| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"enki" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2005 09:08:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
Sorry, My attention span is too short to read such a long artile on my
screen and I am not about to print it out. Still am awaire of the
intelligent design theory. That is pure opinion. First cause is a
little stronger again it is an assumption. Still I most like
Spinoza's description of god. God is exiestance.
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
01 Mar 2005 10:11:18 AM |
|
|
On 1 Mar 2005 07:08:57 -0800, "enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, My attention span is too short to read such a long artile on my
screen and I am not about to print it out. Still am awaire of the
intelligent design theory. That is pure opinion. First cause is a
little stronger again it is an assumption. Still I most like
Spinoza's description of god. God is exiestance.
Why?
You only get that if you start off from a presumption of God.
Step aside from pre-existing belief and there is no way to derive God
from existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
01 Mar 2005 10:34:47 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vs4921hp0kstab2ncho3v1k6mtsqm2cddi@4ax.com...
On 1 Mar 2005 07:08:57 -0800, "enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, My attention span is too short to read such a long artile on my
screen and I am not about to print it out. Still am awaire of the
intelligent design theory. That is pure opinion. First cause is a
little stronger again it is an assumption. Still I most like
Spinoza's description of god. God is exiestance.
Why?
You only get that if you start off from a presumption of God.
Step aside from pre-existing belief and there is no way to derive God
from existence.
In your opinion, how did God belief start in the first place?
Was it an unbroken chain from the beginning of time? Sort of like
'turtles-all-the-way-down'?
*Someone* came up with the idea of God in the first place.
*Someone else* could arrive at the same idea independently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
01 Mar 2005 06:42:42 PM |
|
|
Someone* came up with the idea of God in the first place.
*Someone else* could arrive at the same idea independently.
I have a theorry of where god came from...
We have independtent wills we do things because we want to. In the
remote past people had no idea of how forces of nature worked. Rain
had somewhat of a pattern but was not regular. People thought forces
of nature had independ wills, it raind when the sky wanted to rain, the
earth shook when if chose. Look at Hesiod, the gods have their own
adjenda and we only get caught up. The sky, the ocean or the vulcano
have wills and are concious gods. This is my theory that gods are when
people gave personalities to forces of nature.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
02 Mar 2005 08:23:50 PM |
|
|
God was defined as the infinite substance of the universe. That is god
is everything. God dosn't have a will or purpose that would show that
god lacked somthing. Gods nature is how the universe works. It is
realy dificult to understand his way of writing but it is intersting.
God is everything, one question he askes was the universe created
before or after 2+2=4.
Step aside from pre-existing belief and there is no way to derive God
from existence.
aristotle did it. What am I here, I was caused by my parents, you
can't logically have an infinite chain of causes, he argued you need a
first cause what he called an unmoved mover Aquinis later used this
argument to prove god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 01:48:56 AM |
|
|
"enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109816630.675254.116510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
God was defined as the infinite substance of the universe. That is god
is everything. God dosn't have a will or purpose that would show that
god lacked somthing. Gods nature is how the universe works. It is
realy dificult to understand his way of writing but it is intersting.
God is everything, one question he askes was the universe created
before or after 2+2=4.
Step aside from pre-existing belief and there is no way to derive God
from existence.
aristotle did it. What am I here, I was caused by my parents, you
can't logically have an infinite chain of causes, he argued you need a
first cause what he called an unmoved mover Aquinis later used this
argument to prove god.
You cannot use an argument to prove anything - you use facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 09:02:07 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> skrev i melding
news:112dgb6158muu6b@corp.supernews.com...
You cannot use an argument to prove anything - you use facts.
Proof is not built around facts.
Facts don't prove a thing.
Facts are evidence; evidence is not proof.
Empirical science does not work with proof.
A proof gives abolute certainty.
Absolute certainty is not attainable in empirical science.
Absolute certainty is not a goal in empirical science.
Etc.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 10:20:49 AM |
|
|
"Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:XDFVd.517$ai7.9858@news2.e.nsc.no...
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> skrev i melding
news:112dgb6158muu6b@corp.supernews.com...
You cannot use an argument to prove anything - you use facts.
