Spirituality
28 Apr 09
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by buckkyAt what point does 'god' cease to be a coherent term? How does it help us to call all the atoms of the universe 'god' instead of 'all the atoms of the universe'? Do atoms behave any differently if you call them 'god' instead of 'atoms'? If not then why not just stick to 'atoms' and leave well enough alone?
Have you ever thought about how everything is made up of Atoms, and in that way everything is alive in a sense? If atoms are the buiding blocks of the universe then maybe God is what atoms are ? Everything is God !! The Hundus already think this. Maybe they are right.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by buckkyThen what is the definition of 'alive'? Perhaps 'having life'?
Have you ever thought about how everything is made up of Atoms, and in that way everything is alive in a sense? If atoms are the buiding blocks of the universe then maybe God is what atoms are ? Everything is God !! The Hundus already think this. Maybe they are right.
Atoms doesn't have life. Atoms cannot reproduce, for one thing.
No, this hypothesis doesn't work.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by ScriabinEverything should have a beginning, and at the beginning something pushed the button on the Big Bang. Who or what that something was is the mystery some call God. Don't let the word God scare you so much.
what does the word "God" mean?
I think those who believe they know are the same as that subatomic particle known as the moron.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by buckkyI enjoy the Hindu take on things, but it's a little complex to follow beyond the initial intuitive wow moment. I mean, to take a random example: http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/a89.html
Have you ever thought about how everything is made up of Atoms, and in that way everything is alive in a sense? If atoms are the buiding blocks of the universe then maybe God is what atoms are ? Everything is God !! The Hundus already think this. Maybe they are right.
It's no good just reading about it. Somehow this stuff has to be realised.
28 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by buckky"Everything should have a beginning" We call this postulate (p1), okay?
Everything should have a beginning, and at the beginning something pushed the button on the Big Bang. Who or what that something was is the mystery some call God. Don't let the word God scare you so much.
"something pushed the button on the Big Bang" We call postulate (p2), okay?
If 'something', mentionned in (p2) is a part of 'everything' then even 'something must have a start, according to (p1), right?
Doesn't matter what you call this 'something' in (p2). But even this 'something' must have a start. Before this start there was not 'something'.
So how came this 'something' into being? This 'something' who 'pushed the button'?
In other words: Someone created your god. Who was that? Some Supergod perhaps? Or godfather? Or what?
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehow about Spinoza's point of view? I don't espouse it, but it certainly caused a bit of a stir and was quite interesting for its time
I enjoy the Hindu take on things, but it's a little complex to follow beyond the initial intuitive wow moment. I mean, to take a random example: http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/a89.html
It's no good just reading about it. Somehow this stuff has to be realised.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI have an affinity for Spinoza and I think his views can be mapped on Hinduism and vice-versa. But don't ask me to be the cartographer.
how about Spinoza's point of view? I don't espouse it, but it certainly caused a bit of a stir and was quite interesting for its time
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasPerhaps this is the exception to the rule. God
"Everything should have a beginning" We call this postulate (p1), okay?
"something pushed the button on the Big Bang" We call postulate (p2), okay?
If 'something', mentionned in (p2) is a part of 'everything' then even 'something must have a start, according to (p1), right?
Doesn't matter what you call this 'something' in (p2). But even this 'somet ...[text shortened]... ated your god. Who was that? Some Supergod perhaps? Or godfather? Or what?
might just be the primordial ooze consisting of nothing more than very pure atoms. Pure awarness. Pure creativity. The old guy on a throne idea seems really nut's. Who knows, it's all up for grabs.
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by buckkyYour idea is no less nuts than the old guy on a throne. The nuttiness is starting with the premise that 'there must be a God' and then coming up with random suggestions as to what that as yet undefined 'God' might be.
Perhaps this is the exception to the rule. God
might just be the primordial ooze consisting of nothing more than very pure atoms. Pure awarness. Pure creativity. The old guy on a throne idea seems really nut's. Who knows, it's all up for grabs.
Its as nutty as starting with the premise that there is a Globdang, then saying 'its all up for grabs as to what that might be, so I am going to start by believing that the Globdang is really photons.'
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by buckkyIf a rule has exceptions then it's not a really a rule, only a arbitrary statement meaning nothing.
Perhaps this is the exception to the rule. God
might just be the primordial ooze consisting of nothing more than very pure atoms. Pure awarness. Pure creativity. The old guy on a throne idea seems really nut's. Who knows, it's all up for grabs.
The fact can as well be that the universe created itself at the moment of BigBang, therefore no god needed. Call it a rule, call it exception, call it whatever, but I don't call it religion because the theory of BigBang is science.