--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
But in his 2010 book The Grand Design he said a deity no longer has any
place in theories on the creation of the universe in the
What I'm wondering is do MUM philosophy majors really study
Indian philosophy. Apparently Curtis has read Hume and Kant,
but not Kapila or Shankara.
curtisdeltablues:
My degree was in Western philosophy so I had to read Shankara
on my own.
Don't give up on your night job!
That's
Yifu,
3. Anyway, due to various limitations, pure math can often expand faster than
experimental, leaving us with such hypotheses as BRANES; i.e. sheets of
pre-existing matter/energy fields which collide, generating Big Bangs. This is
a typical string-theory outcome that Hagelin might have
...on the statement in the field of consciousness. Everything is already in
the field of consciousness AS MEST (matter, energy, space, and time). If you
mean by Consciousness, Being, this is not a field. The latter term in
physics refers to something relative, pursuant to the discoveries of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Curtis and Judy,
The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may have
started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high temperature scale
that can't be duplicated here on earth.
But for discussion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
But in his 2010 book The Grand Design he said a deity no longer has any
place in theories on the creation of the universe in the light of a series of
developments in physics.
Methinks that's a bit like one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
snip
I think this guy's opinion should be considered:
Curtis,
I now understand that Hawking is a true scientist. He can only see what is
shown by experiments conducted in the conditions of this universe. He cannot
see anything else beyond or before the Big Bang.
He is obviously not a philosopher and cannot answer the question, Who or what
Right...but again you're embedding the premise caused into an enquiry. One
limitation on scientific knowledge relating to cannot see anything else beyond
or before the Big Bang is the expanding fabric of space-time, expanding faster
than the speed of Light. As a result, the actual physical
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
snip
I think this guy's opinion should be considered:
The latest results in cosmological research show
that the universe may have started as quantum
mechanical fluctuations at a very high temperature
scale that can't be duplicated here on earth...
Curtis:
I think this guy's opinion should be considered...
Maybe so, but doesn't
And note that he appears to be taking issue with the
anthropomorphic God-concept while at least allowing the
possibility of one that's more abstract.
John:
Aside from my latest comment to Curtis, Hawking does not
appear to believe in the existence of consciousness in
the universe.
Yifu,
1. Right...but again you're embedding the premise caused into an enquiry.
One limitation on scientific knowledge relating to cannot see anything else
beyond or before the Big Bang is the expanding fabric of space-time, expanding
faster than the speed of Light. As a result, the actual
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote:
And note that he appears to be taking issue with the
anthropomorphic God-concept while at least allowing the
possibility of one that's more abstract.
John:
Aside from my latest comment to Curtis, Hawking does not
thanks for that, most interesting!. Susskind is one of my favorites. He - like
me, passed through Ft. Ord long ago (an Army base no longer in existence which
is probably by now a lot of housing tracts in very expensive Monterrey
territory).
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John
Yifu,
2. Due to this and other limitations on what we can know scientifically,
researchers in recent decades have resorted to pure mathematics to speculate on
what's possible rather than what can be experimentally proven (although that's
important also, for example in finding a possible Higgs
thx, excellent analysis and conclusions! I agree completely (on the higher
dimensions), fwiw; but more important, the notion of higher or extra dimensions
as hypothesized by string theorists seems to mesh well with extra-dimensional
metaphysical systems which may included supposed realms of the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
OK I guess we are all over it. The link I provide where Craig reveals his
true epistemology is interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ
That's it exactly. Start with faith in unproven
and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Curtis and Judy,
The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may
have started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high
temperature scale that can't be duplicated here on earth.
John, are absolutely
Thanks for watching it Barry. It is an important insight into the guy. I feel
such an affinity with him since I spent 4 years at MIU
with this exact agenda. I believe he is sincere just as I was.
