Thread: (.tonC) tsixE doG seoD

As I pointed out, according to The Philosopher’s Magazine (TPM) Online’s Do-It-Yourself-Deity program, if you check only the boxes labeled “Omniscient”, “The Creator”, and “Perfectly Free”, the resulting plausibility quotient is a rather “perfect” 1.0, meaning that said God “is internally consistent and could exist in our universe”. (If you check also, “Omnipotent”, “The Sustainer”, “Eternally Existing”, or “A Personal God”, the plausibility quotient drops to 0.9)

The text goes on to say that “[B]ut they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God.”

This is where the conflict between belief in God and disbelief really lies. There is this notion that God is “all or nothing”, and that part of that includes personification. Recall, however, that the scientific origins of life, i.e. the amoeba, and other such organisms, do not have much of a persona either, however, they are, according to science, where life as it is now all originated from.

Is it so terribly hard to believe that the same concept could be true, only in a more spiritual form? That God is the ultimate amoeba? From which our ancestors all spawned, and eventually evolved into us as we are now?

There is one other thing: if you check “Omnibenevolent” as the fourth box, the plausibility quotient stays at 1.0. Now, given that God, as an amorphous mass of energy, has roughly the capacity of a modern Central Processing Unit (CPU), it doesn’t make sense that such an entity would be capable of any emotion, let alone love. However, as is widely speculated in the science-fiction genre, there arises a so-called “ghost in the machine”, so to speak, meaning that robots and other advanced machines do somehow acquire the capability for what we would recognize as human emotion: sentience, even sapience.

If we have already established that God is omniscient, then we acknowledge that it is actually sapient. Therefore, we can infer that God can discern feelings, emotions. That it can and has an amiable and protective feeling toward the universe, its asexually conceived child.

...

Note TPM’s use of pronoun in relation to God; it calls God a “she”, and only a “she”. Building on the notion that the universe is like a child, should we not then automatically graft typical feminine attributes, even somewhat, to this entity? Perhaps in lieu of analogizing the universe’s creation as a bud emerging from an asexual being, instead we should envision it as parthenogenesis, as a child indeed born from a being with feminine attributes.

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
[b]As I pointed out, according to The Philosopher’s Magazine (TPM) Online’s Do-It-Yourself-Deity program, if you check only the boxes labeled “Omniscient”, “The Creator”, and “Perfectly Free”, the resulting plausibility quotient is a rather “perfect” 1.0, meaning that said God “is internally consistent and could exist in our universe”. (If you check also, “Omnipotent”, “The Sustainer”, “Eternally Existing”, or “A Personal God”, the plausibility quotient drops to 0.9)

The text goes on to say that “ut they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God.”

This is where the conflict between belief in God and disbelief really lies. There is this notion that God is “all or nothing”, and that part of that includes personification. Recall, however, that the scientific origins of life, i.e. the amoeba, and other such organisms, do not have much of a persona either, however, they are, according to science, where life as it is now all originated from.

Is it so terribly hard to believe that the same concept could be true, only in a more spiritual form? That God is the ultimate amoeba? From which our ancestors all spawned, and eventually evolved into us as we are now?

There is one other thing: if you check “Omnibenevolent” as the fourth box, the plausibility quotient stays at 1.0. Now, given that God, as an amorphous mass of energy, has roughly the capacity of a modern Central Processing Unit (CPU), it doesn’t make sense that such an entity would be capable of any emotion, let alone love. However, as is widely speculated in the science-fiction genre, there arises a so-called “ghost in the machine”, so to speak, meaning that robots and other advanced machines do somehow acquire the capability for what we would recognize as human emotion: sentience, even sapience.

If we have already established that God is omniscient, then we acknowledge that it is actually sapient. Therefore, we can infer that God can discern feelings, emotions. That it can and has an amiable and protective feeling toward the universe, its asexually conceived child.

...

Note TPM’s use of pronoun in relation to God; it calls God a “she”, and only a “she”. Building on the notion that the universe is like a child, should we not then automatically graft typical feminine attributes, even somewhat, to this entity? Perhaps in lieu of analogizing the universe’s creation as a bud emerging from an asexual being, instead we should envision it as parthenogenesis, as a child indeed born from a being with feminine attributes.

Hmm... You've given me a lot to think about...

I'd like a little more feedback and discussion on this, if you puh-lease...:nod:

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
I'd like a little more feedback and discussion on this, if you puh-lease...:nod:

Then quit making us read sdrawkcab

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
Then quit making us read sdrawkcab

Hey, Belisarius started it.

well I'm gonna FINISH it

*wooPAH!*

^^ (gettin' serious whip sound)