Maybe we have and maybe we haven't. Go ask the damned cat! Or the mouse. Or are they one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I have a headache.
Printable View
Maybe we have and maybe we haven't. Go ask the damned cat! Or the mouse. Or are they one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I have a headache.
They are both one and the same AND different. Until we learn that they are one and the same. Or that they are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
It's all true until you look in the box.
But isn't the box just a metaphor for the cat? Or the rat? Or Thing 1 and Thing 2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwenn
Somebody should have shot Schrödinger! Or maybe they did?
You don't have to convince me. I've actually had to solve the particle in the box. My only problem is that death by bullet would've been too quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I once met one of Bose's descendants at a party and we talked about that problem like two war veterans.
If you do it at the event horizon of a black hole it will take an eternity. That long enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwenn
just trying to get close enough to the event horizion should be hard enough it would seem like forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever etc etc etc etc never fully reaching it but allways trying
perhaps that is how it is with existance, we dont realize we are here until we have been here a while (full on self awareness doesnt fully kick in till we are allmost walking, mabey later) is it possible we leave the same way?
mabey that perception is one reason the tibetian's use thier book of the dead to talk the soul of the loved one thru his journey into the afterlife, so one goes out peacefully to assume whatever place they have in the cosmos, even if its just "endless void"
another way to look at it is, those that express faith may not know the cat is alive or dead, but they hope, they believe , they have faith that the cat lives, or has died (if exposed to the radioisotope) whatever yu surley get the point
Sorry, I can't buy into this kind of idea. You're born, you live, and you die. It's that simple, that brutal, and that's life.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Just like the runner who competes against the turtle, running ten times as fast, but the turtle has ten feet advantage and the runner's never going to overtake it. Why? In the time it takes the runner to make the ten feet, the turtle's already run another foot, and until the runner has made this foot, it's again a tenth of a foot ahead. The runner runs this thenth foot, but the turtle has already made another hundredth of a foot... - so we see, the runner can only come infinitely close to the turtle, but never overtake it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
(Please don't take this as a confession that Schrödinger's Cat may never even have caught the mouse!)
Unless the turtle gets hit by a car while it's crossing the road.Quote:
Just like the runner who competes against the turtle, running ten times as fast, but the turtle has ten feet advantage and the runner's never going to overtake it. Why? In the time it takes the runner to make the ten feet, the turtle's already run another foot, and until the runner has made this foot, it's again a tenth of a foot ahead. The runner runs this thenth foot, but the turtle has already made another hundredth of a foot... - so we see, the runner can only come infinitely close to the turtle, but never overtake it
I don't think it is that simple. With the death of the body, the energy that compelled the body still exists. Maybe there is no longer a conscious awareness of the energy, as there was when there was a form, but as energy can neither be created or destroyed your energy would still technically exist in the universe even after death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
It is arguable that the continued existence of your energy is an afterlife in and of itself even if it would be to your consciousness as an "endless void".
jmho
And just why was the turtle crossing the road?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synfall
Something to do with Schrödinger's Chicken, no doubt.
That makes the assumption that consciousness is a function of energy and not simply a biochemical anomaly. And even if it is a function of energy, there is no way to show that it remains coherent after death, and not just random electromagnetic fluctuations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synfall
As for your energy remaining in the universe after your death, the same can be said of your atoms, whether from the decay products of your body or even the waste products throughout your life. That doesn't mean that you go on, just that your atoms do. And they are, in general, recycled into other beings on into the future. So perhaps you can interpret that as a form of immortality, if you wish. The way I see it, we all have at least some atoms inside our bodies which at some point have passed through the gastro-intestinal tracts of innumerable other creatures throughout time.
In other words, we're all full of shit! ;)
Okay, I find this a bit cloying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synfall
The energy you are talking about was as subject to the first law of thermodynamics before you existed as it will be after. So, the 'afterlife' you describe here will be identical to your 'beforelife' and we can conclude that you have always existed.
But, when people speak of immortality in this way, they only do it from the point of birth on. There is this assumption of non-existence before birth which is inconsistent with the argument of continued existence after death.
See what I mean.
There was a sort of absense of me before I was born. Whatever you want to call that, that is the state I will be in after I die.
