The Rational God

The place for any Religious and/or Philosophical discussions, treatise, absolutions, ramblings, Aliens, UFO's, space exploration, mystical bullshit, astronomy, astrology, etc...
User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Post: # 50476Post Harbinger
Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:48 pm

Egaladeist wrote:But...the term god is so well associated with religion that any reference to god outside of religion carries some baggage with it.

So...let's change the name god to ' Order ' or ' Nature '...a rose by any other name...if you disassociate the name god with religion is it any less god? ;)

If you admire a sunset or a sunrise...you are admiring the nature of god are you not? Or a freak accident?
That's just the problem Egaladiest. God is previously defined; the word has weight, meaning, and prior attachments. You're essentially giving it an entirely new definition then saying we're wrong for thinking that way?

Changing the name of "God" to "Nature" is pointless, because it accomplishes the same thing. This is especially true is "Nature" is a "Natural Being", because it serves no purpose. You would be giving a collective conciousness to something that is most assuridly not concious. It doesn't even explain anything, or tie up any loose ends. It just brings a totally unecessary and figmentational character into the picture that honestly doesn't belong.

Rain is rain, Leaves are leaves, Frogs are frogs. Anything beyond that is existentialist poetry/ramblings.



User avatar
DaFoxx
DaBOSS
Posts: 8731
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:20 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun

Post: # 50484Post DaFoxx
Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:04 pm

but what about SANTA :shock:
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's :shock:

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50490Post Egaladeist
Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:23 pm

That's just the problem Egaladiest. God is previously defined; the word has weight, meaning, and prior attachments. You're essentially giving it an entirely new definition then saying we're wrong for thinking that way?

Changing the name of "God" to "Nature" is pointless, because it accomplishes the same thing. This is especially true is "Nature" is a "Natural Being", because it serves no purpose. You would be giving a collective conciousness to something that is most assuridly not concious. It doesn't even explain anything, or tie up any loose ends.
I agree that any association with a word that already has a particular meaning is going to, to some degree, distort what I am saying and the meaning I apply to it...
however, creating a new word and giving it meaning would be just as complicated and confusing. ;)

alleyCat
I type, therefore I am
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post: # 50512Post alleyCat
Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:30 am

DaFoxx wrote:earth was the rock in the right place with the right amount of time

and the sooner science debunks religion once and for all the better

it has been said the stephen hawkins [wheel chair / brain the size of a planet] was given an audience with the pope who tried to get SH to stop looking for the creation point of the universe, as a singular point where time began would, by default destroy the god squad

short version rock = life = intelligence
I really don't understand this perspective (and EG I'm not trying to highjack - just commenting... please spin off another thread if anyone plans to respond)

How can you expect science to debunk religion? By definition, science breaks down the known. Religion attempts to explain the unknown.

IMO the two are not subject to the same 'laws'. You cannot apply the scientific method to 'religion'. The same way you cannot apply religious themes to science. I think it just doesn't work like that... is that myopic?

User avatar
DaFoxx
DaBOSS
Posts: 8731
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:20 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun

Post: # 50518Post DaFoxx
Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:39 am

once you have proven that there was a singular point in time that started it all off

religion is a dead duck
there were no gods
it just happened
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's :shock:

alleyCat
I type, therefore I am
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post: # 50519Post alleyCat
Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:40 am

DaFoxx wrote:once you have proven that there was a singular point in time that started it all off

religion is a dead duck
there were no gods
it just happened
Don't agree. God may not be contained within 'time'.

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50523Post Egaladeist
Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:49 am

Actually...the Buddhists ( the original Pali Buddhists not the Northern Buddhists that follow the later Sanskrit ) have long held and were taught the :

Involution and Evolution of the Universe

Siddhattha taught that there have been many Universes...and there will be many more to come...that this is an infinite loop so to speak...

the Universe is itself a body...and having body it is subject to a lifespan...as we are, suns, and solar systems, one day this Universe will die.

so...to find a specific point in time that this Universe started really would not finalize anything. ;)

Post Reply