Proof is not built around facts.
Bull!
Facts don't prove a thing.
No, but the information they contain LEADS to a proof
Facts are evidence; evidence is not proof.
The conclusions drawn from the information contained in the evidence is
proof!
Empirical science does not work with proof.
It depends on the evidence. You can have emprical observation of facts and
evidence, and you can have emperical observation of nothing more than
opinions based on beliefs.
Science works with the first, religious works with a variation of the
second.
A proof gives abolute certainty.
Absolute certainty is not attainable in empirical science.
On certain levels, it does.
Absolute certainty is not a goal in empirical science.
Then any conclusion bsed on what you call "empiraclcal science", means
nothing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 09:48:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:02:07 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> skrev
You cannot use an argument to prove anything - you use facts.
Proof is not built around facts.
Facts don't prove a thing.
Facts are evidence; evidence is not proof.
Empirical science does not work with proof.
A proof gives abolute certainty.
Absolute certainty is not attainable in empirical science.
Absolute certainty is not a goal in empirical science.
That's why the empirical sciences are so good at explaining things.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 10:18:57 AM |
|
|
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> skrev i melding
news:06ce21lm0dl6fac1ttfn6412clns1bn0i1@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:02:07 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> skrev
You cannot use an argument to prove anything - you use facts.
Proof is not built around facts.
Facts don't prove a thing.
Facts are evidence; evidence is not proof.
Empirical science does not work with proof.
A proof gives abolute certainty.
Absolute certainty is not attainable in empirical science.
Absolute certainty is not a goal in empirical science.
That's why the empirical sciences are so good at explaining things.
Is that irony?
....
What would be your criteria for an explanation being an explanation, and for
an explanation being good?
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 10:51:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:18:57 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> skrev i melding
news:06ce21lm0dl6fac1ttfn6412clns1bn0i1@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:02:07 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> skrev
You cannot use an argument to prove anything - you use facts.
Proof is not built around facts.
Facts don't prove a thing.
Facts are evidence; evidence is not proof.
Empirical science does not work with proof.
A proof gives abolute certainty.
Absolute certainty is not attainable in empirical science.
Absolute certainty is not a goal in empirical science.
That's why the empirical sciences are so good at explaining things.
Is that irony?
Wasn't meant to be.
What would be your criteria for an explanation being an explanation, and for
an explanation being good?
The criteria for an explanation is that it shows why things are as
they are and why they are not something else. A good (in the sense of
effective) explanation is one which accounts for the greatest number
of observed facts and predicts the greatest number of new facts to be
tested and observed, and also successfully predicts that others will
not be observed.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 06:40:43 AM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2005 18:23:50 -0800, "enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote:
God was defined as the infinite substance of the universe. That is god
is everything. God dosn't have a will or purpose that would show that
god lacked somthing. Gods nature is how the universe works. It is
realy dificult to understand his way of writing but it is intersting.
God is everything, one question he askes was the universe created
before or after 2+2=4.
Step aside from pre-existing belief and there is no way to derive God
from existence.
aristotle did it. What am I here, I was caused by my parents, you
can't logically have an infinite chain of causes, he argued you need a
first cause what he called an unmoved mover Aquinis later used this
argument to prove god.
No. Neither Aristotle nor Aquinas did that.
They made unjustified leaps to a deity after arbitrarily stopping at
an unknown point in a series.
The unjustified leap was a non-sequitur to something that didn't
follow.
They had no information content from which to derive one. All it was,
was pre-existing belief in one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 09:04:17 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> skrev i melding
news:5b1e21phgi5fgqm1f3m2lgu5e27vuae6r9@4ax.com...
On 2 Mar 2005 18:23:50 -0800, "enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote:
.....
They made unjustified leaps to a deity after arbitrarily stopping at
an unknown point in a series.
I don't think Aristotle did that. He merely proved that to explain something
through a causal chain, you would have to reach a point where you didn't
have to progress further down the causal chain. Unless the chain stops,
causal chains do not have explanatory power.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 09:47:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:04:17 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net>
They made unjustified leaps to a deity after arbitrarily stopping at
an unknown point in a series.
