Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth


Recommended Posts

"In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems,

there was once a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the haughtiest and most mendacious

minute of "world history"----yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold,

and the clever animals had to die."

 

"One might invent such a fable and still not have ilustrated sufficiently how wretched,

how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitray, the human intellect appears in nature.

 

There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again,

nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life.

It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it.

 

 

But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that it floats through the air

with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world.

 

There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately

be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge, and just as every porter wants an admirer,

the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees the eye of the universe telescopically

focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts."

 

neitzsche, from On Truth and Lie in an Extra-moral Sense, 1873

 

 

 

ok I spent 10 minutes typing that. Basically what he is saying is that it is the ultimate arogance to think there is some creator or god that is focused on us that we need to revere or worship said creator. although meant to describe christianity, it also applies especially to islamism...

Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i wanna change the thread title to

 

"nature is the creator of the heavens and earth"

 

it's so hard for people to think that maybe the force that drives life and evolution is enough spirituality for us

so-called 'religious' people often don't even have any respect for mother earth or our environment.

they probably think that when we complete it's destruction, god will come fix it.

hahahahahaaa!

people have to make up some deity-god-being to have set it all off.

 

our minds are tiny indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Dawood@Dec 27 2005, 03:11 AM

because if you beleive in a creator, who is loving and merciful and just, then, why would he create us with no purpose, just leave us to ourselves and not direct us to anything beneficial?

 

wouldnt this be "the meaning of life"??

we dont knwo that till we die, cmon dude you aint seen the television programmes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by QueaZyFunK@Dec 26 2005, 07:19 PM

throughout my life i have always felt that many people try to shut me down. but one time someone told me that i could be anything that i wanted to be as long as i put my mind to it.. and that is waht i believe. I want to be god and i believe i can and will be god. it may sound ignorant or irrational but thats what i believe.

 

WOOOOOOW..hahahahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by symbols@Dec 27 2005, 07:55 PM

i wanna change the thread title to

 

"nature is the creator of the heavens and earth"

 

it's so hard for people to think that maybe the force that drives life and evolution is enough spirituality for us

so-called 'religious' people often don't even have any respect for mother earth or our environment.

they probably think that when we complete it's destruction, god will come fix it.

hahahahahaaa!

people have to make up some deity-god-being to have set it all off.

 

our minds are tiny indeed.

 

 

do you write graffiti symbols?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MrJackDaniels+Dec 28 2005, 01:25 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrJackDaniels - Dec 28 2005, 01:25 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Dec 27 2005, 03:11 AM

because if you beleive in a creator, who is loving and merciful and just, then, why would he create us with no purpose, just leave us to ourselves and not direct us to anything beneficial?

 

wouldnt this be "the meaning of life"??

we dont knwo that till we die, cmon dude you aint seen the television programmes?

[/b]

 

I don't even own a TV, seriously man, I'm down with the kill your TV squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by John Birch@Dec 27 2005, 11:35 PM

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory

 

 

this article is a little over my head, but totally relevant to this thread.. from today's New York Times...

 

 

Conceptually, I can help if you have any questions.

 

I read an amazing treatise a couple years ago on the concept of multiverse as it applies to conciousness.

I got bored and decided to do a query online for the meaning of life, and this article came up. What they did

was actually show how one influences their own reality by choosing the outcome we most preffer at the moment

of conception for those choices. A bit dense, but basically, because of Heisenburg's uncertainty and an infinite

set of possible outcomes for any given action, there "exist" an infinite amount of possibilities for us to experience.

Because there is a specific outcome of any action that we either predict or want, there will always be a certain

probability that there exists a universe where that outcome will occur. In so much as we have the ability to

induce that reality, it is not so much making that reality happen, but choosing witch possible outcome/universe

to experience. One can percieve this as a very Taoist application of quantum theory to the existential

problems of our world. The "pilot wave" in the article, which supposedly guides particles as to their

correct attributes, can be seen as our subconcious diverting our conciouss mind into the outcome/reality

of our choosing. This also is where I see the connection to Toaism and experiencing "The Way."

 

Coincedentally or not, it is interesting to look at the way Toaism treats expressions of The Way and the langauge

used in the article. More specifically, the dialectic of opposite expression as a definition of the The

Way is remminescent of how the physicist express particles/material bodies, eg the cat, maintain opposite

properties at the same time. We see this in passages where the Tao, is expressed as being nothing and

everything all at once. The void and what fills it, one path while many, etc. This is rather parallel to the

statements in the article about particles and even electric currents maintaining themselves in "cat states,"

or having opposite characteristics at the same time.

