(December 4, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Dooker Wrote: I would say the natural world can be considered God in this case. Why are the rules of the natural world as complex as they are? Just because? I suppose i need a better description now as you need a little more detail on how we both interpret the word god. Thats a big one though, that you think the universe is past infinite. I subscribe to the big bang, and that changes a lot of this discussion. Do you mean to say that you believe in the bb but that it has been expanding and contracting for infinity?
Spinozas God. Einstein used the word in the same way which caused much misunderstanding. I feel theres a lesson to be learnt from that.
If you consider the natural world to be natural why use the word God at all? I don't think its adequate. It contains too much baggage and is clearly not fit for purpose. Its certainly not descriptive and it clears up nothing about the universe to call it that. The only purpose of it is to assign a spirtual collective consciousness to the universe that has not at all been demonstrated and even if it had; God is not an effective or correct word.
This is really something we need to clear up if we are to communicate on the subject. Could you clearly define the entity you are picturing?
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
- Abdul Alhazred.