I don't think Aristotle did that. He merely proved that to explain something
through a causal chain, you would have to reach a point where you didn't
have to progress further down the causal chain. Unless the chain stops,
causal chains do not have explanatory power.
They do from the premise that space/time began with the universe.
Where T = zero there is no meaning to 'preceding cause'.
From there on, causal chains do have explanatory power.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 10:16:48 AM |
|
|
Hi,
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> skrev i melding
news:4nbe219v3tdt06ofqjqu01rrravsjk1v7o@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:04:17 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net>
They made unjustified leaps to a deity after arbitrarily stopping at
an unknown point in a series.
I don't think Aristotle did that. He merely proved that to explain
something
through a causal chain, you would have to reach a point where you didn't
have to progress further down the causal chain. Unless the chain stops,
causal chains do not have explanatory power.
They do from the premise that space/time began with the universe.
Where T = zero there is no meaning to 'preceding cause'.
From there on, causal chains do have explanatory power.
Yes.
I'm not entirely sure, now, whether this is conformable with my thesis that
causal chains have explanatory power once a foundation is found, and that
the origin of time is such a foundation or stopping point, or whether the
argument has to be changed, in the case this is mow a different question.
One could possibly argue that causality came to be with time, i.e. with the
world itself, but I am not sure if "time" and "causality" are that similar.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
03 Mar 2005 10:36:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:16:48 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
Hi,
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> skrev i melding
news:4nbe219v3tdt06ofqjqu01rrravsjk1v7o@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:04:17 +0100, "Tron" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net>
They made unjustified leaps to a deity after arbitrarily stopping at
an unknown point in a series.
I don't think Aristotle did that. He merely proved that to explain
something
through a causal chain, you would have to reach a point where you didn't
have to progress further down the causal chain. Unless the chain stops,
causal chains do not have explanatory power.
They do from the premise that space/time began with the universe.
Where T = zero there is no meaning to 'preceding cause'.
From there on, causal chains do have explanatory power.
Yes.
I'm not entirely sure, now, whether this is conformable with my thesis that
causal chains have explanatory power once a foundation is found, and that
the origin of time is such a foundation or stopping point, or whether the
argument has to be changed, in the case this is mow a different question.
One could possibly argue that causality came to be with time, i.e. with the
world itself, but I am not sure if "time" and "causality" are that similar.
Not necessarily similar but I don't think you can have causality
without time. Cause and effect requires that the cause temporally
precedes the effect.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
26 Mar 2005 02:29:51 AM |
|
|
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote: Not necessarily similar but I
don't think you can have causality
without time. Cause and effect requires that the cause temporally precedes
the effect.
Which is a way to understand that God is uncaused (as a logical response to
those who ask "who made God?") since He is not a temporal being, but
eternal. ("I am who am."... "Before Abraham came to be, I am.")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
26 Mar 2005 08:27:49 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:29:51 -0500, "rugged
individuals" <brandon@comcat.com> let us all know that:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote: Not necessarily similar but I
don't think you can have causality
without time. Cause and effect requires that the cause temporally precedes
the effect.
Which is a way to understand that God is uncaused (as a logical response to
those who ask "who made God?") since He is not a temporal being, but
eternal. ("I am who am."... "Before Abraham came to be, I am.")
Beings cannot be eternal.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
27 Mar 2005 01:10:53 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: Beings cannot be eternal.
And from what authority does this dictum arise?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
27 Mar 2005 08:07:20 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:10:53 -0500, "rugged
individuals" <brandon@comcat.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: Beings cannot be eternal.
And from what authority does this dictum arise?
Reality.
Show me a being that is eternal. Now. Or retract your claim that
beings can be eternal.
We know that beings are alive. Life is a process. It has a
beginning and endpoint in time. A being that is alive but had not
beginning to that life nor cannot die is a contradiction in terms.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
28 Mar 2005 01:01:06 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote :
Show me a being that is eternal. Now. Or retract your claim that
beings can be eternal.
We know that beings are alive. Life is a process. It has a
beginning and endpoint in time. A being that is alive but had not
beginning to that life nor cannot die is a contradiction in terms.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Let me propose the following speculations as a preliminary answer to your
challenge.
Consider that there is a delay, in reality, between the actual occurrence of
an event and our sensory experience of it. Neural networks require time to
process sensory inputs before they show up in the GUI of consciousness. If I
recall my biochemistry correctly, there is a delay of about one thirtieth of
a second between stimulus and measurable response in a simple neural
pathway.
That being so. If death is a FINAL event which -- by common understanding --
is the "end of it all", we can't perceive our deaths since the actual event
of death precludes any subsequent perception; the sensation (or sensory
awareness) would have to come after the ability to sense had ceased. It's
like one of Zeno's paradoxes. You're running a race, and you know there's an
end to it, but you can't ever realize the experience of finishing because
you'd have to go beyond the finish line to be able to see it, and beyond
doesn't exist (at least in the narrow definition.) If we can't perceive our
end, how can we be certain we're dead?
(Non sequitor: According to Pirsig, that time between event and sensation is
where the whole subject-object duality of existence stuff is gestating.
Until the screen of consciousness flickers with the picture(s) of what
happened a thirtieth of a second ago there is no subjectivity or
objectivity, no duality; there is only Pirsig's monad "Quality", the Tao.)
I've also wondered if the death event has relativistic (as in e=mc2)
aspects. If the distance in time between an event and its perception shrinks
to zero (or an undefined quantity divided by zero) at the death event, there
is therefore an acceleration of some kind occurring. And since acceleration
causes a relativistic shift backward in time, again (in a paradoxical way)
we might never be able to reach a point of death.
(Disclaimer: Please be aware, I flunked Physics and Calculus multiple
times -- on my way to not being a medical doctor, so I'm a charlatan
scientist at best. And speculation along the lines above isn't Philosophy
per se. And I'm a Christian, so I believe that in communion with the Risen
Lord Jesus Christ I will never die, and I don't need such speculations as
herein tendered to bolster my faith.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
26 Mar 2005 02:47:21 AM |
|
|
In article <-7WdnXjNGvAcgNjfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"rugged individuals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote: Not necessarily similar but I
don't think you can have causality
without time. Cause and effect requires that the cause temporally precedes
the effect.
Which is a way to understand that God is uncaused (as a logical response to
those who ask "who made God?") since He is not a temporal being, but
eternal. ("I am who am."... "Before Abraham came to be, I am.")
Beings generally require sustenance of some sort. For biological and
temporal beings this usually requires something that can be converted to
energy. What keeps God alive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
26 Mar 2005 06:52:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:47:21 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
In article <-7WdnXjNGvAcgNjfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"rugged individuals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote: Not necessarily similar but I
don't think you can have causality
without time. Cause and effect requires that the cause temporally precedes
the effect.
Which is a way to understand that God is uncaused (as a logical response to
those who ask "who made God?") since He is not a temporal being, but
eternal. ("I am who am."... "Before Abraham came to be, I am.")
Beings generally require sustenance of some sort. For biological and
temporal beings this usually requires something that can be converted to
energy. What keeps God alive?
The stupidity of Christians.
Barry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
08 Apr 2005 09:44:07 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
no humans = no gods
Agreed. But the Goddess is not a god.
so- Atheistic proofs dont work so well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
08 Apr 2005 11:04:55 PM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:cYI5e.506$_04.62013502@typhoon.cei.net...
bob young wrote:
no humans = no gods
Agreed. But the Goddess is not a god.
so- Atheistic proofs dont work so well.
To those who believe in her, the Goddess
is a god - a female god. You don't know
very much at all about either theology or
mythology, apparently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kamerynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
14 Apr 2005 08:35:41 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:cYI5e.506$_04.62013502@typhoon.cei.net...
bob young wrote:
no humans = no gods
Agreed. But the Goddess is not a god.
so- Atheistic proofs dont work so well.
To those who believe in her, the Goddess
is a god - a female god. You don't know
very much at all about either theology or
mythology, apparently.