Interesting, just wonder what I shall write to score a point! well if you believe and benefit humanity nay living beings - good for you, if you believe and do not do good, whats the use of the believe? Similarly, if you dont believe and do good for the nature - good on you, and if you don't well there are many like you and all can be said is that its sad...I feel the followers of the two Bible and Quran have done great works for humanity more then any others, especially those who like to be critics...so better leave them on their own, however better would be if we join them as well and match if not exceed their deeds to make our world so much more beautiful!
I find Thorne's statement very thought provoking, "...consciousness is a function of energy and not simply a biochemical anomaly..." Further, " ...the same can be said of your atoms, whether from the decay products of your body..."! Synfall also adds an interesting statement above...even though I sense there seems to be little difference between the two...(sure not my judgement to make…!)
Nevertheless, I really liked the logical interpretation and rather find them a bit alarming/enlightening in a sense that it adds, indirectly some logical weight to the concept of life after death and the ultimate accountability and justice, professed by some religions, especially following holy Books. This lead to a simple calculation:
a) suppose there is no such reality of accountability (after death) so we need not worry of what ever we do here will make any difference to us, then those who thought so scored nearly 90-100 out of 100 as far as the enjoyment in this life is concerned (doing what pleased more). The score of those who believed in accountability in the life after death would be around 50 out of 100 as they did lot of self-restraints and self-control and enjoyed only things those were permitted in their beliefs.
b) Suppose there is accountability after death and these atoms and “conscious energy” are transformed back “for re-birth” as was done in the first case (our present life). Now those who did not believed in life after death and accountability, would lose every thing (being non-believer- no marks for the good deeds performed in ignorance, and punishment for the wrong doings done willingly). The believers, on the other hand, will be getting 90-100 percent marks. So it means if we believe we will not be a total loser in case there is no life after death, and if there is life after death – perfect winners. However, non-believers will be on two extreme ends, if there is no life after death and accountability, they are better off the rest, but on the contrary they would be the worst off (if there is accountability and life after death). Thus, playing safe would be to believe and do good deeds, so even in the worst case scenario, have some consolation (50%) then losing all?
Many thanks for the two for this philosophical discussion...though I wonder why I am trying to think about something that I know nothing about and the outcome of which I can only guess? Why not on the things which are in front of me and can give an outcome in my life-time, given my efforts in it...!
Still, Nice to be here...it does stimulate one's thinking!
This is my point of view as well. We would all be far better off utilizing our energies to make this life better, for ourselves and our families, than in worrying about some potential afterlife. It's like the difference between using your hard earned income to buy groceries and pay the mortgage, insuring your safety, or spending it on lottery tickets for some intangible potential gain which may never come.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
As for doing good deeds, I believe that most people, despite what they profess, refrain from doing "bad" things more out of fear of the consequences of the here and now rather than the consequences of some possibly mythical future.
We should respect the rights of others not because some god supposedly tells us to, but because that's how we want to be treated ourselves. We should obey the laws not because we fear for our souls, but because we fear prison and punishment, and because those laws give us all a sense of security which anarchy would not.
And if I'm wrong? If there is a God, and he is more concerned over my lack of faith than in the fact that I tried to be a good, honest person? Then to hell with him (and me)! I don't think I'd want to spend eternity with such a god.
I'm an atheist. And, insha'Allah, I always shall be.
umm...! well Thorne...just a question, if you have two kids and both of them keep their room clean and tidy (if its not too much to ask from kids these days!), and one does it because it is his/her habbit and the other does it because it is both a habbit and also because s/he knows that you would like it to, who will become your favorite!?! then the two grow up and leave your home and you hear one day both of them being interviewed for their remarkable organizational abilities, one of them says I was born like that and the other says, I like doing it not only because I am an organized person but also because I know that it is what would make my parents happy/proud of me - and after all that they have done for me, I deem find it befitting on mybehalf to make them feel happy as well! Who's would you like more?!
And MMI...was just wondering if there is something wrong in your previous sentence..."I'm an atheist..." and then in the same sentence "... Insha'Allah.."?!
Hope we end up happily, whatever it is!
