1. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    28 Apr '09 16:32
    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.
  2. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    28 Apr '09 16:49
    Aren't atoms made of sub-atomic particles? Then wouldn't they be god?
  3. Standard memberScriabin
    Done Asking
    Washington, D.C.
    Joined
    11 Oct '06
    Moves
    3464
    28 Apr '09 19:33
    what does the word "God" mean?

    I think those who believe they know are the same as that subatomic particle known as the moron.
  4. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    28 Apr '09 19:56
    Originally posted by buckky
    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.
    At 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?
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    28 Apr '09 20:10
    Originally posted by buckky
    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.
    Then what is the definition of 'alive'? Perhaps 'having life'?
    Atoms doesn't have life. Atoms cannot reproduce, for one thing.
    No, this hypothesis doesn't work.
  6. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    28 Apr '09 20:22
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    what does the word "God" mean?

    I think those who believe they know are the same as that subatomic particle known as the moron.
    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.
  7. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    28 Apr '09 20:51
    Originally posted by buckky
    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.
    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.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    28 Apr '09 20:561 edit
    Originally posted by buckky
    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.
    "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 '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?
  9. Standard memberScriabin
    Done Asking
    Washington, D.C.
    Joined
    11 Oct '06
    Moves
    3464
    28 Apr '09 20:57
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    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.
    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
  10. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    28 Apr '09 21:08
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    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
    I 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.
  11. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    28 Apr '09 21:42
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Aren't atoms made of sub-atomic particles? Then wouldn't they be god?
    Sub atomic particals are nothing more than God's perspiration.
  12. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    28 Apr '09 21:47
    Originally posted by buckky
    Sub atomic particals are nothing more than God's perspiration.
    Nothing more than God's semen.
  13. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    29 Apr '09 11:09
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    "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?
    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.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Apr '09 11:33
    Originally posted by buckky
    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.
    Your 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.
    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.'
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    29 Apr '09 13:11
    Originally posted by buckky
    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.
    If a rule has exceptions then it's not a really a rule, only a arbitrary statement meaning nothing.

    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.
Back to Top