He is obviously a smart guy. So he feels confident that he can take
on any intellectual
Great rap, Curtis. I have nothing to add to it, because
it pretty much covers the bases.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
Thanks for watching it Barry. It is an important insight into the
guy. I feel such an affinity with him since I spent 4
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
but you have no clothes. We were wearing them on the INSIDE.
that's the phrase of the week [:D]
I'm so drawn
up in your zone
All the kids have always known
That the emperor wears no clothes
But they bow down to
You are too kind. Thanks.
Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine.
OK I'll admit it. I LIKE wearing men's underwear!
And I wear them on the INSIDE of my pants so no one knows I have them on.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote:
--- In
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
argument for a premise that one has already accepted on
faith or on the basis of personal experience, and that
any such argument must necessarily be flawed because it's
designed to
and I thought you had the newest trend of the GIYFFR Guru in You fake
foam routine in mind [:((]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
You are too kind. Thanks.
Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine.
OK I'll admit it. I LIKE wearing men's
Hi just stopping by this morning on my way to Quaker Meeting.
This is an excellent talk by this Craig guy about spiritual doubt. His
starting first
from context of experience or lack there of; got spiritual experience
or you don't. And
then differently that variability of reasoning without
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
argument for a premise that one has already accepted on
faith or on the basis of personal experience, and that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
Hi just stopping by this morning on my way to Quaker Meeting.
This is an excellent talk by this Craig guy about spiritual doubt. His
starting first
from context of experience or lack there of; got spiritual experience
or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
Curtis and Judy,
The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may
have started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
argument for a premise that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong with
Judy
Being wrong about whether God exists? Or being wrong
about the correctness of your logical reasoning?
This section below should read their premises and reasoning not your which
means I was directing it to you Judy. I am not.
ME:
Wrong about what ever premise you are proposing.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Curtis, you seem to be suggesting that there's something
wrong with attempting to construct a rational, logical
argument for a premise
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
I didn't make it clear in my intro to the last post, but it
contains comments interspersed below if you are interested.
No idea what you mean. Below you've quoted a post of mine,
but you haven't added anything
I was trying to respond to John. Sorry for the confusion.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
I didn't make it clear in my intro to the last post, but it
contains comments
Curtis,
Ahem...you and Judy are doing just fine with your KCA discussion. I don't
believe I have to add to anything to what you've discussed so far.
JR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
I was trying to respond to John. Sorry for the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Curtis,
Ahem...you and Judy are doing just fine with your KCA discussion. I don't
believe I have to add to anything to what you've discussed so far.
OK I guess we are all over it. The link I provide where Craig reveals his true
Curtis and Judy,
The latest results in cosmological research show that the universe may have
started as quantum mechanical fluctuations at a very high temperature scale
that can't be duplicated here on earth.
But for discussion of the KC, one can ask, what caused the fluctuations or
waves to
The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of human existence. With
human reasoning and logic (consciousness), people can have a better basis for
knowing and living. IOW, we are not biological robots mindlessly living our
short lives here on earth.
--- In
OK, one last attempt to see whether there is any
there there in JohnR to converse with:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of
human existence.
What leads you to believe that humans can know
the meaning of human
turquoiseb:
That's a True Believer pastime, and IMO an ego-
bound pastime. As Curtis pointed out, the argument
proposed as some kind of proof is really nothing
more than a set of beliefs, declared as truths...
So, TB, this is your true set of beliefs.
Barry,
1. OK, one last attempt to see whether there is any
there there in JohnR to converse with:
As I recall, you weren't there when you bailed out of the KCA discussion.
2. The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of
human existence.
What leads you to believe that humans
curtisdeltablues:
Sorry Richard, you brought this up before. I haven't picked up the
habit of hard returns as I type because it looks fine to me on the
Web. Is this formatting better? I'll give it a try and appreciate
your reading anything I write here. But for the effort of creating
a new
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Barry,
1. OK, one last attempt to see whether there is any
there there in JohnR to converse with:
As I recall, you weren't there when you bailed out of
the KCA discussion.