 

I think this is all rather indicative of what I was talking about earlier with linguistics being at the heart of

most of these discussions. In the article, they express my point about needing to lay down clear definitions

before an adequate discussion of these ideas can even begin.

 

 

Ahhh whatever, no one really responds to my diatribes on here anyways...

 

It's funny you posted that article Birch, this is actually what I'm studying in school. I have always wanted

to understand Why and How about the world and my own existence. Rather than religion as a means to

answer those questions, I have always been drawn to Physics. I have recently been struggling with reconciling

the philosophical foundations I need to adequately answer the questions I have had in my life and

the more traditional requisites for studying physics. I think reading this article has reaffirmed my desire

to pursue physics as correct means to reach the philosophical end I want. Thanks...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by shape1369+Dec 29 2005, 06:24 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shape1369 - Dec 29 2005, 06:24 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-John Birch@Dec 27 2005, 11:35 PM

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory

 

 

 

this article is a little over my head, but totally relevant to this thread.. from today's New York Times...

 

 

Conceptually, I can help if you have any questions.

 

A bit dense, but basically, because of Heisenburg's uncertainty and an infinite

set of possible outcomes for any given action, there "exist" an infinite amount of possibilities for us to experience.

 

Because there is a specific outcome of any action that we either predict or want, there will always be a certain

probability that there exists a universe where that outcome will occur. In so much as we have the ability to

induce that reality, it is not so much making that reality happen, but choosing witch possible outcome/universe

to experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/b]

 

 

this is what I have a hard time grasping...^^^

 

 

I've studied statistics and understand the concepts of probability etc and how important it is for physics...but still... fuck it I don't know, lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

and shape, in regards to your point about language and linguistics, you should read Richard Rorty, Private Irony and Liberal Hope , from "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity", pp 73-74, 79-etc...

 

 

I found it in this book called "Social Theory", edited by Charles Lemert

 

 

 

its one of the best statements I've read about how people generally agree about subjects in the uber sense, but disagree over the semantics of that idea...and hence all the confusion...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by John Birch+Dec 29 2005, 01:24 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (John Birch - Dec 29 2005, 01:24 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by shape1369@Dec 29 2005, 06:24 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-John Birch@Dec 27 2005, 11:35 PM

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory

 

 

 

this article is a little over my head, but totally relevant to this thread.. from today's New York Times...

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is what I have a hard time grasping...^^^

 

 

I've studied statistics and understand the concepts of probability etc and how important it is for physics...but still... fuck it I don't know, lol

[/b]

 

 

Ok, here we go. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal states that we can not be one hundred percent sure

of an electron's position and velocity at the same time. Thus, if we calculate the velocity of a particle

or body to precise measurement, then it becomes probable that this particle/body occupies two different

points in space at the same time. Because the probability of accurately measuring either attribute

is inversely related to eachother (as one increases, the other decreases and vice versa), it gives

rise to this rather interesting paradox.

 

From this ability of particles to occupy two "spaces" at once, it creates an infinite set of spaces that a particle

can occupy at any given time. Thus we find the odds of any event having a specific outcome to be one

in infinity. Or, if there is an infinite possibility of outcomes, there is a chance that one of those outcomes

is the desired/predicted one

 

edit to explain inversely related things...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_El Mamerro

^Hahaha, that didn't make it any easier to understand. Schrodinger's cat analogy is still the easiest way to lay it out.

 

Quantum phenomena is so completely at odds with the normal logic which we use every day that it's almost impossible to grasp how it's even possible. Like the article states, it's the closest thing to magic we have in our world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Ha. I was wondering when you where gonna show up in here Mams. One of the first posts I ever made on this board was bout physics, talking with you. Yeah, I suppose the cat analogy would work. But that was in the article. So I figured I would try to explain beyond that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MELLOness@Dec 25 2005, 07:37 AM

 

AND, for the graffiti thing. We all sin every day, even priests. And i like to think of all people or beings, god understands why i do the things i do more then anyone else.

 

Uh, I can certainly agree with you on that point... that we all sin everyday, even priests... but that's not a good excuse. Are you going to tell me that priests steal? That they are destructive to property? Or that any of their daily sins would compare? Unless you're Catholic I find this hard to believe.

