About a deity full of love and compassion

[Koldo]

I humbly request you to re-read whatever has been written. When the primeval material as known one's self, how can any blame be passed on elsewhere? And putting the blame elsewhere even unknowingly actually is blaming oneself.

It is important not to confuse a part of a whole as the whole itself. I am part of the whole, therefore i can put the blame on another part of the whole.

 

[atanu]

It is important not to confuse a part of a whole as the whole itself. I am part of the whole, therefore i can put the blame on another part of the whole.

Just as our sensual apparatus sees only the discrete matter and not its wave nature or just as the interchageabilty of matter and energy are not perceived, one sees oneself as separate from others and from the world. Man exists in state of deep sleep but not as a discrete body or as a part. Man also exists in dream as subtle light body. But irrespective of the states, the person is whole and not a part.

But this is not for the debate here.

Even considering oneself as part, any other part or the whole cannot be blamed. Because, the imprints on both sides of the coin are imprints on the whole coin.

 

[Willamena]

Is that how you wanna frame him?

Why is it I can see him in movies too?
Isn't he just a comic book character?

He is a concept. The question of existence depends on the context.

Is that how you want to frame comic book characters that appear in the movies? As somehow different from the hand-drawn form?

Concepts exist.

 

[Koldo]

Is that how you want to frame comic book characters that appear in the movies? As somehow different from the hand-drawn form?

Concepts exist.

He is certainly present in more than just hand-drawn forms, isn't he?
The question of his existence depends on the context.
If a child asks his father: "Does Santa Claus exist?", the child would surely not be asking if the concept exists or not.
This is why context is of extreme relevance.

 

[Koldo]

Even considering oneself as part, any other part or the whole cannot be blamed. Because, the imprints on both sides of the coin are imprints on the whole coin.

I don't see it as both sides of the same coin. I see the whole as a sack of coins.

 

[Willamena]

He is certainly present in more than just hand-drawn forms, isn't he?

Oh, yeah. I saw him at the mall last October.

 

[Koldo]

Oh, yeah. I saw him at the mall last October.

:angel2:

 

[atanu]

I don't see it as both sides of the same coin. I see the whole as a sack of coins.

I see many sacks, the air in between resting on the void, which has the charcteristics of Seer -- who has now assumed a greedy role seeing all those sacks full of gold coins.
:drool:

 

[Willamena]

He is certainly present in more than just hand-drawn forms, isn't he?
The question of his existence depends on the context.
If a child asks his father: "Does Santa Claus exist?", the child would surely not be asking if the concept exists or not.
This is why context is of extreme relevance.

I didn't see the edited part.

I agree that context is important. As I see it, there is no question of his existence when we take into account the context in which he exists. It's when we leave the context out that question necessarily arises: "how does he exist?" And it's also then that a particular context gets assumed (as appropriate).

 

[AntEmpire]

Here's one: New Research: The Planet's Tectonics Triggered Human Evolution

Too bad god just made people instead of them evolving...

 

[strikeviperMKII]

He is a concept. The question of existence depends on the context.

Bingo

 

[Skeptisch]

Students of the natural sciences often end up accepting Einstein’s, Sagan’s, and other reputable scientists’, God. That God is natural and without any supernatural or miraculous connotations. It simply “is” through the laws of nature and the order of the universe. No love, compassion or hocus pocus.
:magic: No design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

 

[Willamena]

Students of the natural sciences often end up accepting Einstein’s, Sagan’s, and other reputable scientists’, God. That God is natural and without any supernatural or miraculous connotations. It simply “is” through the laws of nature and the order of the universe. No love, compassion or hocus pocus.
:magic: No design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I don't think nature is nihilistic at all, and I don't think Sagan's "God" was quite so ugly ("We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.") It's quite meaningful.

 

[waitasec]

Students of the natural sciences often end up accepting Einstein’s, Sagan’s, and other reputable scientists’, God. That God is natural and without any supernatural or miraculous connotations. It simply “is” through the laws of nature and the order of the universe. No love, compassion or hocus pocus.
:magic: No design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

truth is truth... feelings are never considered

 

[atanu]

Students of the natural sciences often end up accepting Einstein’s, Sagan’s, and other reputable scientists’, God. That God is natural and without any supernatural or miraculous connotations. It simply “is” through the laws of nature and the order of the universe. No love, compassion or hocus pocus.
:magic: No design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

Skeptisch

If nature-God is devoid of love, compassion and hocus pocus, wherefrom love (or hatred) arises in many of us? Are we outside nature (or God)?

 

[Skeptisch]

I don't think nature is nihilistic at all, and I don't think Sagan's "God" was quite so ugly ("We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.") It's quite meaningful.

Why not just acknowledge that we have evolved through the laws of nature? And that we are fortunate to have reached consciousness which allows us to be the instrument for the cosmos to know itself. No unnatural Gods and “Skyhooks” (Daniel Dennett) needed, just the laws of nature (physics).

 

[Willamena]

Why not just acknowledge that we have evolved through the laws of nature? And that we are fortunate to have reached consciousness which allows us to be the instrument for the cosmos to know itself. No unnatural Gods and “Skyhooks” (Daniel Dennett) needed, just the laws of nature (physics).

Ask yourself, what role does fortune play in natural evolution? You're promoting superstition.

 

[waitasec]

Ask yourself, what role does fortune play in natural evolution? You're promoting superstition.

:clap....:bow:

 

[PolyHedral]

Skeptisch

If nature-God is devoid of love, compassion and hocus pocus, wherefrom love (or hatred) arises in many of us? Are we outside nature (or God)?

The brain.

 

[waitasec]

The brain.

why is the brain underrated?