I thought it was a joke, but i could be mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
Agreed. But then again, as an ignostic atheist i can agree with almost anything since it doesn't matter anyway ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
I'm not sure I get your point, here. I can't really see any difference between the two positions you are stating. For my part, I don't care why they keep their rooms clean, as long as they do. (And having raised two boys, I know that this is a forlorn hope.)Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
The point that I was making, though, is more akin to this analogy:
The mother of twin boys is raising them on her own, because the father is out of the picture for several years. The boys have never met their father, and only know what their mother tells them. And she tells them that if they don't behave, when their father comes home he will throw them out of the house.
Now, one of the boys, fearful of the potential punishment, toes the line and does what he's told. The other boy tells his mother that he doesn't have a father, so she can stop threatening him, but he behaves himself anyway, even though he's not afraid of some future punishment.
Which boy is more admirable? To my mind, the second boy is, simply because he does what's right without fear of being punished. And if it turns out that there really is a father? Which boy would he think is the better of the two?
And which would you choose?
Smiles! I like your thoughts Thorne! Yes, I feel there are subtle differences - that of a half empty glass or a half full glass! You may do it for the fear of punishment or you do it out of the love and appreciation! I am 45, and still when I clean (and try to do it regularly!) my place, I cherish the feeling that if my mum was around, she would have felt proud of me! I learned my cooking skills and cleanliness from her. I do acknowledge her positive contributions from the time, when I was unable to express myself (just born) to the time where I reasoned unreasonably (young boy), till the time that the world's acknowledged universities and institutions acknowledged my little achievements. Many including my mum have played their role in my development. All these individuals and my mum don't need a part of my degrees or awards or the money I make, they just would like to hear from me that I do acknowledge/appreciate their positive role in my life - this will make them smile and feel satisfied if not proud.
I don't fear my mum for the fear of punishment, she is not more powerful then me, at least not now but, then yes, this is all the more reason to fear more, for I may lose her love and affection, if I disappoint her. My point is that fear also flows from losing a love of your loved one and to me it is more powerful then the fear of the punishment.
We all like to be acknowledged, I do, if I don't, based on my limited knowledge of psychology, I would not be a normal person. The boy who does it on his own and consider that to be only his own virtue denies the efforts of the parents who provided him that environment in which he learned, and of all those individuals who contributed in his personality development. The second child, give credit where it is due, even though he is also now doing on his own yet acknowledges the fact that many factor contributed - yes both the boys had options but one of them chose not only to learn and adopt the right traits for himself, but also to acknowledge from where they were coming for.
My point was that if I was to be in your shoes, I would have not tried to reject (or ridicule..."hell with...") the existence of the God (for do I really know? or is it that I do not still have the sufficient knowledge to make a judgement?) I rather would have played save saying, well I am not sure yet, nevertheless what I do good is because I feel good doing so, and if that is what the God, if exist, says so, well good for both of us – for me to know that there is God who believes like me in my goodness, and also good for the God who has someone like me!
Recently you said, "We should respect the rights of others ... because that's how we want to be treated ourselves.." well I accept and am with you on it, so why not respect for the ONE, so He, if there may have respect for us?!
All hail to the Omnipotent, so impotent; so unjust he punishes us for his own imperfections; so insecure, he threatens to damn us eternally for not singing his praises; so unforgiving, that only the blood sacrifice of his own son is acceptable penance; so dependable that thousands of martyrs have died because he would not save them.
So ungenerous that there is not one single provable act of goodness or kindness throughout the whole of history - whether history began 7,000 years ago or 13.5bn years ago - that can be attributed to him.
Should we treat each other that way: oppressively, selfishly, treacherously? Is that how to bring Heaven to Earth?
Ooops! Are my prejudices showing?