 

The bottom line is Graffiti, by true definition, is an illegal act. I'm in no way religious myself but I'm pretty sure that's got to be frowned upon by God... and his peoples.

 

 

 

And Shape... thanks for the definition of differences. I understand them but it still doesn't make sense to me why people who believe in the same God and same Heaven would disagree with each other on how to get there. Is that what God wants? Is that how God planned things? For all those who believe in him to fight?

 

I have a ton of other questions for people who believe in God and religion but I'll get to them later...

 

Thanks for the answers so far. I'm not a super intelligent person so I apologize if I come across as an idiot and not knowing what the hell I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Dawood@Dec 29 2005, 12:30 AM

do you write graffiti symbols?

 

since i am not religious, i don't know how this even applies to the discussion

but yeah, i do write graffiti

a lot.

 

i care about humanity and nature and the environment and do my best to abide by it

but i'll never look to a God, being, book or prophet for guidance on how i should live day to day

 

sometimes i look to buddhist or zen philosophy for meditation and that helps me focus

but it's never about worship

 

it's just hilarious for me to even conceive that there would be a God that cared about graffiti

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Joker@Dec 30 2005, 09:46 AM

And Shape... thanks for the definition of differences. I understand them but it still doesn't make sense to me why people who believe in the same God and same Heaven would disagree with each other on how to get there. Is that what God wants? Is that how God planned things? For all those who believe in him to fight?

 

 

 

 

It's all about entitlement. If everyone accepted that the means to a common end were meaningless

then the it trivializes their specific beliefs. So basically its just an issue of validity. To each specific group

they feel that they are the ones entitled God's enlightenment, thus their specific means to heaven

is the sole correct answer. So it almost becomes imperative that they reject being acceptant or even

tolerant to these other conrasting ideas as to maintain their own "superiority." or at least thats

my take on it...

 

 

also It would seem to me that they believe, yes this is what god wants. If they are acting as god's

vessel then any action or thought against some other religious group is correct in its intent and direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by symbols+Dec 30 2005, 04:27 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (symbols - Dec 30 2005, 04:27 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Dec 29 2005, 12:30 AM

do you write graffiti symbols?

 

since i am not religious, i don't know how this even applies to the discussion

but yeah, i do write graffiti

a lot.

 

i care about humanity and nature and the environment and do my best to abide by it

but i'll never look to a God, being, book or prophet for guidance on how i should live day to day

 

sometimes i look to buddhist or zen philosophy for meditation and that helps me focus

but it's never about worship

 

it's just hilarious for me to even conceive that there would be a God that cared about graffiti

[/b]

 

 

the reason I asked was because you said

 

 

"so-called 'religious' people often don't even have any respect for mother earth or our environment."

 

And I was just wondering if you wrote graff with a respecting the enviroment-type mentality. I just thought it would be a conflict of interest ,thats all.

 

but on the God/worship tip, is it unconceivable to you that we (humans) are a part of a greater order. That there is a God who created us and has a plan? Just look carefully at the world. Nothing exists that you can touch except that it has an owner, a manufacturer or some sort of origin. I mean, nothing physical just came from nowhere, so, logically there must be some sort of creator to all of this that we see, right? Nothing exists on a small scall without a creator or manufacturer (for example, coca cola , a ford truck , a bicycle , krylon ultra flat black (I love the smell of that stuff) right? so if all of these things didn't and do not have the ability to create or manufacture themselves, then how do we (as humans, or even if we include the whole universe) How do we think this all happened without a creator?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by shape1369+Dec 30 2005, 09:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shape1369 - Dec 30 2005, 09:40 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Joker@Dec 30 2005, 09:46 AM

And Shape... thanks for the definition of differences. I understand them but it still doesn't make sense to me why people who believe in the same God and same Heaven would disagree with each other on how to get there. Is that what God wants? Is that how God planned things? For all those who believe in him to fight?

 

 

 

 

It's all about entitlement. If everyone accepted that the means to a common end were meaningless

then the it trivializes their specific beliefs. So basically its just an issue of validity. To each specific group

they feel that they are the ones entitled God's enlightenment, thus their specific means to heaven

is the sole correct answer. So it almost becomes imperative that they reject being acceptant or even

tolerant to these other conrasting ideas as to maintain their own "superiority." or at least thats

my take on it...

