PDA

View Full Version : I believe in... god?



False Prophet
12-18-2009, 10:44 AM
god
Pronunciation: gäd also ?g?d[/i ]
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German [i]got god
Date: before 12th century
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value

Honestly, I am finding it very hard to pinpoint where to start my rant. Humanity has dreamed of and pondered the stars, and their own minds, since its beginnings. And once we were aware of our thoughts and, even better, our opinions, we had to tell everyone. And thus language and literature began. All because we had to get the information swirling around in our skulls into someone else's. Well skip ahead a few hundred years and we have our first stories, and 'god' was born, or the creator, or..well go look here for a list if you really want to know Wiki listi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities).

Well, eventually humanity started to expand and travel. We became nomads and created tribes (packs) and wandered. Our stories changing with our environment, writing about what we know and experience. Thus the varied creation stories and varied godsvare created over thousands of years, and with each a spoken code of laws and morals that each tribe member is to follow. Well as tribes grew and they split, differing views or whatever, and began merging with other tribes as well, fueling the expansion and variety/merger of the gods. We began to settle and create villages, leading eventually to countries as we know them. Over this time we established ways to preserve our spoken stories into writing which we could store in libraries [cause seriously, who the fuck wants to lug books...with no real good foot wear either. jeez, we are lazy aren't we ;) ].


Ok, so what does all this have to do with anything?
Well nothing by itself, but there is a second half to god that i think needs to be addressed. Science.

Quark: Quarks are building blocks for subatomic particles. They bind together to make neutrons and protons, generically referred to as hadrons. Quarks are assigned names called flavors. Each flavor can be positive or negative.

"Quarks don't exist in isolation, so everything we know about them is deduced from the examination of other particles. Except of course for the top quark which is guessed about by observing what it decays into when it disappears.
If we had been around at the very beginning of the universe it may be that the extremely hot conditions allowed the existence of free, single quarks in a quark-gluon plasma.
When protons are examined under electron-proton scattering it was observed that there were three "sphere like" regions in the proton - these were the quarks."

So what is a quark:
It is a theoretical particle that has never been seen or observed in isolation that is useful in explaining how protons and neutrons are constructed.
Answer: A particle that is smaller than the subatomic particles-proton, electron, neuron.

Well, lets go over what are some qualities of a 'god' within creation stories.

-Existed before existence.
-Creator (builder/building block) of all existence.
-Everywhere and nowhere at the same time

Sounds like a quark to me.

The universe exists in balance, science and religion agree on this. Positive and Negative.

Well lets mix science and religion together with a creation story.

Ok, so all the continents used to be one super continent- the garden of eden?
The earth shatters, cities that were once only a few weeks walk apart were now oceans apart. Swallowed by the sea- Atlantis. As humanity wanders their environments change them- evolution.
Lighter skin tone: predominately northern races- cooler climates and less direct sun light.
Lighter eyes (blues/greens): sensitive to light- lack of light in northern hemispheres- tilt of the earth on it's axis.
Darker skin tone: more extended exposure to the sun and elements,

I could go on and on, not just with skin tone and eye color, but think of the basic stereotypes of a race. Then think about the geography of that races place of origin. How did the environment play a role over thousands of years to evolve the human body to be more suited for its climate, as nomads.

Is any of this starting to make sense?

21Faces
12-18-2009, 11:23 AM
Is any of this starting to make sense?
It was until you got to the part about human civilizations existing on Pangea, since, to my knowledge, the human race isn't nearly old enough to have existed at that time. Ethnic variances in skin tone, etc. are a result of human migratory patterns out of the cradle of civilization, Africa. So on that we agree. You have a nice idea going about quarks and God. I just wouldn't try jamming the garden of Eden in there, because it's not going to fit.

Miss Lisa
12-18-2009, 12:06 PM
I've never thought about it like that before, but I like it. God is everything.

What I find absolutely incredible and hard to get my head around is how dust can gather and react and evolve into something living... and instinct. The in-built instruction manual living things have so that they can survive and reproduce.

I'm not sounding relevant, but my belief is against God as a persona whilst not ruling out the idea of a driving force or base which keeps the universe running along. So thinking of quarks in this way is appealing.