I don't know if there is a God. As I've stated many times, in many places, I don't particularly care, either. What I do know is that, if there is a God, the probability is very high that he is absolutely nothing like what the priests try to tell us. My point in that last post is that I would not even consider worshipping a being as capricious and inflexible as the biblical God.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
I share the frustration of MMI and Thorne...it is coming out of sincere hearts, though just in a subtle different way. This universe is amazing...and human being the most in it...the only one who likes to claim s/he knows the best even though deep down knows that it is not true. Psychologists have developed innumerable experiments, if you wish to be part of them; you may end up questioning the very authenticity of reality. There was a time when for more then four years in my prime, I also questioned my faith. I researched and met many “experts” from different faiths. Eventually I found one... but did I hold on to it? No I lost my path...no I let myself lose it…
Let me narrate you a short experience, shared with one of my early mentors, in Tibet (1979) at a foothill we assembled, when an American tourist approached us with his guide. He was offered tea and he gladly accepted it. As he sipped he saw an approaching monk with two empty buckets in his hands. He asked the monk (through his guide) where he is coming from and where he is heading. The monk replied, from the top of the mountain we see behind him and going across the mountain we see ahead of him to collect water for his master and himself. “How long does it take you to do this?” asked the tourist, “from one dawn to another”, replied the monk. American said, “you are wasting your life why don’t you borrow our technology, lay a pipe line and a generator, and with a flick of a button you will get water up right there where you are”. Monk was surprised, and said he will not say that he (American) was a liar but he need to consult his master. The monk closed his eyes and after a while looking at the tourist said, "my master says you are right, but we do not need your technology, for with it will come by default the evils like greed, hate, and much more which will destroy our social fabric. We are better off without it this way the cost of your comforts are too high", and saying that the monk left. Finishing the tea the American asked us, was he (the monk) sane? He (American) was asked why he said so. “He did not use any wireless or any thing, how could he talked with his master up there?” was his question. None of us replied for he would have not understood as at that moment he had closed his reasoning windows (became defensive) and portrait a picture of someone who wants to tell others, he knows better – it would have been foolish to explain him any thing at that time which he had no knowledge about.
To me, Buddha was probably the only one apart from the prophets, in recent times who understood the nature’s forces and mechanism and how to control it. What can be done materially can also be done spiritually. My friends there in Tibet did not need heaters or air-conditions, or mobile gadgets, they could do without them and very well. If over a billion Muslim believe their Prophet travelled on Burrak many times faster then the speed of light, some day science will reach there too. If nearly three billion Christian and Muslims believe that Jesus cured people without any surgery with the wave of his hand, science will eventually be there (limited lazer surgeries are there!). If over 3 billion Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that Moses split the sea and walked through it, time will come that some sort of material mechanism will help do the same (in a way building dams are an example!)
I can keep going…but for whom? Let me finish here by saying that the creator has created every thing dependent. The food we eat comes from the efforts of so many that we cannot imagine (who planted the seed, what natural forces reacted (do you know about 350 worms interact to enrich 500 gram of soil at some places?), what human efforts got involved to produced, who cultivated, prepared, processed, packed exported to be eaten by ultimately whom?). A chain reaction…the injustice you talk about is brought upon by not one person, but by a chain of reaction of so many who contributed directly and indirectly in it. Till the entire chain commits to change we cannot bring end to this injustice. The creator has created a universe and set forces to play their role till what time, I do not know? But forces have their determined paths, they change only when they are forced, they have no capacity to change on their own, only human have. Yes, humans are the only one (I think) who have also the capacity to reach a level where they can readjust these forces changed by some of their ignorant fellow "genius" beings. How? It’s a long path and not a comfortable one; I see no prophet spending life in a 7 star hotels, did they? Many will recall some one crying on the cross uttering "Eliah Eliah, why have you left me alone?". These hardships are rewarded in the way I am still unable to comprehend...yes, I do not have the capacity!
Would you go today and tell Harvard or MIT or Stanford to issue you PhD without passing through their system and on top of it let you hold discussion with their post-doctorate research fellows or teach there and change their system? No, for you will be wasting their time - you do not have the capacity, you must abide by their rules and regulations first to eventually have the capcity to understand what you are saying…same here, if entire humanity chain does not unite to bring change, then alone you must pass through the process suggested by the prophets only then you will be successful in their way. Yes then for your limited earthy life you will be able to intervene and save some! For sure if you do you will be my hero!