 

 

also It would seem to me that they believe, yes this is what god wants. If they are acting as god's

vessel then any action or thought against some other religious group is correct in its intent and direction.

[/b]

 

 

Actually , i don't think it is more of an issue of "how to get to heaven through good deeds" I think it's more an issue (between religious groups) of how to get to heaven through good BELEIFS.

I , myself am what some people would call "religious" even though I don't know if I'm very religious at all , but thats another discussion.

 

My original point was this: lets say for instance that God revealed a religion and told mankind that this was the correct path to follow and this path would lead mankind to heaven, now one of the first things God is going to want to teach people is "who God is" , right? Because how can you worship or follow God's way properly if you don't even know God? So if one religion says that God is a cow and one religion says that God is a man/prophet and another religion says that God is a statue and others say that God is everything and yet God says to his messengers that "there is nothing co-equal or comparable to him" and that " there is nothing similar to him".

From that starting point we have a huge descrepancy in faith , correct? because If I beleive that there is nothing co-equal or comparable to God and that he is unique in all aspects and then someone comes and tells me that God is a man, then logically, I would object and disagree. I think it is important for a person of faith to be tolerant of other peoples beleifs, although this tolerence doesn't mean that i should think that their beleif is also true. If I thought God was a cow, then I could never beleive that God was unique in all aspects while still affirming that God is a cow for another religious group, that would be like trying to mix the darkness with the light. The darkness and the light never co-exist with one another. The nature of light is like the anture of truth when it shines , the darkness (falsehood) will disappear.

 

Although, I do beleive that most of the world's religions contain a lot of truth in terms of how to interact with people and proper behavior , morals , manners , social etiquettes etc. but, like I said, If a "religious person" was doing good deeds in the name of his religion, and this particular religion taught people that God is a man, and in fact it turned out that after death, God is not actually a man, God is a unique omnipitent being who's true essence we are not capable of fully comprehending, then , he will come on the day of reckoning , seeking his reward from God, but that person never worshipped God, he worshipped the man, or the cow , or the statue or he worshipped nature or whatever from amongst the things that he thought was God, then would it be fair for God to reward that person for his good? Even though some people worshipped God alone, not beleiving in any false gods , just beleiving that God ALONE was in total control. And the one who worshipped the Man or the Cow or whatever, would it be fair to give him the same reward as the one who worshipped God without intermediaries? without idolatry? would this be a God of Justice? And if God was not just , then what kind of God would that be?

 

To me , that makes sense, I don't know about anyone else in here, but it makes sense to me. I beleive in God, I beleive that God is beyond my comprehension (even though I know certain things about God , like he is merciful and just and he is the creator and that nothing else is like him etc.) So, on the day when everyone is gathered , and our good and bad will be weighed out, at least on that day, I (personally) won't be saying, Oh, God, I did this good thing and that good thing etc. Because I don't beleive that I can do enough good to add up to the good God does for me. On that day , at the very least I can say, Oh, God I worshipped you and you alone , without depending on any other so-called false man/cow/nature/statue Gods that had no part in the creation of the heavens and earth and therefore have no part in worship or devotion. I only beleived in you, God, have mercy on me. Maybe , then I will receive some of that mercy, but If I spent my whole life beleiving in nothing , no God, then on that day when I'm looking for someone to save me from an eternity of torment that was prepared for those people who rejected the guidance , where will my God be? nowhere, just like I always thought. On that day, they'll beg to come back to this life, so that they can beleive in God, but then It will be too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to trivialize what you said in that well put response, but I think you missed the point of his question.

 

I, nor him, made the implication that it was a descrepancy about doing good deeds that gets one to heaven. When I was speaking of a "means to get to heaven" I was talking about a soteriology, most religions have them. If they believe in an afterlife, specifically like that of heaven and hell, then there is a path to get to each. Not what that path is, but the general concept of that path.

 

Not only that, but in so much as your conception of what/who god is, I think Joker and I were speaking about specific gods. I think it is safe to say that interdeominational worship of a christian god is still worship of the same god. It is the god whom jesus is the son and savior of mankind. Beyond that the difference's come in the soteriology's I previously discussed. It seems like the question Joker had was specific to a religion that has different groups in that religion, therefor this discussion of "god vs his forms" is irrelevant to his question. Not, of course, to say that it isn't relevant to this discussion as a whole

 

Anywho, I do want to respond directly to several things you have said in your last post. From what I have read in here your muslim, so you worship the same god as christians and jews. Correct? If your answer is no, then I think we have a fundamental problem in how we are looking at religions. If it is yes, then keep reading.

 

Speaking to your notion of being tolerant of other religion's while not believing that they are in fact true, I posit this to you: In so much as there are specific differences in how Islam, Judaism and Christianity all see how to get to heaven, would you agree that this is the main difference in these religions? I suppose this is completely contengent upon your view that the god worshiped is the same in these religions. I think if you consider this, you will see the point I was trying to make to Joker. I also made a comment about monotheism and polytheism having very few differences in their respective manifestations. I think the similarities among these three religions is a rather good elucidation of that concept. Beyond monotheism, look at old creationist stories from native americans all the way to greek philosophy, it all has some of the same elements. While the storie's may vary, they have much the same intent and morals.

 

 

That is why I feel the reason that there can never be tolerance, let alone acceptance, amongst religions is an issue of entitlement to divine right (not in the despotic sense of the word). It behooves a speicific religion or sect of a religion to alienate any other forms as it validates their form and ideas completely. Like you said, if god lays down a specific soteriology, then whomever has it right, be they protestant, southern baptist, seventh day adventist, jehovas witness, second day jehoseph's baby.... MUST be right in terms of their views. There is no way for them to take themselves seriously as a religion if they allow for the belief of anything else. Thus the reason unitarianism is for pussies. Take a stance...

 

And now for something completely different...

 

While they are certainly cliche and the like, I do find use of simple religious paradoxes rather entertaining. Such as:

 

If god is omnipotent, can it create an object so large/dense/whatever that it can not lift it?

 

Also, if there is an omniscence to god, then why its little excersize in humanity? The end is known, the beginning is known, and our worship of it is known. Is it born out of love? and if so what is that real nature of that love?

 

Personally, I find it rather patronizing and egomaniacal to create an entire universe for your own self worship. Talk about a fuckin Dorian complex... In so much as it is his love for us that he allowed for us to live, what then of the free will he gives us? Am I going to hell for excersizing that ability which he so instilled in us? Let me counter your argument that it is the excersize of that free will that he wants us to use to find him. Why? What is the point of free will if we can choose other than the outcome he wants? What love of humanity is that if he creates a systemic problem that can not be redressed?

 

By your statements and descriptions of a just and loving god, it makes no sense that he would condemn a certain number of people to hell immediately, knowing that there will always be a certain percentage that excersize the free will in an oppositte manner than he desires. Yeah, I know he doesn't need our love, nor our worship, but honestly if he is so fucking concerned with it that he established a place for me to go if I dont give it to him, then FUCK HIM and his system. Please do not take offense to that as it is not directed at your god or your beliefs but at the hypothetical situation I am discussing. Moreover, I would tend to think that it is those who choose to challenge god and his system that are the ones that truelly apreciate his gift. And if the system fucks those people, then I'd rather go to hell and be where I belong...

 

 

Not to go on a rant there, but I just haven't talked bout this stuff in a while and I guess I thought I had more to say than I thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Dawood@Dec 30 2005, 07:45 PM

 

but on the God/worship tip, is it unconceivable to you that we (humans) are a part of a greater order. That there is a God who created us and has a plan? Just look carefully at the world. Nothing exists that you can touch except that it has an owner, a manufacturer or some sort of origin. I mean, nothing physical just came from nowhere, so, logically there must be some sort of creator to all of this that we see, right? Nothing exists on a small scall without a creator or manufacturer (for example, coca cola , a ford truck , a bicycle , krylon ultra flat black (I love the smell of that stuff) right? so if all of these things didn't and do not have the ability to create or manufacture themselves, then how do we (as humans, or even if we include the whole universe) How do we think this all happened without a creator?

 

 

So you are saying that we were put here on earth for a reason? Even if that reason was for 'Symbols' to be one of the most prolific writers of our time? Or for Dave, who was about to discover a cure for cancer, to die from a gun shot wound to the chest because he was in the wrong Circle K at the wrong time? Or for Christine and her three kids who live in poverty with no food or running water, working electricity or any help from their government and will eventually die from malnutrition? Are you saying that these people were created for those purposes? (Beside 'Symbols'... obviously the examples are made up) God put John on earth to create Kylon Ultra Flat Black? Like I said, I'm not a genius but that is wicked retarded. If that is God's way of creation, and this being truly does exist... God can bite one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...