Who is your God? (or not)

[Guille]

this was really a beutiful way of clarifying the actual problem and i wud like to congratualte u for this.

what i feel God is all that part of the universe that we do not know yet but which still actively participate in determining the states of various systems ( the systems that we like to study ... it might be our life as well) . now wut the problem is we know some thing about the rules and working of the universe and by that knwledge we can predict its behaviour , but , we do not know everything about it. this ignorance "adds" degree of freedom to our system and makes it a little unpredictable and also lets it have a set of causally connected states even if the system is let free. we put all these uncertainties and ignorance in a single word "GOD".

Thanks a lot for your reply. Ignorance takes nowhere. Stupidity is unto the same. Stupidity takes us to a wrong place, but at least to a place, while ignorance just doesn't move you, it's like choosing between a bus which is broken or on one that goes not exactly to the place you want to. This is why I prefer to be called stupid than ignorant. That is, if atheism is stupid (as some theists say) for it is just a belief that god doesn't exist, but it's better than ignorance of believing in god.

[subversion]

...but nature is not only female (although this is possible too now). In order to reproduce both elements are necessary, so for me (and I stress this) although Gaia is womban (my word), this is only one aspect of her. If you could create the wondrousness of our environment, would you limit yourself to one gender,especially if there is no other force with the opposite gender? This doesn't make sense for me.
I think that we all will have a different version of TOE, likely because we all have a different idea of what "everything" is, so I don't know if The TOE is discoverable by one person for everyone. Mine involves harmony and is not communicable through language.

check it out, mine involves harmony too! You can communicate harmony through language, technically. Afterall, we made the word harmony to describe it right? And just because we have a definition to describe something, like the TOE, or harmony, doesn't mean we still can't ponder and fathom the meaning of it for a whole eternity!! That's how I view the appreciation aspect. It will take an eternity to fully appreciate the TOE, but it will only take a few brisk moments to describe it mathematically. Very very exciting prospect if you ask me.

ABout the nature thing, I agree with what you're saying, but I think that if you HAD to assign a gender to nature, it would be female, because females are more integral, while men are essentially derived from females. This may sound amusing, or outlandish, but I think it is sort of true in a fascinating evolutionary sense.

Allow me to explain. Not all species are sexually reproducing; some species reproduce asexually by anagenesis. Anagenesis is like when a single celled organism splits in half to make two organisms. Now no matter what, when life reproduces, whether sexually or asexually, the new progeny must always "branch off" from the old in some way or another. The sexual version of this "branching off" is called birthing. So in other words, giving birth is like a reenactment of anagensis if you will, because you have one organism branching off from another. Genetically the new organism is not identical to the parent as it would be in true anagenesis, but it still branches off from her, and thus she mimics anagenesis, but mimic is a bad word to use. At any rate, when you consider the evolution of sex, it seems that females are the species which retain the role, or duty of anagenesis, whilst men do not. Therefore women are the integral species and men are the derived species.

Now if we want to we can discuss how sex actually evolved, which is an area of some debate, but I think I might just have a good idea which further embellishes my argument. I think the hymen is what holds the key to how sex evolved because it is sort of a symbolic vestige, but vestige is a bad word to use. Maybe I should make a whole post about this in the biology section because it's one of my best theories (along with the theory of everything of course) and I should do it justice.

ps. I know this subject is a little touchy, but I think it is a very fascinating and mature subject and it's real neat to talk about. Especially with girls because they're the ones who should really know right?

[harmonygirl]

Point well taken. My radical feminist friends would be ashamed of me...I am not sure I know what you mean by sex evolving. If you post on the biology section, I will try to follow it.
About the harmony thing, I agree we can describe and define through language, but language doesn't give you the experience. I can speak about Africa, but until I was there, I couldn't tell you the way Mombassa sounded. I guess this is why I don't think that my TOE can be communicated through language. Maybe this is like God. You either apprehend it personally, or it remains an abstract concept to be subjected to logical dissection. I don't think that using logic to determine the Goddess is actually helpful. Logical thought is only part of who we are and in terms of this discussion, it seems woefully inadequate for the job at hand.

[chazzysaw]

I think in terms of the Goddess but only to address the almost exclusive male characteristics ascribed to her. I am sure the Creator would not limit him/her/it/themselves to any specific gender.

I believe in the Goddess and the female species is an example of her. You are a reflection of her. The conscious power statuates everything and everybody. How ever you see, feel, or experience your God that is what she becomes to you. How we use the power in our lives in a positive or negative way is our choice. The female experience of God is a very important aspect and suppression of it has held the human developement back thousands of years.

[chazzysaw]

What I believe in is Mother Nature and Father Time. Is that well balanced?

These are man given names that describe things that have no real gender. Why not Father Nature and Mother Time. Nature has no gender nor does time. The Conscious Power has no gender, it powers everything and everybody.

[chazzysaw]

If there was indeed a god (and this is a completely hypothetic thought universe, nothing near from reality) such as what the concept means, it would be independent of religion, of humans, of language and any other thing that is not universal.

Maybe independent of religion and language, I agree with you there, these are human developments. But humans are a result of universal development.

[Guille]

Maybe independent of religion and language, I agree with you there, these are human developments. But humans are a result of universal development.

Yes. But this is not a reversible relationship. The humans depend on the universal development (if that's what you call god), but universal development (or god) is not dependent on humans. There could have been universal development without humans, but there couldn't have been humans without universal development.

[chazzysaw]

this was really a beutiful way of clarifying the actual problem and i wud like to congratualte u for this.

what i feel God is all that part of the universe that we do not know yet but which still actively participate in determining the states of various systems ( the systems that we like to study ... it might be our life as well) . now wut the problem is we know some thing about the rules and working of the universe and by that knwledge we can predict its behaviour , but , we do not know everything about it. this ignorance "adds" degree of freedom to our system and makes it a little unpredictable and also lets it have a set of causally connected states even if the system is let free. we put all these uncertainties and ignorance in a single word "GOD".

I believe the Power is that part of the universe we know about and the part we dont. We are infants compared to what there is to know about the universe. But we know more today than we knew yesterday and we will know more tomorrow than today. In other words we keep learning and as long as we are learning we will continue to uncover God's mysteries.

[harmonygirl]

Guille,
I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that "universal development" is not dependent upon humans. Why not?

[Guille]

Guille,
I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that "universal development" is not dependent upon humans. Why not?

It is the classical 20th century thought: existentialist, humanist, anthropic principle, individualist, egocentric... I relly on Baudrillard's book "The Illusion of the End" and Maffesoli's book "The Eternal Moment". We're on confusing times. The principles I list to be 20th centuric, are not 21st centuric.