Spirituality
15 Jul 22
07 Aug 22
@kellyjay saidWell nobody knows for sure what the origin of the universe is. That's my honest opinion. You fill that gap with the Abrahamic God, and that's your prerogative.
To saying it is only possible is not even addressing the question, it is only acknowledging the question is a question.
@fmf saidMeaningless as in to have no personal goal, nothing with an intent; completely without agenda. Do you want to suggest yes there is nothing about the universe’s makeup and it’s ability to support life that requires intent?
"Meaningless", "intent", "mind", "who"... why are you anthropomorphizing this possible entity? What next, angry, vengeful, jealous, loving, so is he 'male' etc. etc.?
For you happenstance and fortunate luck; can account for all of the makeup of material, the variables of their placement and qualities along with all the forces at play acting on them in law like consistent manners so we can understand it all, being conscience and aware?
07 Aug 22
@fmf saidThis is actually done for two reasons:
"Meaningless", "intent", "mind", "who"... why are you anthropomorphizing this possible entity? What next, angry, vengeful, jealous, loving, so is he 'male' etc. etc.?
- Man was created in the image of God.
- God in Himself is unknowable, but insofar as He is relatable, we must understand him through typical vocabulary.
But Christianity does also do a lot to emphasize the mystery of God. The Trinity and the hypostatic union, after all, are mysteries. The incarnation is a mystery.
I think you are nitpicking a bit much.
@philokalia saidNope. It's not "nitpicking" at all. To assert that a creator entity/God must be man-like because "man was created in the image of God" is industrial-grade circular logic.
This is actually done for two reasons:
- Man was created in the image of God.
- God in Himself is unknowable, but insofar as He is relatable, we must understand him through typical vocabulary.
But Christianity does also do a lot to emphasize the mystery of God. The Trinity and the hypostatic union, after all, are mysteries. The incarnation is a mystery.
I think you are nitpicking a bit much.
08 Aug 22
@philokalia saidTotal made-up unsubstantiated rubbish.
- God in Himself is unknowable, but insofar as He is relatable, we must understand him through typical vocabulary.
Show some scriptural support of this assertion please.
08 Aug 22
@fmf saidYou are still jumping ahead of the first question; I can only assume to avoid getting
Nope. It's not "nitpicking" at all. To assert that a creator entity/God must be man-like because "man was created in the image of God" is industrial-grade circular logic.
to this place; because it will lead to questions like this having to be asked in earnest
because they are now required. Do you accept mindlessness is responsible or that
what is required is a mind; it was all done with intent?
08 Aug 22
@kellyjay saidI stand to be corrected, but I’m pretty sure FMF has told you, more than once, that he likes to think that there was some sort of entity or intelligence involved in the genesis of the cosmos.
You are still jumping ahead of the first question; I can only assume to avoid getting
to this place; because it will lead to questions like this having to be asked in earnest
because they are now required. Do you accept mindlessness is responsible or that
what is required is a mind; it was all done with intent?
I’m not sure what it is you think you have here…
@kellyjay said"Intent", "a mind', "agenda", like a human?
Do you accept mindlessness is responsible or that
what is required is a mind; it was all done with intent?
I don't see why you have to anthropomorphize a creator entity.
It sounds like the most parochial leap that you can possibly make in your effort to turn your speculation [triggered by mystery] into an ideology.
08 Aug 22
@fmf saidBUMP for KellyJay. You ignored this. The conversation just won't work if you keep ignoring what my side of it is and just blank out my responses.
Science has made great strides towards the deeper and more detailed understanding that we currently have of the universe. Maybe the nature of the universe ~ as we know it ~ is the closest we can be [at the moment] to perceiving the nature of the creator entity that is the 'cause' of it all.
08 Aug 22
@fmf saidI am addressing what you are putting to me. I don't see why we must say we are looking for "who"?
It seems you don't want to address what I am putting to you and asking you.
I am saying that the nature of the creator entity, if there is one, is the nature of the universe.
You seem to not want to absorb this because it is an inconvenient perspective that doesn't help you in your efforts to work backwards from your pre-packaged religious belief that a "human" type mind has communicated with you [wishes, promises, threats] via some sort of "self-evidently" true "meta-narrative" called ancient Hebrew folklore.
08 Aug 22
@kellyjay saidA "personal" goal, in our human sense? An "agenda" that can be likened to the agendas that human beings might have? "An intent" as in a human or superhuman purpose that makes you feel your life is made meaningful by the ideology you project onto the nature of the universe?
Meaningless as in to have no personal goal, nothing with an intent; completely without agenda.
And so, for you, must this anthropomorphized creator entity also have human emotions like anger, a desire for vengeance, jealousy, love and hate? And must this "who" you insist there must be, is "he" a male?
You don't seem to realize how many leaps of speculation that you pile, one upon the other, like a house of cards, each one having etched on it an assertion that assuages your doubt and curiosity - and the fact that you do not "know" any of the things you assert are actually real and true.