From: BIll Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Fri Mar 29 2002 - 15:13:23 MST
First I've been in Las Vegas for training over the last week, I was not ignoring the thread. Second - my apologies then, I
thought you said in an earlier post that you did not believe that time was a real thing. I'm not gonna try to hunt it down,
I'll take your word for it
In response to your apologies thread - don't apologize, I don't think anyone is angry with you - I'm not. I do think however
that you are being a little obstinate - which is ok - we all are at times.
However, the thread is getting old, so this is my last post on the subject.
The concepts of god were unarguable created by man thousands of years ago. These people did not know why it rained, the wind
blew or the grass was green. What we know is fact is that these people created the concepts of god that are circulated even
today and guide the religions of today.
We also know many of the reasons for creating god concepts - fear, power, confusion, emotional security - the same reasons that
exist today, and the same ailments that the concept tries to cure.
Now - if you are going to base your god notion on the inventions of then, with people who had less than a billionth of the
powers of discovery that we have today, then to say that we cannot disprove the god notion is just silly. Unless of course you
are willing to accept, Zeus, Hera, purple nurples, Quezquotle (sp), Odin, etc... as equal possibilities.
But I think you are taking a different approach. One that ignores the origins of the concept. In that case, you are arguing
that our puny powers of discovery are simply insufficient to discover the reality of a god. Someone else mentioned a similar
idea, that as time has passed, our abilities to perception have grown, and that we may be able at some time to perceive god.
Well I say poppycock!!! It's downright incorrect to say that our ability to perceive has grown any over the last 70,000 years
at least. I doubt that ability has changed in even a much longer time, maybe 150,000 years. We have the same hardware as we had
then. What has changed is not our ability to perceive, but our ability to create tools that bring more information into our
current abilities. We see, hear, taste, touch and feel just like we always have. I wouldn't expect these things to change,
short of cybernetic or genetic alteration in several lifetimes.
All that has changed is our invention, our skills. And every single leap we make, every time we look further or smaller, or
develop better and better mathematical descriptions of the Universe, the concepts of preceding generations look less and less
plausible. As observation shows us more and more detail, more and more of the several thousand year old concepts show
themselves to be what most of us here, and in the scientific community think they are - the imaginings of an animal with great
powers of thought but no information. The brain will fill the voids for us - and gods, among other things, are the results of
this need to "fill the void". This is why I suggested to you that you wanted a god to exist. As knowledge takes us further and
further from the god concept, you are left with the void, the question that "maybe there is more that we can't see - and it's a
god". But, if you look at the road map of human discovery, there can be no reconciliation with an all powerful god, heaven,
hell, angels and demons. The road we are taking is leading the opposite direction. A god cannot be all powerful - that violates
the 2nd law. but All powerful is a part of almost all god concepts. We can see 14 billion light years into space - and
everywhere we look we get the same thing, the Universe makes sense, and works in a predictable and knowable manner. When we
make new discoveries, they always, without exception, fall into the current explanations of nature that we have discovered.
Occasionally there is some quirk, or something that goes unexplained until other fields of knowledge catch up, but never, ever
has the road turned to supernatural explanations.
Best to you
Bill
athe nonrex wrote:
> [Bill Roh]
> The qaballa, by what you said, occupies
> >no time - therfore it does not exist other than as a concept. But you said that you weren't even sure if time existed. So,
> >existence is predicated occupying time. But time might not itself exist - I can see your confusion.
>
> [athenonrex]
> what are you talking about? i just recently argued that time *does*
> exist.
>
> "time as we precieve it is the costent change of matter, events
> and circumstance."
>
> or something along those lines.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> --->Get your free email @godisdead.com
> Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Run a small business? Then you need professional email like you@yourbiz.com from Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net?tag
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT