Subject:
|
Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:56:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1167 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We
> all instinctively long to be united with that Entity.
>
> I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the
> human form of Jesus Christ, in order to reveal God's true nature in a way
> humans could comprehend.
Rather as I expected-- an entity, seperate to ourselves-- having created
what we know of as this universe, including ourselves, and capable of
enacting or creating anything therin or similar to, and quite possibly,
anything at all.
> How would you define God?
How would I define the God in which I believe? Rather... complexly. And to
say that such a being is actually a God is also rather... interesting, if
not perhaps incorrect with a dictionary's definition of such. I'd say I my
belief stems from hinduism, biology, fractal patterns in nature, and some
sense of subjective spirituality.
The only way I can think to describe such a being is really by example. It's
kinda like trying to envision the 5th dimention. We can KIND of comprehend
it in some senses, but we can't really actually GRASP it fully, like we can
with the 3rd dimention or even the 4th.
First of all, fractals are amazing. Very simple mathematical equasions
iterated infinitely producing chaotic but patterned and somewhat predictable
results. If you take a look at the Mandlebrot set, you'll see a kind of
bug-like form. Look closer still, and you'll see more. Then at some degree
of millionths of magnification, you'll see more. Each one is SIMILAR in
shape to each other, but are different in detail. Kinda like trees. Pine
trees look different from each other, but the *style* is different from oak
trees. And if you look at our universe, we see similarities. Take a quark.
Little things spinning and orbiting in circular paths. Now expand it. Looks
kinda like electrons spinning around the nucleus of an atom. Now expand it.
Looks kinda like moons orbiting a planet. And kinda like planets orbiting a
star. And kinda like stars orbiting the galactic core. Each entity is made
up of LOTS of empty space and very little matter respectively, with the
matter spinning and orbiting around something central. At each phase
different in style, and yet similar in style. And what's more, each higher
phase consists of a conglomeration of the smaller parts. Kinda cool, yes?
Now apply to biology. Mitochondria living in a symbiotic relationship with a
cell nucleous to produce a living cell... two living beings making up a new
one, more advanced than the previous one. Look at a multicellular being like
a sponge. Little more than a group of cells, each pretty much the same in
function, but together, a living being. Now look at a multicellular being
like a bug. The cells get specialized in nature and together form a more
advanced being, more capable of surviving. Now look at a human being. Even
more cells living together, all specialized resulting in a being capable of
complex thought and consciousness. Or even look at a COLONY of ants as a
living being. A central 'brain' (the queen) commanding muscle (the soldier
ants), reproductive organs (the males), and more generic body functions (the
workers). All together forming a unique entity of cellular structure. What's
beyond that? What does a conglomeration of humans in a society represent?
Could there be some ridiculously higher form of consciousness similar in
style to our own but ridiculous orders of magnitude higher? Personally, I'd
say yes. And how about not just all human life forms, but ALL life on Earth?
Ok, now how about all life EVERYWHERE? Ok, now how about the universe ITSELF?
Here's the kinship to hinduism. The concept of a God is many, it is few, and
it is one. The universe itself could be "God"-- the combination of all
lesser gods, consisting of things like 'all living beings', which constists
of things like 'all human beings', which consists of ... well... us. Are we
Gods in our own way? Do we not control and make up our own bodies which
consist of living organisms living in their own society? Are we not
societies in and of ourselves?
That's mostly all wild theory. Non-back-upable by any sort of means
whatsoever that we have access to. But I must own up to some subjective
self-proof myself, for all that I dislike its presence in objective
arguments, which is why you won't find me debating it. For a while I had a
lot of little experiences in many different areas like Acupressure, Bhuddist
teachings, Yoga, Alexander techniques, holotrophic breathing, Native
american meditation, Tai-chi, massage therapy, etc. And I can't describe it
in any sort of linguistic terms as the language is lacking, but during some
exercises I felt almost part of a 'one-ness' along with living beings, even
past and present. Side note- this experience was, in fact, before my wild
theory was developed in my mind... At any rate, that has been the proof I
need to 'believe' in my thoery. Can I prove it? No. Can I force myself to
believe in it 100%? No. But it would be safe to put me at some decent
majority of believing it to be true.
And oddly enough-- it often fits with religious beliefs, when slightly
modified, I find. Rather odd, I think. But interesting enough to be of note
at least.
Anyway, I'm not really proposing such issue to debate, as I see little
point. But there it is, at any rate-- you asked for it :)
> Dude, you are one serious skeptic! :-)
I forget the name of the test, but it's supposedly really famous for testing
personaltiy types. It measures four characteristics of your personality...
deciciveness, intro/extroversion, and ... uh... I forget the other two.
Anyway, the important thing in this case is deciciveness. It measures how
willing and quick you are to commit to an idea or proposition. People that
are highly decicive reach conclusions quickly and seldom go back on them.
I'm (as you might have guessed) completely the opposite. I hate not having a
way out for safety's sake. Therefore I RARELY commit to a decision. And as
long as there is some semblance of doubt in me (of which there almost always
is), I don't commit to something 100% (though I have accidentally said so
upon occasion). Hence, I perhaps am forever doomed to skepticism :) (see, I
won't even commit to that!)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
