Go to How the Universe looks from here
- Add a comment
- Go to The Passing of a God: Being Born Again
And of course, I didn't mean just those in the caption, but the whole
response!
posted by
Nautikos
on January 23, 2008 at 5:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: All right, I am just being so silly...!
'Amen' in response to these words, Ciel...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 23, 2008 at 5:46 AM
| link to this | reply
All right, I am just being so silly...!
I appreciate all the thoughts and contributions here-- I am delighted that so many people are excited by this topic,and have obviously given it some thought.
I suggest that science has the capacity, once we develop it, to create a model which may not prove the existence of God, but that God can exist within the dynamics of the Universe we live in: that God is not something necessarily seperate from those aspects of the Universe that have so far been defined and delineated by scientific method.
We are each in our own relationship with the Universe, and with God--even if it is from a vantage of disbelief and rejection of certain models of God, or of how the Universe is constructed, and how it functions. I, for one, believe that we evolve as souls, that evolution is, in fact, one of the few forces or dynamics that works well for both body and spirit. So it is easy to comprehend that we are not all at the same level of understanding or awareness, but we can all, from whatever level we have attained, feel connected to whatever our hearts tell us is true.
And, yes, there will aways by those who cling tenaceously and sometimes, sadly, violently to the familiar models they have been taught to believe in, no matter how much they defy reason, physics or joy. And there will always be those who want to prove their side of the question to the other... 
Okay, the emoticons are just fun!
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:17 PM
| link to this | reply
saul relative...
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Ciel
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: That was a beautiful read and...
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:04 PM
| link to this | reply
hagi
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Sam
posted by
Ciel
on January 14, 2008 at 9:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Good post, Ciel. Would that more people understood Jefferson as well
as you, considering how they're constantly evoking his name when they call the U.S. a
Christian nation. For those who feel there is an omniscient force out there, quantum mechanics will probably do just nicely, once they get past the illogic of virgin births and prophets leaping to heaven on horseback...
posted by
saul_relative
on January 13, 2008 at 9:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Ciel
Very rich. With respect to Einstein, the irony is that he rejected the implications of Quantum Theory that he himself had helped develop, because of his conception of God. But Einstein's work, the two Theories of Relativity, have by no means been suspended! They remain valid descriptions of the macro-world, as much as the Standard Model of Quantum Theory is a valid description of the world of particles. The problem is that there are irreconcilable differences between the Einsteinian (classical) physics and the 'new' one, and any attempts to reconcile those differences have failed, so far.
A reconciliation may, in the end, lead to a new understanding of 'God', but it won't be a God of 'Final Causes'. Of course, most of the world will remain stuck in notions of God as 'revealed' in scriptures, and I think I know why...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM
| link to this | reply
That was a beautiful read and...
...quite informative. Why do we have to prove God? And why would one have to disprove God? Is believing so wrong that it is not acceptable enough? Ciel, you keep me in awe, asking questions. I feel like I can't get enough. Keep it coming, please.
posted by
b2008
on January 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM
| link to this | reply
I remember how happy I were when I read about the particle/wave nature of light and all that stuff about impossibility to really measure the tiniest particles because you change them in process of measuring - I didn't understand (I still don't) the practical conclusions or details etc., and most likely I got it all wrong. But I felt happy because then I got proof that not everything can be proven.
To me, God is something you cannot prove. If you can prove it, then it's nature and science and physical laws, nothing more. If you can prove (at least theoretically) everything, then there is no God as I understand it. On the other hand, if you can't prove everything, then there is a space for God, and you can have him if you believe him (and if you don't at least you know that those that do believe maybe are not morons, which is good).
Or, to round it up, God (if there exists a singular God who isn't just an abstract concept without substance), he's all about credo quia absurdum est.
posted by
hagi
on January 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
attempts to explain the Universe, like attempts to define God, will always
fall far short of adequately meeting their goal.
Because both are infinite.
Thus we can only continually learn more and have our minds opened more and understand that the sum total of Human knowledge is an infinitesimal sum compared to what remains to be known. "we know in part; we see in part" (I Cor. 13).
Our task is continually to learn, and to understand that there is infinitely more to learn.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Very well composed composition. I like writing that allows the reader to make up their mind. For me, God is a spirit, and when I read the Bible I find a bit of tangible sight that keeps me connected. sam
posted by
sam444
on January 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply