 

 Here's a question for you:
 

 Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that 
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe 
different? 
 

 When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, 
futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are 
so into?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on 
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need 
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both 
of us...
then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU.
Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date.
Even your insults are parroted from someone else.

To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. 
Kids were out this week. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly 
different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who 
espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd. 

 Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've 
experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go 
another round with you.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on 
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need 
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both 
of us...
then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU.
Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date.
Even your insults are parroted from someone else.

To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. 
Kids were out this week. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly 
different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who 
espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd.

C: I already said his summation of the position was a good one. What is absurd 
is your attempt of making a straw man out of it.

But Feser does deserve some personal attention for other reasons. The way he is 
using this argument for his conservative agenda. That is where I singled him 
out personally, not for the content of the standard classical ideas themselves.

Of course keeping those two things straight is not in your interest is it?

J:Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've 
experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go 
another round with you.

C: That word choice is s familiar...can't place it though...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on 
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need 
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both 
of us...
then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU.
Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date.
Even your insults are parroted from someone else.

To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. 
Kids were out this week. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even 
some scientists.
 

 Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me!
 

 It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you.
 

 

 I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's 
juvenile.
 

 Heh, heh..
 

 BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical 
scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real?
 

 Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? 
 

 

 Here's a question for you:
 

 Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that 
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe 
different? 
 

 When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, 
futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are 
so into?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Standard Curtis context-shifting. He can't respond to my point, so he shifts 
the context and claims it's a straw man (even though he had insisted on 
precisely what I addressed).
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 
 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly 
different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who 
espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd.

C: I already said his summation of the position was a good one. What is absurd 
is your attempt of making a straw man out of it.

But Feser does deserve some personal attention for other reasons. The way he is 
using this argument for his conservative agenda. That is where I singled him 
out personally, not for the content of the standard classical ideas themselves.
 

 Curtis (quoted below): So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd 
position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that 
atheists need to address... All of a sudden now it's not his position on 
classical theism as the strongest argument for theism that's absurd, but his 
conservative agenda. 
 

 Obviously I don't agree with his conservative agenda. What I've been 
promoting as the strongest argument for theism has nothing to do with whether 
or how someone uses it to support an agenda other than theism.

Of course keeping those two things straight is not in your interest is it?
 

 Looks like you who is having trouble keeping them straight.

J:Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've 
experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go 
another round with you.

C: That word choice is s familiar...can't place it though.
 

 Your debating tactics haven't changed. Why should my description of them 
change?..
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on 
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need 
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both 
of us...
then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU.
Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date.
Even your insults are parroted from someone else.

To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. 
Kids were out this week. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

On 4/18/2014 12:24 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
 It is all intellectual smoke and mirrors.
 
Judy did a masterful job of sucking you guys down a theistic rabbit 
hole. I can't recall a time when she was in better form. It was just 
awesome! The question is why would you guys be so suggestible? Some 
people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, I guess. Go 
figure.

Your biggest problem is not Judy, but Barry, who is on your side of the 
debate - a guy that claimed he saw Rama levitate hundreds of times. I 
mean if you can't even refute a smoke and mirrors stage show, how are 
you going to debate metaphysics with Judy?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 10:56 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
As I am a ember of the class of 'anyone', I want you to respond to 
each point Curtis made below. Try not to make character assassination 
and 'honesty' the main point. I think Curtis is the sharpest thinker 
that has appeared on FFL since I have been here; I think I would have 
great difficulty in a debate with him. 


You guys are boring us to death!


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 If classical theism is wrong, the universe is no different, of course. Is that 
what you really meant to ask?
 

 Um, that's what I did ask. But it's nice to hear that there isn't anything to 
worry about cosmologically. For a trillionth of a nano-second you had me 
thinking Ed Fess was onto something, but obviously not

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

All very funny Richard. I've noticed that you have really been rocking the 
house this last year. 