The Creator is there, he does not need us to survive, we are insignificant in our present state in the whole universe. No matter how hard we wish the Creator to behave the way we want him to behave, HE has HIS own ways…the ways of the Creator not of humans…we have no capacity till we graduate and reach there, to understand, know and bring change. If we try and do without ‘graduation’, we may still be able to, but we will only make a fool of ourselves - in the words of the famous 16th century Indian Tribal Chief that he wrote to the Governor (I think of Seattle) “You ask me to sell our land to you? This is our mother, and we do not sell our mothers, you think you can bring change to nature in your own way and feel benefited, nay what you do to it, you do unto yourselves, you think you benefit nay you will suffer you just don't know it yet, I see the destruction coming, as you lose the sounds of our sister (breeze), the chirping of our cousin (sparrow), the flutter of a butterfly in your concrete cities….”
The diffference between Thorne and myself (I think - I have no authority to speak for him) is that he doesn't think there is a God, although he is not certain. I want there to be a god - a good god - the Christian god, perhaps. But I am sure he is not there.
Your post, I'm afraid, just will not resonate with someone who does not admit the existence of God - any god.
Concerning improving the quality of the monk's lifestyle, the monk was wrong - the tourist was right. But as the monk just wanted to follow his own established habits and traditions, maybe he was right in that way. There's nothing divine about the choice, either way.
God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.
Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.
Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
William Cowper
What tosh! What utter piffle!
I have heard that Cowper often struggled with depression and doubt. One night he decided to commit suicide by drowning himself. He called a cab and told the driver to take him to the River Thames. However, thick fog came down and prevented them from finding the river (another version of the story has the driver getting lost deliberately). After driving around lost for a while, the cabby finally stopped and let Cowper out. To Cowper’s surprise, he found himself on his own doorstep: God had sent the fog to keep him from killing himself. Even in our blackest moments, God watches over us.
Do you believe that? Or do you think that, being unable to reach the Thames in that weather, the cabby thought the best thing to do was to return his passenger to the point where he picked him up? Or will you now tell me that, even if the cabby did choose to do that, it must have been God who inspired him? Where does free will feature now?
"Blind unbelief is sure to err..." Is my unbelief blind? It seems to me more likely that it is blind faith that is bound to be wrong.
That's a fair statement of what I feel. I am not certain, as no one can be certain, that there is not a God, Christian or otherwise. One cannot prove a negative, so I cannot claim that God definitely does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
You say you want there to be a god, while I say that I don't need a god. And God certainly would not need me!
This is closer to my feelings regarding any potential God. If he's out there, this little ball of dirt and water is only an infinitesimal portion of his creation. It is only man's innate need to believe himself greater than he is that allows him to postulate a God who's greatest desire is to see each of us join him in heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
I have no quarrel with those who have faith, regardless of their beliefs. They are as entitled to their belief as I am entitled to my disbelief. My only problem (well, with regard to this topic, anyway) is with those who would try to force their beliefs upon others, sometimes violently, using their God as justification. These are the true demons in our world. And all should fight against them.
Good point: Christians need their God, and Jehovah needs them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
As for me, wanting is not the same thing as neeeding. As I have rejected the notion, I clearly don't need a god. I take credit for my own achievements and accept the blame for my own faults. I don't need anyone to thank or to blame, and I am no better or wose than other god-fearing people.
(Q. Why are people with faith said to begod-fearing when they worship a god of love?)
But it would be nice if there were a kind and benevolent deity out there really looking after our interests.
I have to agree with you on this point, that these people who profess to be representing 'their' God should be stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
But, and this is the crux, they aren't doing it for the glory of God, theyre doing it from a point of view spurred on by others who want the glory for themselves.
Im a Christian, I believe there is a God...ok shoot me down !!!!!!
I dont have proof that God exists, but then again I dont need it....I have faith .... and thats all I need. My God is a merciful God, who loves us all whether you believe in Him or not....dont worry people, He believes in you lol.
ok, im finished, but no doubt i'll have vitriol thrown at me now, but to be honest, i dont care...im confident in my beliefs and thats all that matters to me
jez xxx
Either that, or they want the control that being the sole interpreter of God's will can bring them. Either way, I don't buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jezabel {ukMC}
There's nothing to shoot down! You have your beliefs, and I can respect that. You don't have to prove that God exists, you only have to believe it. And even if I wanted to go through the effort, there's no way to prove that God does not exist.Quote:
Im a Christian, I believe there is a God...ok shoot me down !!!!!!
I dont have proof that God exists, but then again I dont need it....I have faith .... and thats all I need. My God is a merciful God, who loves us all whether you believe in Him or not....dont worry people, He believes in you lol.
ok, im finished, but no doubt i'll have vitriol thrown at me now, but to be honest, i dont care...im confident in my beliefs and thats all that matters to me
jez xxx
So no vitriol from here. I'll let those "true" believers toss that around. All in the name of God, of course.
They are God-fearing because Jehovah, as depicted in the Old Testament, is a capricious SOB, capable of inflicting horrid punishments on those who stray from his path.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
As for a "kind and benevolent" deity: I suppose that would imply that there would also have to be a nasty and evil deity as well, since a kind deity wouldn't allow the kinds of things which happen every day in this world.
Absurd beliefs, preposterous utterances, obnoxious behavior, and destructive acts are just that, and deserve no free pass just because they are derived from religion.
i'm more a non-theist than an atheist (doesn't believe there is a god as opposed to not believing in god).
if folk take comfort from religion, i tolerate their choice, and don't seek to hurt them by criticising the thought structures that bring them peace.
i attend church, read at the church, and embrace the involvement of a church scool in my daughter's life, because as a child i enjoyed the songs, structure, sense of security in knowing a framework defined my world. i will encourage her to ask questions and be critical, but not to the extent of indoctrination with my non-theist views. if she gets to that point of being a non-theist, i hope that will be through contemplation. meanwhile i tolerate her prayers and religious songs and Nativity Story, etc! it's a small price to pay for a secure little one.
and in fact i enjoy the sense of belonging i get now from attending church!
Angela,
I think you have found what (I believe) religion is all about. I think it is about that comfort, family, etc. And it is the way to help us through and teach us about life and death and morals.
I think that is why I have, though, my problems with those religions that seem so self-conscious about their own religion that they have to have me belief exactly as I do.
And get involved in political discourse to try to make it so.
The trouble with Pascal's Wager (as it's historically called) is that it only works if you assume (a) that there is, or isn't, only one God, and (b) that He/She/Whatever is sufficiently egocentric and brutal to damn people just for not praying to Him/Her/FlyingSpaghettiMonster, regardless of their other virtues.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
As a polytheist I have trouble with premise (a). I don't have any trouble accepting that the God of the Mosaic faiths exists, as one of the many aspects of the Allfather, but I personally prefer to give my worship to the Goddess. But even within the limits of the Mosaic faiths, it won't do you any good to believe in Jaweh of the Torah if it turns out that Allah was in charge all along. Or vice versa.
And premise (b), as defined by the First Commandment, only really applies within the Mosaic faiths. Most other religions accept, outside of their primitive backwoods factions, that the gods will reward you for living a virtuous life whether or not you pray in their particular name or none at all.
Before expounding theories about "energy" please go to the library and read a freshman physics book. Yes, when you die the chemical energy of your body is conserved in a First Law sense, just as is the energy in a lump of coal, but who cares, except to the worms or scavengers that eat your corpse.
What's the difference between a god and a goddess? Do the gods really have sex? (Do other gods bang on the walls if they make too much noise?)
Why is it important to worship the female rather than the male, especially if they are neither? What makes the mother goddess superior to the father creator?
I know all about Zeus's frolics with earthly maidens and nymphs, but I think he'd shag anything with a hole: "Greek love" and all that kind of stuff. And he's not real anyway.
Can gods be real? Does reality go beyond the natural?
In the words of Stewart Chase:
"For those who believe no proof is nessesary, for those who do not no proof is possible."
I don't know if I'd go that far! If God drops enough miracles on my head I'd have to say that was pretty good evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Or I'd have to get a stronger umbrella.
This is not the first time I've seen the Law of Conservation of Energy misinterpeted to justify the immortality of the soul. The confusion is between energy and information (structure). The difference between a living body and a lump of meat is not the energy but the structure, the ordering on the molecular level, and specifically the information contained in the structure of the brain. Energy is conserved, but information can be destroyed effortlessly, as anyone who has lost a vital file knows all too well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultraprene
It's like the old puzzler "where does the flame go when the candle goes out?" A flame is an ordered structure of energy, maintained by a constant flow of energy through it: when the flow stops, the structure collapses and there is no flame. Ipsum est for living beings.