False Prophet
12-18-2009, 12:19 PM
Well, let me break it down to the next part, South America and Africa. They used to be combined, now is it possible that as Pangaea split Africa and South America stayed together for a while longer, thus allowing trade between Egypt and the Aztecs and Mayans etc.

So, what if revelation already happened and the South American natives we the chosen ones?? What if all the books are older than we dated, I mean, Egyptian and Christian theology have many of the same stories, were dated incorrectly. What if the human race is older than we believe, or have been led to believe? This would allow for the garden of eden to exist in Pangaea, or be all of Pangaea. Then god got pissed...because someone ate? Volcanoes erupting, continents shifting, the skies crashing above you. Imagine being one of 6 of your own kind that you know of... If you survive, well that makes for a nice story.

It is a lot of "what ifs" and speculations, but aren't religion and science, and everything we believe, just speculations?

And to Miss Lisa, how is it possible for matter to exist from nothing? 'God' is a being beyond what a human is, a greater power, so the limitations of a human are not felt by 'god' (i.e.: god is immortal and all knowing). So that would make it possible, theoretically, understanding that the sum of 'god' is created by the sum of all existence through the basic building block of all matter: quarks, for something living to come from nothing.

I believe it all comes down to [smoking a lot of pot ;) ] understanding that everything that is known by humanity is 100% wrong and 100% right. At least at this point in existence.

Mexicanfiend
12-18-2009, 02:11 PM
Pangea existed 250 millions ago, according to scientists. Pangea existed in the Jurassic era, back when the dinosaurs ruled the earth.

Mayans and Egiptians have evidence that hey MIGHT have been in contact with each other, but it is quite improbable at the same time. I like to believe they did, according to the similarities both cultures share. But I guess it has to do more with potential maritime adventures that continents being together.

And, about the whole mix of science and faith: I agree with it.

I'm under the impression that the sum of all the numbers up to the infinity value, gives us the abstract result of: 1. Why? Because infinite is countless, yet it gathers everything it exists (or that we know it exists, at least) and forms our universe, a singular concept.

So, with that idea, I believe that god is that misterious force that somehow ties it all and gives it a certain causality, in order to be and to stop being. god is no different than the basic physics' concept of energy: aeternal, not created, undestructible and always transforming.

So, I believe that things like space and time are relative to the sice and space of the ones that observe it (time doesn't affect ants and humans in equal measure, due to their respective size), and perhaps if we could turn ourselves the size of a quark, we'd might observe another universe. Like that final scene in "Men In Black", where a tiny marvel can be the home of a galaxy. That's how I picture life: there's no end and perhaps not even a beginning.

False Prophet
12-18-2009, 02:37 PM
That is quite the circular thought process you have there, lol.

Now understand we have 'evidence' against humanity existing during the Jurassic period. However, how long did it take for the continents to reach their current position? And during that time an entire species, much larger than our own was wiped out, and whose to say that there weren't written records at that time that were destroyed or lost? Hell, the new testament is only 2,000 years old (well its claimed to be that old) and we already are missing over half the books (thanks to the multiple councils of Nicaea). It is believed that only the cockroach will survive a nuclear Apocalypse. What if only smaller creatures survived (we have 'evidence' of giant humanoids as well) whatever whipped out the dinosaurs, and the majority of living land animals. Right now we have all this technology, all it takes is a hurricane to bury a city in water, or a tsunami to kill millions in the Indian ocean. An apocalyptic world would be very volatile, and would probably last many hundreds of years, during which time humanity was forced to seek out shelter in caves (yay for cave men). etc etc etc.

The sum of human knowledge is incomplete, many MANY pieces are missing. Hell we used to 'know' the world was flat and the extent of all existence. Now we 'know' that it is round and we are just an tiny spec in the conceived universe.

Im not saying im right or anything about the history of humanity and their trade and migration patterns. However, i dont feel there is enough 'evidence' to disprove the hypotheses either.

S.Hal0mega.B
12-18-2009, 07:32 PM
Mexifiend is right, it's so long ago that there's only the fact that we 'don't know for certain' that provides evidence for our existence 250 million years ago, if that date is infact correct too. But you are right with Egypt and Christianity sharing some myths, and for it Egyptians and Sumerians being a lot older that we put down to paper. The whole sharing of knowledge from the Aztecs to the Egyptians was because of their gods, they even say so. There was no sharing, they just shared the same gods. Who these gods were is another story.

Shangri-LIE
12-19-2009, 11:04 AM
I can dispell all of this rabble rubbish quiet easily. It states in ancient Aramaic texts that God created the entire Planet, as he is quite the multi-tasker, in 7 days. That isn't hard to fathom seeing as how he is the supreme architect of each and every multiverse, celestial element, and atom that exists. What God created is tantamount to a scientist cooking a pot of stew. I don't know why it is so hard to believe. Humans were created as "cells" for God to create and destroy in order to increase his infinatley expanding knowledge. It's simple, unlike...science.

Ada Veen
12-20-2009, 01:27 PM
So nice to see you guys talking about god and science and all that… And while Im stuck here in teh snow, maybe I can add some thoughts, that are probably only vaguely tied to the topic of this discussion.

False Prophet, I like your idea of the quarks being the bricks and the builders of the universe at the same time. Even if not true, it’s definitely a very elegant concept.

And well, I don’t really know anything about Pangea or the drifting continents, but as far as the evolution vs creation debate goes… I’ve always thought that those things aren’t opposed to each other. I think that evolution in may ways resembles a creative process, more so since I look at it from an artist’s perspective. I have this idea (which scientists would probably laugh at) that the dinosaurs were some sort of a *preliminary sketch* of nature (or god, or the supercomputer, it’s really whatever term you prefer) that was later destroyed, like an artist or designer disposes of the unsuccessful sketch and repeats the attempts, correcting the mistakes until a desired result is achieved. There was obviously some major fuck up to their design – namely, their gigantic size. They were just not fit well with the scale of the Earth’s landscape… in my opinion. Who knows, if they kept ruling the Earth, the humans would probably never succeed in conquering the planet. Or maybe we would just destroy all of their population anyway, because they would be too much of a threat.

Wherein the insects were definitely one of the brightest ideas of nature, imo…They are more advanced than the humans in so many ways. And yes, the roaches (and maybe the rats) will be the survivers in the post apocalyptic world. (It is kind of already happening as I’ve been able to observe during my living in the trashy districts of Brooklyn, lol.) Insects easily adjust to severe living conditions. Perhaps too easily to be able to evolve into something as intellectually advanced as a human being. Sooo… if we suggest that the goal of evolution was to create a thinking creature, and also the one with emotions, capable of analyzing itself and the world… the insects wouldn’t do. I mean… if the evolution is *the monkey, the man THEN the gun (as in a machine or advanced technology), the insects were somehow too much ahead on a way to a machine. (Look at a dragonfly and then look at a helicopter). BUT there was no need to get rid of the insects, first because their existence is strongly bound to life cycle of plants, secondly, because they are small and aren’t that much of threat to other species. Just imagine how the world would look like if the insects were big. They’d totally dominate the planet and eliminate everyone else in no time, I believe. They are cruel mothefuckers, and also very fast, so they just HAD to be small to fit in well.

But isn’t it interesting that in terms of size the humans are in the middle of the line. There are smaller animals and plants, there are bigger ones as well. It kind of gives us a full range of interactions with the surrounding world. We are in a well balanced position towards the rest of the creations. It probably would have been totally different had we been any other size. We would have too much trouble feeding ourselves and supplying other basic needs (clothing, heat, tools etc) had we been the size of a dinosaur, so we’d be struggling all the time and never have a moment to sit down and smoke by the fire and think… On the other hand, if we were as tiny as the insects, we won’t be able to have a proper picture of the surrounding world. For example, a mountain, or even a tree would be something completely beyond our comprehension, because it’d just be too large for us to observe… We won’t be able to travel and migrate the way we did… And what am I getting at with all this is that it makes me think that nature really is somewhat like a designer. You always need to find a proper balance of proportions, scale and other qualities to achieve a good result, and it takes a while to find this perfect formula... Though there are some serious fuck ups to a design of a human being too, if you ask me. First of all, the life expectancy... No, no, and no. We should be immortal, period. Or at least 5-6 hundered years. You know, giving us humans such an advanced brain and emotions AND making us mortal (and mortal in such a humiliating way)… is somewhat like giving a blind kid a kaleidoscope for christmass. Bad joke.

So my idea is that if the god exists, it isn’t perfect, just like nothing else is perfect. It’s an engineer that works on his design… And the purpose of constant development of he design is beyond our understanding. Also, it’s highly unlikely that us humans are the final goal of it… or that anyone actualy cares about us, given the fact that we are all mortal.
Or maybe we are just someone silly kid’s strategy game, and he hasn’t even made it to the second level yet, lol. Who knows?

False Prophet
12-20-2009, 07:04 PM
as far as the evolution vs creation debate goes… I’ve always thought that those things aren’t opposed to each other.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Throughout your post iI found myself recalling thinking many of the same things, and agreeing with you. And I don't claim to be truth, I just have some ideas I find plausible, just to clear that muck up. Back to the post: While I agree with many of your thoughts, there are a few that I would tweak a bit, but honestly, it would take too long to put concisely into a single post. So pm if you care to discuss any of it.

I know there are many holes in my ideas, so pleas people, poke away! I don't like having anything solved...again, if that makes sense.

Ada Veen
12-21-2009, 01:10 PM
pm if you care to discuss any of it.


What's the fun of pm'ing? ;)
Come on, get it together, write down your thoughts and share with the rest of humanity! :)

Anima XI
12-23-2009, 12:31 PM
Interesting ideas guys, I love these type of discussions. Personally I think God is just an all-pervading force that created the universe and now either maintains it or just lets natural laws maintain it themselves. The quarks thing is really interesting though.



So my idea is that if the god exists, it isn’t perfect, just like nothing else is perfect. It’s an engineer that works on his design… And the purpose of constant development of he design is beyond our understanding. Also, it’s highly unlikely that us humans are the final goal of it… or that anyone actualy cares about us, given the fact that we are all mortal.
Or maybe we are just someone silly kid’s strategy game, and he hasn’t even made it to the second level yet, lol. Who knows?

Very intriguing thoughts, Ada Veen. I kind of agree with your part on humans =) We're so perfect yet so imperfect as beings.



Mayans and Egiptians have evidence that hey MIGHT have been in contact with each other, but it is quite improbable at the same time. I like to believe they did, according to the similarities both cultures share. But I guess it has to do more with potential maritime adventures that continents being together.

So, with that idea, I believe that god is that misterious force that somehow ties it all and gives it a certain causality, in order to be and to stop being. god is no different than the basic physics' concept of energy: aeternal, not created, undestructible and always transforming.

So, I believe that things like space and time are relative to the sice and space of the ones that observe it (time doesn't affect ants and humans in equal measure, due to their respective size), and perhaps if we could turn ourselves the size of a quark, we'd might observe another universe. Like that final scene in "Men In Black", where a tiny marvel can be the home of a galaxy. That's how I picture life: there's no end and perhaps not even a beginning.

Really cool stuff, about the Mayans and Egyptians. I always wondered about that, what with the similarities like pyramids and views on astrology.

I think we have similar notions of what God is too =)

Mexicanfiend
12-23-2009, 03:42 PM
^^ Thank you, and something that has recently shocked me -in a good way- are the similarities in the ancient prehispanic religions -especially mexicas and mayans- with the catholic religion.

They had this belief in which a virgin young lady was foretold that she will give born to a child that would save all the race. She knew no man and one day, as she was laying down in a quite place, a pidgeon passed right above and one of its feathers fell down in this woman's belly. Lo and behold, she got pregnant due to it.

A few months later, our pregnant virgin gave birth to a child that was immediatly killed by the lords of the town. 3 solar cycles passed, and this baby was re-born as a great warrior, killed all the ones that killed him before and brought peace and prosperiry among his land.

And no, I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about Huitzchilopoztli, the most important Mexica god.

The human sacrifices they did have also a resemblance to the Eucharisty: They used to drink the blood and eat the flesh of the rival tribe's dead warriors, in order to suck up all their strenght and their spirit. It was a ceremony held anually in the main temple, and it had mystical and religious connotations. Eat Me, Drink Me, indeed.