Sorry I can't help you on the Barry campaign.We just don't roll like that with 
each other. We seem satisfied to state our opinions, and then drop it. As I 
said I don't have any unresolved issues about his descriptions of his 
experiences. i don't believe he is selling them as something definite.

But keep on with the whacking stick for all of us Richard. It seems to suit you.


 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote :

 On 4/18/2014 12:24 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
  It is all intellectual smoke and mirrors.
 
 Judy did a masterful job of sucking you guys down a theistic rabbit 
 hole. I can't recall a time when she was in better form. It was just 
 awesome! The question is why would you guys be so suggestible? Some 
 people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, I guess. Go 
 figure.
 
 Your biggest problem is not Judy, but Barry, who is on your side of the 
 debate - a guy that claimed he saw Rama levitate hundreds of times. I 
 mean if you can't even refute a smoke and mirrors stage show, how are 
 you going to debate metaphysics with Judy?
 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Standard Curtis context-shifting. He can't respond to my point, so he shifts 
the context and claims it's a straw man (even though he had insisted on 
precisely what I addressed).


C: No it is either your misread or my imprecision of language. But rest assured 
that I think he is presenting the elements of classical theism just fine. It is 
his conclusion about them and his use of them as a club O' Bullshittery for 
atheists that I object to.

Ordinarily this clarification on my own meaning would be enough. But not on the 
crazy train!



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 
 -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly 
different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who 
espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd.

C: I already said his summation of the position was a good one. What is absurd 
is your attempt of making a straw man out of it.

But Feser does deserve some personal attention for other reasons. The way he is 
using this argument for his conservative agenda. That is where I singled him 
out personally, not for the content of the standard classical ideas themselves.
 

 Curtis (quoted below): So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd 
position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that 
atheists need to address... All of a sudden now it's not his position on 
classical theism as the strongest argument for theism that's absurd, but his 
conservative agenda. 
 

 Obviously I don't agree with his conservative agenda. What I've been 
promoting as the strongest argument for theism has nothing to do with whether 
or how someone uses it to support an agenda other than theism.

Of course keeping those two things straight is not in your interest is it?
 

 Looks like you who is having trouble keeping them straight.

J:Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've 
experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go 
another round with you.

C: That word choice is s familiar...can't place it though.
 

 Your debating tactics haven't changed. Why should my description of them 
change?..
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on 
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need 
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both 
of us...
then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU.
Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date.
Even your insults are parroted from someone else.

To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. 
Kids were out this week. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

Is this it?

As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel
is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself
from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of
self-causation (which we explored recently here
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is
correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to
have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.

If this is it, it's wrong because...?

It's appallingly inaccurate. I've read The Grand Design and I don't remember
Hawking making such a fundamental error. Well, of course he wouldn't so I don't
know where Mr Ed got it from.

In a nutshell: The universe didn't need any laws to get it going, in fact it
required the total absence of laws and indeed of everything else. It was only
in a zero energy state of perfect symmetry that it could have started. Symmetry
is when something is undifferentiated. Just one thing. the unified field if you
like.

That state can only last for a Planck length of time - which is the smallest
possible measurement - before the symmetry will break. A pencil standing on
it's end will rapidly fall over. That falling over is the big bang. Infinitely
dense, infinitely hot but expanding rapidly. As things expand they cool and
it's this cooling that brought the fields and particle and thus the laws into
being. Converting the energy into mass via the Higgs boson.

A law just describes what a particle or energy field does, it doesn't
proscribe it. If the initial settings of the universe had been different the
laws would have been different. For instance, stars may not have formed or
electrons may not have bonded to atomic nuclei or it all may have just stayed a
plasma. Even gravity may not have been as strong. It's the weakest anyway and
was the first to separate from the single state.

Can't remember what came next, I think it was electromagnetism and then the
weak and strong nuclear forces. These last two pulled all the subatomic
particles together after the period of rapid inflation that they proved
actually happened last month. This why it was such a big deal, before that it
was speculative and left people like me thinking it all sounded a bit
convenient.

