To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
Â
And even more accurately, nyaaya ( = nyAya); according to
CDSL, 'nyaya' means 'destruction':
nyaya m. (fr. 4. %{nI7}) going off , destruction , loss , waste
cardemais...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
The fact, that in Sanskrit vowel length is semantically
crucial, is usually taken into account only in at least
semiscientific texts, and Wikipedia
?
From: card
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
Â
The fact, that in Sanskrit vowel length is semantically
crucial, is usually taken into account only in at least
...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:20 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
I'm quite sure their mutual relationship is somewhat like that
of, say, 'fatter' and 'father', etc. I guess that would be
called a nearly homophonic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote:
His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is more of a caricature.
Yes, it was stupid of him to get motor neurone disease, and
leave himself open to such ridicule. I bet he's really kicking himself.
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is
more of a caricature.
Yes, it was stupid of him to get motor neurone disease,
and leave himself open to such
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104200/cripple-fight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he
--- salyavin808 wrote:
Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
is saying here. Or can you explain what more recent discoveries
means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
--- seekliberation wrote:
From everything i've read, and everything i've listened
Thanks for the clear and useful explanation. Could also be understood
cyclically, so that we can move both from consciousness to total natural law,
as well as continuing to expand consciousness, by moving towards it, through
the agency of total natural law, intelligence and awareness.
--- In
It's actually called Nyaya.
From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
Thanks for the clear and useful
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
Â
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph
.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
It's actually called Nyaya.
From: doctordumbass@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
Â
Thanks
Thanks, really good to know and have never run across the distinction before.
From: card cardemais...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
And even more
Thanks for posting this. The most interesting part of the article was, for me,
this excerpt. Also the most exciting:
As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory
allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is
the reason there is
Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The
Universe, thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology.
My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
Kinda like the immaculate conception?
From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:15 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
Thanks for posting this. The most interesting part
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote:
Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The
Universe,
Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been
a creator
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a
very few would allow creatures like us to exist.
I wonder why they think only a few would allow
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph:
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a
very few would allow creatures
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
So if God did not create the universe, who did?
So who said it was created?
Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them?
If no Creation took place, there is no need to
look for a Creator.
Seriously, why can't the universe
I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration
different concepts of God. I think it only takes into consideration a very
elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard
standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation wrote:
I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes
into consideration different concepts of God. I think
it only takes into consideration a very elementary
authoritarian version of God where God is an old man
with a beard
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
So if God did not create the universe, who did?
So who said it was created?
Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them?
If no Creation took place, there is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation wrote:
I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration
different concepts of God. I think it only takes into consideration a very
elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard
On 01/08/2013 10:30 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
So if God did not create the universe, who did?
So who said it was created?
Then it must not exist. I must be imagining things. :-D
Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them?
If no
I think you're right. Hawking would only think that broader concepts of
God such as everything that ever was, is and will ever be like one
big machine would only be understood by a very tiny minority so he is
addressing instead the great unwashed. ;-)
On 01/08/2013 10:33 AM, seekliberation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking
is saying here. Or can you explain what more recent discoveries
means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea?
From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to
You are agreeing with me - no *concept* of God can create the universe. Yes,
there are other worlds and beings not subscribed to the same laws of time and
space as we are. They can't be accessed with physical instrumentation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
---
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The
Universe,
Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a
creator, the
My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the socially
acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves him for
IMO, Hawking was becoming senile when he wrote this essay. It should be noted
that he retired as the chairman of the physics department in Oxford University
soon after he wrote his book which states the same information contained in
this essay. He should have known that his ideas will not be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote:
IMO, Hawking was becoming senile when he wrote this essay. It should be
noted that he retired as the chairman of the physics department in Oxford
University soon after he wrote his book which states the same information
contained in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote:
My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-)
Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the
socially
: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
Salya, I
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.
It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust! And Happy Birthday day Prof.
Hawkings! So glad you outlived all their predictions. Would LOVE
His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is more of a caricature.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that
bright.:-)
Go
36 matches
Mail list logo