YOU bailed from the discussion, declaring that you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tartbrain wrote:
Well, at least FFL fits the bill. And did Rick create FFL? I mean did he
create Yahoo? And the internet? And Turq, Curtis, Mark,LB, Rory, Peter,
Marek, Phil, Vashti
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:
And then when you figure that out, maybe
you can also tell us:
Who let the dogs out?
Who wrote the book of love?
Who knows where the time goes?
Who'll stop the rain?
Who's got the pain?
And who cares about any of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
snip
You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, I believe
this. And you have every right. I know this isn't your
argument, you
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:44 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Sorry Richard, you brought this up before. I haven't picked up
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
snip
The essay at the link, as I noted before, is actually
Craig versus four other guys. It covers three attempted
rebuttals, Craig's counter-rebuttal, and then a counter-
counter-rebuttal. Most likely Craig would have a
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
*My* point was that at least one of the detailed
supportive arguments for the syllogism starts with the
same example John used about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
*My* point was that at least one of the detailed
supportive
From Wiki, Cosmological Argument:
However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still
remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is
prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not
necessarily apply to the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
snip
1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE.
Me: The tip-off for inductive logic was the use of the word Whatever.
This is a universal statement and indicates
that the single example given to support it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:
From Wiki, Cosmological Argument:
However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable
still remains a matter of debate,
The value to our practical lives is huge for both. We must be able to use
inductive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:
From Wiki, Cosmological Argument:
However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning
is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with
the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.
Even this seems to miss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
snip
You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, I believe
this. And you have every right. I know this isn't your
argument, you didn't create this syllogism but whoever did
was not being as clever as
On May 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tartbrain wrote:
Well, at least FFL fits the bill. And did Rick create FFL? I mean did he
create Yahoo? And the internet? And Turq, Curtis, Mark,LB, Rory, Peter,
Marek, Phil, Vashti and all the people who made FFL what it is today?
Yes, Rick did all that.
He's
And then when you figure that out, maybe
you can also tell us:
Who let the dogs out?
Who wrote the book of love?
Who knows where the time goes?
Who'll stop the rain?
Who's got the pain?
And who cares about any of this crap?
On May 9, 2011, at 9:14 AM, tartbrain wrote:
Who put the bomp
In the
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H94S44pMb0Y/TWhz1oS32AI/AEw/GRGPf9jF2Ok/s1600/creation%2B2.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tartbrain wrote:
Well, at least FFL fits the bill. And did Rick create FFL? I mean did he
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
Curtis,
1. Your statements above states that you disagree with the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Curtis,
1. Your statements above states that you disagree with the first premise.
If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I don't think you can
straddle the fence on this one.
No, I do not accept the
Curtis,
In light of the concept quantum foam it's become difficult for me to believe
in nothing. Every where, every time we look, we find some THING.even if
it's not there long enough to say it was here with our timing apparatus
that's limited by the uncertainty principle. A particle
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote:
That is really interesting Edg. But I don't really get the need for a God?
Unless he is being used as metaphor for the deepest level of matter. I am
inclined just to give a primacy to matter itself and drop the God idea as
Curtis,
I don't really get my need for God either. I'm pretty sure it was how I was
raised and that I'm just working it. A theory.
I'm convinced that there's the divine dichotomy -- the transcendent and the
manifest. It's my everyday experience that there's something and that there's
also
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
Curtis,
1. Your statements above states that you disagree with the first
premise. If you're not disagreeing, what then is your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:
The question is dude, have you ever been to the Anza-Borrego Desert WITHOUT
Rama?
If you have the answers to questions, you are not there or here or
now. (You are only at level 48,765 of the grand heirarchy of
Me:
snip
I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps.
But I am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first
assertion.
It sounds like you disagree with the first premise: Whatever begins to
exist has a cause.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Do you agree with this premise or not?
turquoiseb:
I'm going back to play catch up after traveling
for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
first premise has the same problem as the second.
