The following (below in italics) are two pieces of an ongoing discourse on the philosophy of Man and the Universe. Due to the nature of the discourse it is hardly possible to separate the existence or non-existence of “God” from the discussion:
“Humans are all that you say, and indeed more and as I wrote, I think the psychic is much more than tarot card reading but just the twinkling of a power within. Humans are the apex of the universe, which as we know little of the universe, seems a very conceited thing to say but I take my position in that this way:
We are the apex, the cherry of the eye of God, and we are the ultimate in the universe, only just beginning to see our value as a newly un-cocooned butterfly, not because God was created in our image, to express our inner desire TO BE, but because we indeed were created in God's image, and as His beautiful children we could be no less!” Me
Response:
“And if cats were to be the self conscious, intellectual superior, and self aware creatures of the universe there is no doubt that God would be a cat.
I suppose the facts of evolution in the geological record have no bearing? How do we square those with God creating us as "His beautiful children"?
"We are the apex, the cherry of the eye of God,..." God then is a material being, to have an eye? Then if that be the case where is God? What is his/her name? What does he/she look like? This seems to create more problems and a good case for the razor of Ockham.
Lest I be accused of being a pompous ass and insulting someone again, I mean no disrespect personally, Me, but just pointing some flaws in the philosophical aspects of your comment.” CH
To be fair, it would seem that the discussion hangs on the individual or philosophical definition of “God.” One side seems to suggest a physical God – perhaps a “Zeus” figure plopping down children clearly outside natural order; the other disputes this purported or imagined claim.
Would anyone care to offer a clear definition of God so that we can put to rest whether or not such an entity exists? Is it rational to state that I don’t believe in “unknown quantity” with any degree of intellectual integrity? I don't believe in unicorns and dragons. I have never actually seen one so they are imaginary creatures. Is this a rational agrument Daniel?
References:
"God: A Definition"
"God: Wikipedia"
" God: Merriam-Webster"
1 comment:
Philosophically rational, there is evidence against God either.
But Realism is the counter relativism. I tend to be a relaist. It is not just a matter of "opinion" but how that opinion motivates one to a view of seeing large or small.
Post a Comment