Funny stuff: They used to get high on mushrooms once a year and they had all these visions of gods explaining them many things, like the origin of the universe and what-not. It was this god, Huitzchilopoztli, the one that told to a high priest -after he got pretty fucking high, I guess- that their new land had to be located in a place in which they'd find an eagle on a nopal plant, devouring a serpent -a symbol that's today in our national flag, and it also has some yin/yang-esque vibes-. That's the legend of how México City was founded. and they found it in the middle of a lake... They built a fucking city in a lake¡¡¡¡ Those guys were fucking awesome, and its a pity that many of their religious points of view about life and the universe got lost during the colonial times.

False Prophet
12-29-2009, 02:38 PM
Finally got adjusted enough to this new layout that I can come back to my ramblings.

fiend, if you are really curious, go look into Egyptian religions. Most religions share many of the same basic stories with each other. The birth of a child to a virgin and the flood story are the two biggest ones throughout human existence that I have seen.

If anyone has any thoughts contrary, id love to hear them. And Anna, I won't discuss this here with you because it would go off topic and take up 10 pages, so if you really want to discuss this then let me know later.

Mexicanfiend
12-29-2009, 08:27 PM
^^Yes, yes... you got it. why is it that many religions share many similarities?

I would understand it if all religions would have had their origins in civilizations that were somewhat close in an area that could have been be easily traveled and what not... but in such far away places like north america, middle east, the amazonia and egypt?

In fact, you reminded me of the Egyptian cross, a sacred symbol venerated hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. It is been said that there is a reason why the catholic church hides his life from he was 12 up to when he turned 30. I've read many theories about it: from being in contact with the ancient egyptian religious traditions -which sounds credible, especially after he spent part of his childhood on said land- up to the India traveling theory, in which he allegedly spent many years studying philosphical and religious stuff over there. They say that he might have ever been in contact with the primitive forms of Buddhism.

Speculations, of course. But interesting ones nevertheless.

For someone that doesn't believe in coincidences, this is indeed an interesting starting point for a discussion -or a brain storm, some would say.

Anima XI
12-30-2009, 01:49 AM
^ These might interest you.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

http://crystalinks.com/archetypes.html

I'm assuming that all religions borrow a little bit from older religions, in one way or another. I even remember reading something about the parallels between islam and the ancient pagan religion of Arabia. I suppose there could ancient universal symbols that have been embedded into the "collective unconscious", if you believe in that type of stuff.

False Prophet
12-30-2009, 02:08 AM
I suppose there could ancient universal symbols that have been embedded into the "collective unconscious", if you believe in that type of stuff.

Cause you know, believing in some old guy that created the entire universe and picked us specifically to be his children makes so much more sense. ;)

Anima XI
12-30-2009, 02:29 AM
^ Lol, yes, I suppose. Of course, I believe in God, but more as a "force" or "all-encompassing energy" than the stereotypical bearded guy in the sky. And the idea that only we are his "children" is kind of ridiculous to me, seeing as how the universe is so amazingly large and there is probably life elsewhere.

21Faces
12-30-2009, 02:50 AM
I wasn't aware the idea of a collective unconscious was still up for debate, but I certainly view it as a more plausible explanation for similarities in architecture and mythology between the Mexica and Egyptians than actual contact across history and geography. We are all human beings in spite of geographic location, culture, and race.

Take human sexuality, for instance- and the spiritual and social implications of the reproductive process. We are physically born out of our mothers. So the bond between a child and his mother is a physical, tangible thing. It's supremely knowable, by the mother, by the child, by their family, by their community. There is no ambiguity. But the bond between a child and his father is far more ephemeral (at least in the days before in vitro, DNA testing, sperm banks, etc). A man had to claim his children. Children in history could not know a connection with their fathers in the same certain way they could with their mothers. So the "search" for the father is the same as the search for our own identities, and in the roots of history- as the connection with the father is a matter of faith, the search for the father parallels the search for God.

