Epicurus on God
- Thread starter Gabfly1
- Start date
..or we could just "worship" the scientists. 
God is just a name and as I am close to Kabalistic, Pythagorean thinking only refers to our limited human intelligence to something of an order and power of Nature which is permeated throughout the universe. Later people, clergy and others decided that this life-force the Chinese refer to as Chi, should have humanoid characteristics and become external to our human existence (typical western deity form). In reality this force is never external to us but it exists within all thing animate or inanimate. In this sense we have all the characteristics of god in our higher self. This is why some say...
Namaste (I see the god in you) which is a beautiful things to acknowledge...
-Namaste
God is just a name and as I am close to Kabalistic, Pythagorean thinking only refers to our limited human intelligence to something of an order and power of Nature which is permeated throughout the universe. Later people, clergy and others decided that this life-force the Chinese refer to as Chi, should have humanoid characteristics and become external to our human existence (typical western deity form). In reality this force is never external to us but it exists within all thing animate or inanimate. In this sense we have all the characteristics of god in our higher self. This is why some say...
Namaste (I see the god in you) which is a beautiful things to acknowledge...
-Namaste
Quote from Gabfly1:
Does that mean we are going to have multiple mini-gods (demigods?) running around? Whom to worship?!
Okay, that's an interesting and thought-provoking post. It does not seek to supplant science and does not cause one to seek guidance or empathy from an old book of questionable origin. It is not a substitute for judgment or thinking. It doesn't ask the poor to pay for the construction of gaudy edifaces. And it doesn't effectively adopt an "us vs. them" view of the world. I can live with it.
Scientists didn't create "mini big bangs." Not even close because the universe didn't form from the collision of lead ions at near the speed of light. What they did was attempt to recreate some conditions that are believed to have existed just after the Big Bang.
âUntil man duplicates a blade of grass, Nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge.â
âUntil man duplicates a blade of grass, Nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge.â
===============
Well actually i seldom call him God, even though you correctly spelled his name.
I prefer LORD of Hosts, & Prince of Peace/Jesus Christ;
Hosts means in Hebrew, angel armies........................
The Message Bible translates it that way;
LORD of Angel Armies.
Speaking of Prince of Peace;
he taught his diciiples to pray''deliver us from evil''
Wrong on both counts. You prove your STUpidity yet again.
Big Bang isn't a euphemism, you moron. A euphemism is an inoffensive term or expression substituted for one that is offensive.
And the Big Bang isn't a term "for conditions understood to have existed just after a singularity." It's a term for the event that is believed to have led to the formation of the universe. Which absolutely did not happen by colliding lead ions.
Why don't you get an education or do something to improve your life? Spewing nonsense on ET won't get you anywhere.
Big Bang isn't a euphemism, you moron. A euphemism is an inoffensive term or expression substituted for one that is offensive.
And the Big Bang isn't a term "for conditions understood to have existed just after a singularity." It's a term for the event that is believed to have led to the formation of the universe. Which absolutely did not happen by colliding lead ions.
Why don't you get an education or do something to improve your life? Spewing nonsense on ET won't get you anywhere.
By your own definition then, Big bang is a euphemism. It's an inoffensive term replacing "God did it", which of course is highly offensive to the intellect.
Big Bang whether you like it or not, is also a figure of speech for scientific explanations of events which are understood to have occurred at the earliest moments in time. Big Bang is in the main, a cosmological model, which includes big bang expansion, not a single event.
So how come you suddenly know what "absolutely did not happen".?
You soon start foaming at the mouth should some science even merely suggest how thing are.
Making mini big bangs, with lead ions or not, produces the same conditions that would have been present at the start of the universe immediately following singularity according to big bang models.
May I suggest getting away from only using wiki verbatim in the hope that may make it sound like you know what you're talking about would be a smarter thing to do. That and some anger management counselling.
Grow up and stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You were totally clueless about dark matter and dark energy until I schooled you here:http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513 and even though you've changed your definition of Big Bang after I corrected you, you're still only parroting information you obviously don't understand. Because colliding lead ions did NOT create "the same conditions that would have been present at the start of the universe immediately following singularity according to big bang models." It only created SOME of the conditions that are believed to have existed. So not only are you STUpid, you're a childish troll who can't even admit you're wrong about the definition of "euphemism," let alone everything else.