Nope. You don’t get to have it both ways. If you won’t accept a picture of a living thing as representing the concept of life, then you don’t get to say that a picture of a god represents the concept of a god.
And yet many thousands of people throughout history have. There are oodles of pictures of God. That’s the point. What does that tell you about people? That perhaps people see what they want to see? Or believe what they want to believe? There is strong evidence for that here in this thread, myself included.
Exactly. There are many depictions of God; none has a monopoly on the truth. There are also many depictions of life. I prefer vast swatches of rainforest or a fetus in the womb. All I was proposing is that both God and Life are abstract nouns. It would appear you agree.
Nice. There is also this.
You have been touched by his noodly appendage, I see.
How does this pertain to your own OP, that “Life” is “God” and vice versa? And don’t tell me to see that video again-This is your thread, not his.
I wouldn’t tell you to see that video again. I’d say check out one of his books. In any event, for me, if God is Life and Life is God, it simplifies matters immensely. First, there is no need for that Catholic guilt I grew up with. Second, it doesn’t matter whether I worship or not, because we’re all going to the same place when we die. And I have no idea what that entails—probably good for worms or ashes scattered on the wind. But this thread was not created to dissect what I think; it was created to spark a discussion on a rather unorthodox idea, both in the field of religion and the field of science. And I am getting the gist of what you believe, Czarcasm. It seems you believe this is all rather silly. Correct me if I’m wrong.
It would appear that you are wrong. As I have mentioned, when I say “life”, I mean “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing evolution by natural selection.” That is not abstract–that is a description of a real, tangible thing.
Neither mainstream religion, nor science, espouses the idea that: Life=God. So how would you characterize the field of thought related to this concept?
Fiction literature?.. New-age Spirituality?.. Pseudo-Science?..
I’m sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that’s alive, but not life itself. So could I.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Probably New Age. Definitely not mainstream religion. Or mainstream science. Given the rather predictable arguments between theists and atheists (science types) that I have read in other threads on these boards, I was wondering if there was any overlap in the fields of religion and science. There’s not a lot, but both fields seem to deal with life, though they come at it from very different directions.
I haven’t forgotten, Begbert: post #248. Still thinking about it.
But you are the only one who thinks that statement is in any way pertinent, useful, meaningful, or deep.
I can take a picture of a rainbow (and have), but it is not a real, tangible thing.
The difference between abstract and concrete is not binary but continuous. 17 is abstract: you could take a picture of 17 tomatoes, but it is a picture of tomatoes, not of 17, and if you crop it, it becomes 12 tomatoes, but not a picture of 12.
Then there is x, which is abstract in a different way from 17. We can establish a fixed value for 17 + 4, but the value of 17 + x is not fixed. This does not mean that x is more abstract than 17, just abstract in a different way.
Cement is concrete. We can touch it, manipulate it, study it, take pictures of it. Wind is also in the concrete realm. We cannot take direct pictures of it, but we can study it, feel it, create it artificially. It is not less concrete than cement, just concrete in a different way.
Actions are also not abstract, but they are not quite concrete. We can take a picture (or video) of someone running, we can study running and its effects. Actions are a sort of extancy that lie on the boundary between abstract and concrete, but mostly on the concrete side.
Abstract things do not directly enter the cause-effect chain but exist outside it. Life is not abstract because it lies within the cause-effect chain. A deity might exist somewhere within the chain, or on the end of it, but so far, it has provided no evidence that it exists, no and justification for its existence. It is not even a theory but a putation that is, quite frankly, so irrelevant that it does not even qualify for being abstract.
If you want to worship life, go for it, but I would not expect life to offer you anything in return for you adoration.
Well, me and the author of the book, for starters. So that’s at least two.
Unless the author of the book said that life is an abstract that can’t be photographed and you have failed to mention that you are copying all of this from him, then the author of the book has nothing to do with it, because that is the statement that I was talking about.
As for the author, he is either an addle-minded new-age flake (like Deepack Chopra) or a cynical conman who knows how to run a lucrative con (like L. Ron Hubbard.) Either way, I have not the slightest trace of respect for him or his writing.
And that’s precisely the point: Life expects nothing from you (I really enjoyed your post, by the way). It has no commandments, no judgement, no necessity for worship or adoration. No sacred books, no sacred language, no sacred rituals. It does not require you to take sides. It has no special day of the week. There is nothing you have to offer or give up in order to be alive. Life is what you have from the second your heart starts beating until it stops at the end of your life. Some would say you are not alive until you take your first breath, but I would disagree. In fact, defining exactly when life begins is a tricky prospect because semantics don’t really do life justice. We have a pretty good idea what life is, even if we can’t exactly draw it on a chalkboard, and we certainly feel the effects of life. I don’t think there’s anyone who denies the existence of life. Maybe on other planets.
I find life fascinating. I’m sure you do too, especially when you stop to examine the beauty of nature. I also find God fascinating, but not quite the same God I grew up with. My views of God have evolved, and I see myself much more of an atheist these days. However, I’m not ready yet to abandon the concept of God as a creative force in the universe. I figure there must be something that inspires so many people throughout mankind’s history. For me, God as Life—or something like it—just works. I’m not really writing this for someone to tell me I’m wrong; I’d just like to see if anyone else has insights to offer about Life. Or God. Or both. It doesn’t matter to me if you don’t agree.
And so you have said. But why does it matter so much to you if someone else appreciates what he has to say? I think you are being a little dismissive of certain ideas that don’t fit your world view because it’s easier for you that way. Why does it matter to you what I believe? Why should it matter to me what you believe? Surely two people with differing viewpoints can still have a civil conversation.