Some Guy in History wrote:My dad can beat up your dad.
Yeah, but can your God beat up all the other Gods described here?
And, if so, prove it!
Moderator: Dan~
Some Guy in History wrote:My dad can beat up your dad.
Many people have tried to show that "God is an impossibility". All of them have failed. That does not prove the existence of God, but it shows clearly that God is a possibility.
What are atheists who deny the Abrahamic definition of God?
Theists, of course.
What is science that denies the same God?
A religion, of course.
A "theist" is merely a single minded theorist, stubbornly worshiping his own little theory...
The soul of a person changes with the level of consciousness. In a sense, the sleeping person isn't the same person as the enlightened one within the same body. As the dream person fades away into nothingness, it is much like a rebirth for the soul to awaken, conscious of the truer nature of reality, a child shedding play things and becoming a man of conscience, attending to the affects he has upon the world.
Which brings me to this question: what are the characteristics of a perfect god?
In my book, there is only one ~~ that of total mystery.
The more characteristics we give to this god, the more imperfect it becomes since it is based on human assumption, projection and subjective thinking.
Yes, I am probably wrong.
phyllo wrote:
...the point is, that God in essence, therefore, is not merely a conceptual ontological product but a staged effect of an existential dynamics, a primordial base of freedom anchored in the choice between acceptance and rejection.
Defining God precedes the argument for his/it's existence.
The "central driver of the major religions" is to maintain a social order even before there were, when there are no, and beyond the use of armies to maintain social laws. They are to prevent social chaos at the most fundamental level. They have proven themselves in that regard.
I can't even demonstrate that a grey cat ran in front of my car today. Trivially simple fact, but I have no photographs or video, so no way to demonstrate it to rational or irrational men and women.
Ierrellus wrote:"Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy.
Whether our descendants can achieve this goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed it may well decide whether we have any future." Arthur C. Clarke (1996)
The insanity of science vs religion must have an end in order for believers in each to be truly happy. One cannot say that science is rational and religion is not. They are two ways of seeing the same thing. Ecological morality may just be the type of belief that is necessary for a happy human future. This is not a pagan assumption. It is a belief in hope for a viable future for mankind.
Ierrellus wrote: Ecological morality is practical (pragmatic philosophy), affords predictionin real time (science of evolution) and displays purpose (theological teleology).
Ierrellus wrote: Only those who prefer to be concerned entirely with my future as contrasted with our future can fail to see the validity of ecosystems as they speak for our basic interconnectivity. In other words these thoughts will have no meaning for anyone trapped in mental self-isolation.
Ierrellus wrote: Ecological morality is not concerned with distant or afterlife heavens. Its concern is what we owe each other here and now that would offer a better future for all of mankind.
Ierrellus wrote: Biology has not excluded you from having your place among its here and now interconnected constituents of ecosystems. You are here and now an integral part of all life forms.
Biology does not produce organic entities that evolve into isolation; we evolve as ecosystems. Kill off bees and plants will die; when plants die, animals will die. We are not only interconnected, we are interdependent.
Ierrellus wrote: These are facts, not "ideas in the head".
Ierrellus wrote:Ierrellus wrote: It amazes me that humans who experience being, becoming and belonging can embrace nihilism or solipsism. Maybe this world is the only one we can ever know. Wouldn't that realization and that we are all in this life together suggest a morality of our dealings with each other.
Arminius wrote:The increased prices of everything can be caused by giving everyone more and more money or by the raising of wgaes, thus also by minimum wages. Then ( a new) immigration of poor people has to start in order to curb this process a bit, only a bit, and for a short time, only for a short time. So, indeed, in the long run, more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer.
This development is unfair, destructive, dangerous, stupid, and it is going to be stopped (the question is only: when?). Even the question of how is not relevant, because at last nature is going to stop it.
Arminius wrote:Again: If not the human beings, then nature itself is going to stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and - last but not least - stupid development.
Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. So, globalism also means the last step of ecnomic growth on our globe.
Ierrellus wrote:In an ecosystem, karma is the Golden Rule--no need for some sky daddy to reward and punish. The Auden quote below is about this. Those who destroy an ecosystem will be destroying themselves in the process.
I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empiricism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empiricism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....
Ierrellus wrote: It continues to amaze me--how down to earth, practical beliefs can be somehow be seen as trumped by abstract philosophy. Dasein, conflicting goods, etc. will amount to nothing if the majority of people accept self-destruction as a way of life.
Ierrellus wrote: And God has proved to really exist over and over again in my personal life. Why should I believe otherwise?
Ierrellus wrote: Even if oblivion is my final outcome, all of my physical parts will be recycled in Nature. It all points to reconciliation, to the fact that in the dance between energy and matter, no energy is ever lost.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]