Kam adds:
In fact, we should simply encompass both kinds
of entities by using the word "deity," as is proper.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
14 Apr 2005 03:40:44 PM |
|
|
Kamerynn wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:cYI5e.506$_04.62013502@typhoon.cei.net...
bob young wrote:
no humans = no gods
Agreed. But the Goddess is not a god.
so- Atheistic proofs dont work so well.
To those who believe in her, the Goddess
is a god - a female god. You don't know
very much at all about either theology or
mythology, apparently.
Kam adds:
In fact, we should simply encompass both kinds
of entities by using the word "deity," as is proper.
I dont try to describe what others believe, but the above
is *not* a 'female god'. The whole idea of 'god' is that he
has a male personality, and that he can be sucked up to. Most
people dont know what the concept of the Great Earth Mother was,
their minds are so permeated with the prosytelized concepts of
the Levantine scriptures.
Tickling out the truth of what *She* was like has been difficult
because of the repression by adherents of tyrant gods over the
millennia since they and their kings have ruled. But- st Ramprasad,
of 18th century Bengal, stands at the apex of the ancient vedas,
and gives us a pretty complete concept that is entirely consistent
with the iconography of the Goddess going back 10,000 years.
But, let's start with a political reason: Nobody goes to war, holds
heresy trials or inquisitions, or justifies genocide in the name of
Mother Nature. The reason if pretty clear if you consider the kind
of demagogue, trying to work up a mob or an army, and saying that *he*
speaks in *Her* name. It just dont work for him. He needs a male god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
14 Apr 2005 10:21:11 PM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:CnB7e.583$Q04.61866114@typhoon.cei.net...
Kamerynn wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:cYI5e.506$_04.62013502@typhoon.cei.net...
bob young wrote:
no humans = no gods
Agreed. But the Goddess is not a god.
so- Atheistic proofs dont work so well.
To those who believe in her, the Goddess
is a god - a female god. You don't know
very much at all about either theology or
mythology, apparently.
Kam adds:
In fact, we should simply encompass both kinds
of entities by using the word "deity," as is proper.
I dont try to describe what others believe, but the above
is *not* a 'female god'. The whole idea of 'god' is that he
has a male personality, and that he can be sucked up to. Most
people dont know what the concept of the Great Earth Mother was,
their minds are so permeated with the prosytelized concepts of
the Levantine scriptures.
Tickling out the truth of what *She* was like has been difficult
because of the repression by adherents of tyrant gods over the
millennia since they and their kings have ruled. But- st Ramprasad,
of 18th century Bengal, stands at the apex of the ancient vedas,
and gives us a pretty complete concept that is entirely consistent
with the iconography of the Goddess going back 10,000 years.
But, let's start with a political reason: Nobody goes to war, holds
heresy trials or inquisitions, or justifies genocide in the name of
Mother Nature. The reason if pretty clear if you consider the kind
of demagogue, trying to work up a mob or an army, and saying that *he*
speaks in *Her* name. It just dont work for him. He needs a male god.
Why would a goddess wear a battle helmet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
15 Apr 2005 02:58:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:21:11 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Why would a goddess wear a battle helmet?
To be in style.
Ever since Brunnhilde wore a battle helmet in the Ring Operas, every
goddess had to have hers.
Would you show up without the right fashion accessories if you were a
goddess?
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azure" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
15 Apr 2005 11:54:35 PM |
|
|
Kamerynn wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:cYI5e.506$_04.62013502@typhoon.cei.net...
bob young wrote:
no humans = no gods
Agreed. But the Goddess is not a god.
It depends on your interpretation of the word.
God/Goddess is the "Unknowable All Things" which one is forbidden to put
a face or name on.
so- Atheistic proofs dont work so well.
To those who believe in her, the Goddess
is a god - a female god. You don't know
very much at all about either theology or
mythology, apparently.
TY
Kam adds:
In fact, we should simply encompass both kinds
of entities by using the word "deity," as is proper.
Right, or the "One", or "All Things", "That Which IS".
We limit it by making it only that which we can understand.
"That Which Is", is so much more than that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Reasons for God |
16 Apr 2005 07:46:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:54:35 -0800, Azure <l'd'shea@faerie.org> wrote:
"That Which Is", is so much more than that.
The Being whose essence is existence.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