The problem is not with the word cause
You're jumping ahead of the game.
tartbrain:
I hear Curtis hears that a lot on Saturday nights.
Maybe so, but when Curtis's finger strums the
guitar, sound comes out, and when he opens
his mouth, a tune comes out - not out of nowhere
do the sounds come. This is a fact requiring no
proof.
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote:
You're jumping ahead of the game.
tartbrain:
I hear Curtis hears that a lot on Saturday nights.
Maybe so, but when Curtis's finger strums the
guitar, sound comes out, and when he opens
his mouth, a tune comes
Curtis,
1. Your statements above states that you disagree with the first premise.
If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I don't think you can
straddle the fence on this one.
No, I do not accept the first premise.
Thank you. Now we know where you stand.
2. B.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility
Ah ha!. You've done it Curtis. You have proved
John's point with Barry's own words. It is a
small bang that creates human life, but it is the
big bang that creates the universe. Case closed!
turquoiseb:
Not at all. I'm frankly surprised that you're so
simplistic. What if the
Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude
that a Deity created the Universe, which One...
John:
IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human
religions.
So, now it's a metaphysical argument?
In physics, causation is the relationship between
any single event and a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
Hey John,
Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly
discussion with you having been challenged!
I was pointing out
By the Supreme Being you mean Brahman. An eternal Brahman both both aspects:
relative and Absolute; requires no cause other than Itself. It's self-caused.
To repeat - refer to the Wiki on Cosmological arguments, specificically
rebuttals to the major flaws of causation. All aspects have been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote:
Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude
that a Deity created the Universe, which One...
John:
IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human
religions.
So, now it's a metaphysical argument?
Barry,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Do you agree with this premise or not?
I'm going back to play catch up after traveling
for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
first premise has the same problem as the second.
The problem is not with the word cause but
Curtis,
1. So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with
the first premise or not.
I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most
obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause. It also
seems to be in contradiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Barry,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Do you agree with this premise or not?
I'm going back to play catch up after traveling
for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
first premise has the same
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
Barry,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Do you agree with this premise or not?
I'm going back to play catch up after traveling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote:
Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude
that a Deity created the Universe, which One...
John:
IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
Curtis,
1. So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with
the first premise or not.
I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most
obvious example of something that we
The question is dude, have you ever been to the Anza-Borrego Desert WITHOUT
Rama?
and if that is the case, and you continue to see a portal with beings of light
walking around in it on a rock face, I suggest you empty the bottle, put out
the roach and find a nearby motel to sleep it off...:-)
Barry,
1. Can you give us a specific example that presents your
case and does not follow the statement under the first
premise?
I'm out in the Anza-Borrego desert, at night,
in a certain canyon I know of. Sometimes, when
I go there, there is a certain rock face in the
side of a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
Curtis,
1. So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree
with the first premise or not.
I'm gunna go with a no
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher no_reply@... wrote:
One less Rakshasa to deal with...
for now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Osama bin Laden has been killed, according to the NYTimes.
President Obama will make an announcement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher no_reply@ wrote:
One less Rakshasa to deal with...
for now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Osama bin Laden has been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
..Atheists have no I told you so fantasies. There will be no in your face
believers for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed for
us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote
Curtis, Another nice piece. Your talent is wasted here. When ya gunna blog?
Edg
curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
Actually he died a martyr and would be rewarded if his imaginary afterlife
was any more real than the other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, he
was all Godded up and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
wrote:
..Atheists have no I told you so fantasies. There will be no in your
face believers for us. There will just be the same non existence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
Actually he [OBM] died a martyr and would be rewarded
if his imaginary afterlife was any more real than the
other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, he was
all Godded up and probably as idiotically
Your views of Heaven and Hell are much too truncated. Don't you
realize that neither Heaven nor Hell is a simple projection of human
desires and fears?
Heaven is whatever good you can imagine. Hell, though, is not that place
of torment you might visualize from past artwork or cinema.
For
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