Other aspects of it have been proved, the first big particle accelerator was
built to test the last symmetry break (and therefore easiest because it took
place at a lower temperature).

It's a damn good theory and was first worked out from knowing the universe was
expanding. If it expands it must have been smaller once, and with compression
comes heat and they worked backwards to the big bang.

It's all in here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1397847357sr=8-1keywords=universe+the+first+three+minutes

To be fair to Ed fess, The Grand Design isn't all that good a book and is more
an update on current theories like M theory, which is an improved string
theory, but no one knows what the M stands for!

String theory comes into it because all the hundreds of particles may be
points on tiny vibrating strings instead of separate particles. That would be
the penultimate unification if they could prove it and would tidy up the whole
thing immensely.

I'm banging on about this a bit simply because all the testing and direct hits
makes it seem a much more likely explanation for the universe than any
competing theories. It didn't need anything else. And the particles it creates
also didn't need anything to form more complex particles. It couldn't have been
designed better...

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber
to NRO?

It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one
his many pages...

Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter.
It's

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Thanks for that. Some good ones there, Don't Fear The Roofer is classic. Didn't 
know he did a Star Trek though.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 6:14 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?

   His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the 
effort it takes him to do anything!

 I believe he is also the person with the most guest appearances on the 
Simpsons.

 I looked on youtube for a link but no deal, dang copyright. Where's the harm?

From the IMDB:
 Actor: The Big Bang Theory http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898266/  Stephen 
Hawking (2 episodes, 2012) 
- The Extract Obliteration http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2450064/ (2012) TV 
episode (voice)  Stephen Hawking http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/
- The Hawking Excitation http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2300453/ (2012) TV 
episode  Stephen Hawking http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/ London 
2012 Paralympic Opening Ceremony: Enlightenment 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2385680/ (2012) (TV)  Narrator The Simpsons 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/  Stephen Hawking (4 episodes, 
1999-2010) 
- Elementary School Musical http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1628648/ (2010) TV 
episode (voice)  Stephen Hawking http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/
- Stop or My Dog Will Shoot http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0918869/ (2007) TV 
episode (voice)  Stephen Hawking http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/
- Don't Fear the Roofer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701089/ (2005) TV 
episode (voice)  Stephen Hawking http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/
- They Saved Lisa's Brain http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701272/ (1999) TV 
episode (voice)  Stephen Hawking http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/

 Late Night with Conan O'Brien http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106052/  
Voice (1 episode, 2003) 
- Episode dated 25 July 2003 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0627449/ (2003) TV 
episode (voice)  Voice

 Star Trek: The Next Generation http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455/  
Stephen Hawking (1 episode, 1993) 
... aka Star Trek: TNG - USA (promotional abbreviation) 
- Descent: Part 1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708700/ (1993) TV episode 
(as Professor Stephen Hawking)  http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/ 
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

From the IMDB:

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread anartaxius

That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even 
some scientists.
 

 Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me!
 

 It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you.
 

 

 I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's 
juvenile.
 

 Heh, heh..
 

 BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical 
scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real?
 

 Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? 
 

 

 Here's a question for you:
 

 Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that 
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe 
different? 
 

 When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, 
futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are 
so into?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

It appears to be a quote from the book, Salyavin. I kind of doubt Feser would
just make it up.

Hmm, here's another review by a philospher that quotes the same sentence:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives

Looks like they did write that sentence.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

Is this it?

If this is it, it's wrong because...?

It's appallingly inaccurate. I've read The Grand Design and I don't remember
Hawking making such a fundamental error. Well, of course he wouldn't so I don't
know where Mr Ed got it from.

Other aspects of it have been proved, the first big particle accelerator was
built to test the last symmetry break (and therefore easiest because it took
place at a lower temperature).

It's all in here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1397847357sr=8-1keywords=universe+the+first+three+minutes

To be fair to Ed fess, The Grand Design isn't all that good a book and is more
an update on current theories like M theory, which is an improved string
theory, but no one knows what the M stands for!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

I can't find the

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even 
some scientists.
 

 Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me!
 

 It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you.
 

 

 I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's 
juvenile.
 

 Heh, heh..
 

 BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical 
scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real?
 

 Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? 
 

 

 Here's a question for you:
 

 Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that 
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe 
different? 
 

 When I say the

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph 
containing the same sentence: 

 “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design 
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the 
multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need 
for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there 
is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. 
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why 
the Universe exists, why we exist.” 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


 It's deja vu all over again!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph 
containing the same sentence: 

 “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design 
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the 
multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need 
for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there 
is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. 
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why 
the Universe exists, why we exist.” 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

An exhibition of how Curtis twists what one says:
 
 j: Curtis is indeed very sharp, and anyone who tangles with him is in for a 
hassle because he knows how to twist an argument into ingenious corkscrews. As 
I've pointed out before, one won't be able to see what he does until one has 
tangled with him.

C: It is this devious motive premise that you filter what I write through here 
that is your big crazy Judy. And the biggest tell is your claim that no one 
else can see it but someone in the conversation with me. Outsiders see 
something completely different going on.
 

 No, not completely different. They don't see the twisting part because it's 
not what they said that's being twisted. It's very, very clever, obviously 
finely honed. And of course I'm not the only person here who has had this 
experience.
 

  And that doesn't make you think that maybe YOU are the one reading it wrong. 
No, it is this devious thing that I do, magically, like a Hogwarts cloaking 
cape to hide my wicked agenda from the others.

Hilarious and very strange.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong... 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 It's deja vu all over again!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph 
containing the same sentence: 

 “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design 
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the 
multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need 
for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there 
is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. 
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why 
the Universe exists, why we exist.” 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which 
we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction
 

 Now read the bit I posted earlier about the unfolding from nothing and there 
you are. Sorted.
 

 Mr Ed should read more physics, maybe starting with a primer about cosmology 
like the first 3 minutes book I recommended earlier.
 

 That's it, I'm done with Ed Fess and his funny ideas. 
 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong... 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 It's deja vu all over again!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph 
containing the same sentence: 

 “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design 
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the 
multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need 
for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there 
is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. 
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why 
the Universe exists, why we exist.” 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

On 4/18/2014 1:43 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
 But keep on with the whacking stick for all of us Richard. It seems to 
 suit you.
 
You don't seem to be interested in music anymore. What's with all the 
metaphysics? Why is Judy so easily able to suck you down the rabbit 
hole? I guess you came back to FFL for a reason, but it's just like it 
was before. Go figure.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread awoelflebater


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on 
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need 
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both 
of us...
then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU.
Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date.
Even your insults are parroted from someone else.

To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. 
Kids were out this week. 
 

 Damn! For a few minutes there I thought you might be The Easter Bunny or Santa 
or maybe even Christ himself.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 

 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 

 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable 
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You 
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't 
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions.

My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion 
with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum 
like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you 
will never understand this point.



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's 
so blatant:
 

 You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find  classical theism to 
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of 
ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you 
don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So 
instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own.
 

 Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he 
followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked 
Feser personally.
 

 Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Not sorted, sorry. You claimed Hawking couldn't have written what Feser quoted 
him as saying because it was appallingly inaccurate, but in fact Hawking did 
write it, twice. So why was Feser wrong to have called him on it? 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which 
we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction
 

 Now read the bit I posted earlier about the unfolding from nothing and there 
you are. Sorted.
 

 Mr Ed should read more physics, maybe starting with a primer about cosmology 
like the first 3 minutes book I recommended earlier.
 