And out of this collective human experience- falling out of all our mothers' respective vaginas, we see people inevitably generating similar ideas about virgin births, purifying floods, personifications of good and evil, balance, sacrifice, substitutional atonement, salvation through ritualized cannibalism, etc. I don't think it necessitates that there be some concrete coherent "foundation," one "first religion" from which all others are derived. I find the idea somewhat uninteresting. These similarities arise out of our common human experience, outgrowths of a universal psychology. These ideas mean more to us specifically because they didn't sprout from a single, identifiable "seed" in history.

The idea of "God" is simply one more concept in a vast lexicon of knowledge that comprises the spiritual framework through which we try to understand the human experience. I don't really see any point in trying to reconcile God with "science," as God has no more place in our mechanical understanding of the universe than karma, sin, or salvation. Can you predict salvation? Measure karma? Plot sin along a trajectory? Not really so much. But I guess in the end trying to reason out the physical implications of some "Old Man in the Sky" actually watching everyone, pulling strings, etc. is just too tempting to our human minds. Although... now I guess the more popular image is some... effervescent ocean of "eternal universal awesomeness" that permeates and transcends all life in the universe- it's definitely a step forward from the Old Man in the Sky. Personally, I don't give God much thought anymore. Human beings are certainly interesting enough- it is still fun to think about, I guess.

Funndeath
12-30-2009, 07:24 AM
^ These might interest you.
http://crystalinks.com/archetypes.html

Interesting link, thanks. Though they had their ideas about kundalini and Vishnu a little mixed up (he is NOT half fish half man)


I wasn't aware the idea of a collective unconscious was still up for debate, but I certainly view it as a more plausible explanation for similarities in architecture and mythology between the Mexica and Egyptians than actual contact across history and geography. We are all human beings in spite of geographic location, culture, and race.

Take human sexuality, for instance- and the spiritual and social implications of the reproductive process. We are physically born out of our mothers. So the bond between a child and his mother is a physical, tangible thing. It's supremely knowable, by the mother, by the child, by their family, by their community. There is no ambiguity. But the bond between a child and his father is far more ephemeral (at least in the days before in vitro, DNA testing, sperm banks, etc). A man had to claim his children. Children in history could not know a connection with their fathers in the same certain way they could with their mothers. So the "search" for the father is the same as the search for our own identities, and in the roots of history- as the connection with the father is a matter of faith, the search for the father parallels the search for God.

And out of this collective human experience- falling out of all our mothers' respective vaginas, we see people inevitably generating similar ideas about virgin births, purifying floods, personifications of good and evil, balance, sacrifice, substitutional atonement, salvation through ritualized cannibalism, etc.

I always found the idea of a collective unconscious really interesting. I remember in school we studied Jungian archetypes - The Mother, the Wise man, The Child, The Hero. I always liked the idea, it's pretty simple really, we're all connected by our humanity and there are certain experiences and perceptions that are common to us by virtue of being humans. Our societies use these archetypes and our environment to try and explain human existence and the world around us. Magic and attempts at controlling the world around us is also a big part of religion, hence shamans and wise men are needed. Also, it's interesting that all origin myths presume the existence of some sort of universe, they are more like origin myths of particular society. I sort of lost my track....
I like what you said about the search for the father paralleling the search for god.
I somehow can't bring myself to believe in god. In any form. But, I found this quite an appealing concept. It's the Advaita Vedanta philosophy:
"Brahman is knowledge"
"The Self (or the Soul) is Brahman "
"I am Brahman"
"Thou art that"
"All this that we see in the world is Brahman",
"Brahman is existence, consciousness, and bliss".

Anima XI
12-30-2009, 11:28 PM
I wasn't aware the idea of a collective unconscious was still up for debate, but I certainly view it as a more plausible explanation for similarities in architecture and mythology between the Mexica and Egyptians than actual contact across history and geography. We are all human beings in spite of geographic location, culture, and race.

Take human sexuality, for instance- and the spiritual and social implications of the reproductive process. We are physically born out of our mothers. So the bond between a child and his mother is a physical, tangible thing. It's supremely knowable, by the mother, by the child, by their family, by their community. There is no ambiguity. But the bond between a child and his father is far more ephemeral (at least in the days before in vitro, DNA testing, sperm banks, etc). A man had to claim his children. Children in history could not know a connection with their fathers in the same certain way they could with their mothers. So the "search" for the father is the same as the search for our own identities, and in the roots of history- as the connection with the father is a matter of faith, the search for the father parallels the search for God.

And out of this collective human experience- falling out of all our mothers' respective vaginas, we see people inevitably generating similar ideas about virgin births, purifying floods, personifications of good and evil, balance, sacrifice, substitutional atonement, salvation through ritualized cannibalism, etc. I don't think it necessitates that there be some concrete coherent "foundation," one "first religion" from which all others are derived. I find the idea somewhat uninteresting. These similarities arise out of our common human experience, outgrowths of a universal psychology. These ideas mean more to us specifically because they didn't sprout from a single, identifiable "seed" in history.

The idea of "God" is simply one more concept in a vast lexicon of knowledge that comprises the spiritual framework through which we try to understand the human experience. I don't really see any point in trying to reconcile God with "science," as God has no more place in our mechanical understanding of the universe than karma, sin, or salvation. Can you predict salvation? Measure karma? Plot sin along a trajectory? Not really so much. But I guess in the end trying to reason out the physical implications of some "Old Man in the Sky" actually watching everyone, pulling strings, etc. is just too tempting to our human minds. Although... now I guess the more popular image is some... effervescent ocean of "eternal universal awesomeness" that permeates and transcends all life in the universe- it's definitely a step forward from the Old Man in the Sky. Personally, I don't give God much thought anymore. Human beings are certainly interesting enough- it is still fun to think about, I guess.

Very interesting thoughts, 21Faces.

I like your ideas about connections between the father and child, and the mother and child. That's probably why I can relate more easily to the earth-based religion's idea of having a Goddess as the primary deity, and the God as her "consort" or partner. It makes more sense that the Universe would be born out of either an androgynous or female entity, rather than the Abrahamic interpretation of God the Father. There's definitely a more significant connection one has with their mother though, I mean, for 9 months you're actually physically attached by a cord; I've found that the image of the umbilical cord, in a way, parallels the metaphysical "silver cord" theory, that is, that every person's spiritual (or astral) body is joined to their physical body with a silver cord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_cord

The part where you were talking about how the human experience inspires religious symbols and stories really does make sense, I hadn't really considered that. I agree with Funndeath, it reminds of the Jungian ideas of collective unconscious, archetypes, and the subconscious. The way I see it, it wouldn't be a huge surprise to me if they could prove that all human minds are somehow linked. It would explain why some people have the exact same dreams in the same night (that's happened with me before!)


Interesting link, thanks. Though they had their ideas about kundalini and Vishnu a little mixed up (he is NOT half fish half man)

I always found the idea of a collective unconscious really interesting. I remember in school we studied Jungian archetypes - The Mother, the Wise man, The Child, The Hero. I always liked the idea, it's pretty simple really, we're all connected by our humanity and there are certain experiences and perceptions that are common to us by virtue of being humans. Our societies use these archetypes and our environment to try and explain human existence and the world around us. Magic and attempts at controlling the world around us is also a big part of religion, hence shamans and wise men are needed. Also, it's interesting that all origin myths presume the existence of some sort of universe, they are more like origin myths of particular society. I sort of lost my track....
I like what you said about the search for the father paralleling the search for god.
I somehow can't bring myself to believe in god. In any form. But, I found this quite an appealing concept. It's the Advaita Vedanta philosophy:
"Brahman is knowledge"
"The Self (or the Soul) is Brahman "
"I am Brahman"
"Thou art that"
"All this that we see in the world is Brahman",
"Brahman is existence, consciousness, and bliss".

You're welcome =)

That philosophy sounds wonderful.

Whisky And Speed
05-03-2012, 06:32 AM
God? what God?

ThreeEyedGod
05-03-2012, 08:10 AM
The perceived notion that science and God are incompatible has always struck me as odd. As a believer myself, it seems most obvious that God is just the "ultimate scientist".

Whisky And Speed
05-03-2012, 09:08 AM
The perceived notion that science and God are incompatible has always struck me as odd. As a believer myself, it seems most obvious that God is just the "ultimate scientist".

Right, all respect to you and your views brother.I just wanna ask, is evolution theory compatible with what we call God?

ThreeEyedGod
05-03-2012, 09:11 AM
Right, all respect to you and your views brother.I just wanna ask, is evolution theory compatible with what we call God?

Yes

Whisky And Speed
05-03-2012, 09:12 AM
Elaborate more please.

thanks,

ThreeEyedGod
05-03-2012, 09:47 AM
There isn't too much to expand upon:

God created the process of evolution.

DominikT88
05-03-2012, 01:14 PM
I believe in God too.

In danish the word God, pronounced "goij"
means "good"... It means all that is good inside you and around you. Anyway thats how I think about it.

I also believe in healing and that humans have chakras .

Golden Eel
05-03-2012, 04:10 PM
I have never understood the attempt to define 'God' as something like 'good' or 'the universe' or 'love' or whatever other things people ascribe to the word. Why not just call those things their respective names? When someone says, 'I believe in God.' and what they really mean is 'I believe in good.', then it's awfully misleading as there is already a commonly used definition for 'God'. Plus, it kind of makes the word 'God' so stretched thin that it becomes meaningless.

I hate that the God-concept is so ingrained in most every culture. It means that people who don't believe in a god have to try and fill that hole with whatever meaningless abstract concept they can think of, like the aforementioned 'good'. Why does the concept of a God even need to exist? Is this a psychological thing or a social thing? I wonder if people raised in a hard-atheistic society, which knew what we know today scientifically, would still have this 'God-hole' that needs filling, since in that society there would be no deity stories drilled into their heads from birth.

Whisky And Speed
05-03-2012, 04:20 PM
I have never understood the attempt to define 'God' as something like 'good' or 'the universe' or 'love' or whatever other things people ascribe to the word. Why not just call those things their respective names? When someone says, 'I believe in God.' and what they really mean is 'I believe in good.', then it's awfully misleading as there is already a commonly used definition for 'God'. Plus, it kind of makes the word 'God' so stretched thin that it becomes meaningless.

I hate that the God-concept is so ingrained in most every culture. It means that people who don't believe in a god have to try and fill that hole with whatever meaningless abstract concept they can think of, like the aforementioned 'good'. Why does the concept of a God even need to exist? Is this a psychological thing or a social thing? I wonder if people raised in a hard-atheistic society, which knew what we know today scientifically, would still have this 'God-hole' that needs filling, since in that society there would be no deity stories drilled into their heads from birth.

Very well said thank you.

All respect to my fellow believers. However, i wanna ask them,is the notion of god supported by evidence or you just believed it because your surrounding society do believe in it or because it is just in your head or because you encountered it in your life?

As for me, I can't believe in something that isn't scientifically or physically at least or even philosophically supported.

Wanna hear more from you if you will.

thanks,

ThreeEyedGod
05-03-2012, 11:48 PM
^ yeah, it's all in my head.

sayyosin
05-04-2012, 12:06 AM
This question can be viewed and answered in different ways, but one of them must be empirical because we are talking about the nature of reality and thus makes it a scientific question. For me, the probability of god(s) existing is less than the probability of their non-existence. I came to this conclusion after realizing the lack of evidence for the god hypothesis. After gaining further knowledge in sciences like Physics and Biology, I began to better understand life and my perception of reality expanded way beyond my early evangelical Christian years. I saw no reason to believe in these claims that I've been taught my whole life; this belief that there is a personal god that we can talk to and loves us eternally. It's like if I were to tell you there's a jealous, yet loving unicorn behind your back that disappears every time you turn around. After a while, you question the importance of believing that idea when the idea itself just doesn't make much sense to you.

As for an impersonal, "cosmic" being that's responsible for putting everything into constant and guiding the process of evolution...well...

Who created it? Where did it come from? Do we know if the process of nature has to be guided? Do we know if there is only one universe that one god created, or could it be multiple gods who created many universes? Maybe just one god and multiple universes?

These are all questions you can't answer. No one can. It makes further thought stagnant because these are impossible queries about an impossible hypothesis unless proven otherwise. For me, gods don't have to exist for life to exist, and I accept the uncertainty of reality.*

*Though I think many scientists have a better grasp of what that reality is in comparison to religious theists.

DrClitoris
05-29-2012, 05:15 AM
Why do you think that humans and especially Aztecs lived on Pangea. Seriously?