 That's it, I'm done with Ed Fess and his funny ideas. 
 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong... 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 It's deja vu all over again!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph 
containing the same sentence: 

 “[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design 
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the 
multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need 
for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there 
is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. 
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why 
the Universe exists, why we exist.” 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the 
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or 
gravity would not be nothing. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/18/2014 10:21 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
*Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, 
but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of 
your dishonest debating tactics.*

*
*
*Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're 
dirty, Curtis.*

*
*
*But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.*


It's really funny when you think about how Judy masterfully pulls them 
into the rabbit hole again and again. It's simply amazing! They sound 
well-read but would anyone like to wager they probably never even heard 
of Feser before this dialog? If they actually know what Judy is talking 
about, they're even further down the rabbit hole than I realized. They 
sound like doctors of metaphysics. In their zeal to discredit Judy, they 
won't even acknowledge Barry's levitation claims. Go figure.


A Chinese sage once fell down into a ditch because he was always walking 
around looking up at the sky.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread awoelflebater


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote :

 On 4/18/2014 10:21 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:

 Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you 
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest 
debating tactics. 
 
 Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, 
Curtis.
 
 
 But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that.
 
 It's really funny when you think about how Judy masterfully pulls them into 
the rabbit hole again and again. It's simply amazing! They sound well-read but 
would anyone like to wager they probably never even heard of Feser before this 
dialog? If they actually know what Judy is talking about, they're even further 
down the rabbit hole than I realized. They sound like doctors of metaphysics. 
In their zeal to discredit Judy, they won't even acknowledge Barry's levitation 
claims. Go figure. I'm not a philosopher. I'm not a scientist. I'm not 
religious. I know there are wonders all around me. I know that I know virtually 
nothing and yet my life seems to continue with some degree of order and flow. 
This probably means there is intelligence beyond what I contain and what I 
consciously know. That is good enough for me. The fact that I'm not ultimately 
the driver behind the wheel is a huge relief. That's about all I want to say 
about it.
 

 
 A Chinese sage once fell down into a ditch because he was always walking 
around looking up at the sky.
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-17 Thread TurquoiseBee

Ah, I've missed you, man. 

To Judy, this is what I meant by being able to come up with one's own argument, 
and in one's own language. All you are capable of is the same thing Curtis 
suspects Fess of doing -- intellectual McCarthyism: I have in my hand a list 
of the Great Books that you have to read and accept the premises of before you 
can understand the profundity of the things I can't be bothered to explain to 
you because you haven't read the Great Books. I win. 




 From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:18 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of 
the God Idea?
 


  
In a word, no. Classical theism suffers from the same
philosophical problems in much of classical philosophy, unsupported assumptive
premises.  Guys like Plato and Aristotle
were an inspired beginning of western philosophy, but in no way should be
considered the pinnacle of what man has achieved since then by standing on
their shoulders. They lacked the perspectives that came later, not the least of
which are the insights gleaned from linguistic philosophy which gave an
intellectual basis for avoiding many of their shortcomings. Not to mention the 
advances in epistemology, man’s quest to
discover how we can be confident in our knowledge, despite our relentless human
tendency to fool ourselves about the validity of ideas we are attached to.
Pointing out their mistakes is not a lack of an appreciation for their
brilliance for their time. They were not privy to the advancements in thought
that came later. But let’s not get carried away thinking that their
speculations about an unmoved mover is somehow intellectual garlic to the 
vampire atheists. It is not.


Feser’s appeal to these old school arguments reminds me a little of
Maharishi’s use of the “vedic tradition”, you know that philosophy so wonderful 
 and conveniently obscure that only HE
could really grasp it. It was out of reach for western students to study on
their own but, oh man, it contains ALL knowledge. Imagine that, ALL
knowledge! Back there in the most woderfullest country in history, his very
own  pre-British India! You know in a
special time when monkeys and yogis  flew through the air. Humans love to 
fantasize about previous ages being “golden ages”
of knowledge don’t we? 


Wading through Aristotle’s Metaphysics is no picnic and I
doubt many people would be inclined to do so without having it as a requirement
for a degree. It was for me. So unlike the audience who Feser is acting as a
Sarah Palin like lipsticked pit bull, mother bear, hockey mom attacker of the
bad atheists, I understand the philosophical issues with the theories he is
referring to. We find their refutation articulated in the rest of the history
of western philosophy. Ever wonder why most professional philosophers are
atheists? 


The main issue concerns why their assumptive premises are
necessary in the first place. If you don’t accept the presumptive premises as
necessary, then the whole thing falls apart. At least Aquinas had the clarity
to post some of his premises so you could decide if you wanted to join his way
of thinking without just having assumptions slipped into the reasoning process
unannounced.  He politely lists them.

The
classical philosophers were prone to conflating something not being logically
prohibited for meaning that there is a greater possibility that it is true. It
is not. Logic is good at preserving truths, but sucks at creating truth. 
Especially
inductive logic which was a favorite of the classical philosophers. You need 
supporting good reasons to be confident about knowledge beyond it just not 
being prohibited logically. It certainly is logically
possible that there is a god. It is not excluded from the possible truths about
reality we know about. But so far there are no good reasons to believe it that
I have seen. Certainly not in classical theism.

So classical theism, for all its lack of a god who blog
posts to the world through scripture, or designates an area sales rep like
Jesus, is no stronger than the versions who go the next step from classical 
theism's
assumptions. Most rely on the very same presumptions of classical theism when
they are pressed to go beyond faith and an appeal to the imagined authority of
the scriptures or a mystical connection with Jesus for the reasons that support
their belief. (I was SAVED people, and the Lord allowed me to pick up serpents
protected by his holy power!)  

An actual classical theist who doesn’t also buy into some aspects found in 
personal theism is a rare
bird in reality. Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t
be bothered to get off the couch playing video games to give a little
assistance to man and requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys
like Feser need to support their campaigns of telling people what they should
or

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-17 Thread curtisdeltablues

Thanks Barry. The dickish depths of Feser go much deeper than I was able to go 
into here. The connection I made to Palin's M.O. is valid on many levels.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

On 4/17/2014 2:18 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
 You know in a special time when monkeys and yogisflew through the air. 
 Humans love to fantasize about previous ages being “golden ages” of 
 knowledge don’t we? 
 
It was actually a relatively recent event that monkey came flying out of 
my butt. And, not so long ago that Frederick Lenz III was witnessed 
hundreds of times levitating in front of eye-witnesses. So, it's not 
only way back in Vedic times that a golden light filled a lecture hall. 
It happened. It was real, Curtis. REAL, not a fantasy.

The Rama guy I studied with had this particular siddhi down pat. He 
could just lift off and hang ten in mid-air pretty much whenever he 
felt like it. - TurquoiseB

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

On 4/17/2014 2:43 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Thanks Barry. The dickish depths of Feser go much deeper than I was 
 able to go into here.
 
You can't go very much more to dickish depths when Barry posted a 
claim to having witnessed levitation, Curtis. What, exactly, are you two 
guys trying to pull on us? It's really getting deep around here with the 
metaphysics.

Dozens of times -- probably more like hundreds, actually -- over
a 14-year period starting in 1981.- TurquoiseB

Author: TurquoiseB
Subject: Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying?
Forum: Yahoo FairfieldLife - Message 16
Date: July 23, 2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/17/2014 2:34 PM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
To Judy, this is what I meant by being able to come up with one's own 
argument, and in one's own language. All you are capable of is the 
same thing Curtis suspects Fess of doing -- intellectual McCarthyism: 
I have in my hand a list of the Great Books that you have to read and 
accept the premises of before you can understand the profundity of the 
things I can't be bothered to explain to you because you haven't read 
the Great Books. I win. 


It's all about Judy - but I have in my hand all the books that Rama 
wrote, which you probably have not read, much less read the works of 
Fess. I guess when you told that tale about the Rama levitation you 
thought you were winning too. LoL!



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?


On 4/17/2014 5:36 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Good old Curtis, slippery as ever. Notice that /he/ doesn't present 
the argument of classical theism any more than I did. All he does is 
claim it's inadequate (love to see how well he'd do in a debate with 
Feser).


Yeah, like Curtis has been keeping up with the theism subject since he 
took a few philosophy courses at MUM thirty years ago. Go figure.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?