I like the, "immutable laws that govern the Cosmos" god of Sagan.
And the "music of the spheres" god of Einstein, Kaku and Dawkins
I like thevpantheist god of the Zen Buddhist, natives and pagans.
I love the Logos god of the Stoics and the Genius god of the Epicureas and Socrotes's daemon.
All the same.
Turns out the Taoists had it right all along, the Tao is the balance beteeen opposites.
Dark Energy/Dark Matter=God Particle^2
Yin/yang=Tao



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2017 01:16AM by koriwhore.

Yes, to all of the above.

"There is no one great truth--it's all true."
--Earnest Hemingway

Since, from the evidence we have, all 'gods' are made-up (yes, that includes yours)...no.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since, from the evidence we have, all 'gods' are
> made-up (yes, that includes yours)...no.


Words are "made up" including yours, including the word, god, as in, "God Particle" I find them meaningful. You dont get to decide their meaning for others.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Words are "made up" including yours, including the
> word, god, as in, "God Particle"

Yes, they are.

> I find them
> meaningful. You dont get to decide their meaning
> for others.

I didn't make any mention of "meaning." That you may find them meaningful doesn't, just like with words, change the fact that they're made up.

I'm quite happy to subjectively snicker at 'worship' of a particle/field, though. Or calling it 'god.' 'Cause that's funny. :)

Talk to the Nobel Prize winning Physicist who named it the God Particle, for a good reason.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talk to the Nobel Prize winning Physicist who
> named it the God Particle, for a good reason.

Gee, I'd like to, but there's no such person.

The "Nobel Prize Winning Physicist" called it the "goddamn particle." It was an editor who shortened that to the "god particle."

"As some of you may know, The God Particle is the title of a popular science book by Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman, who was Fermilab's director for many years and thus my boss when I was a postdoctoral fellow there. According to Leon, he wanted to call the book The Goddamn Particle because nobody could find the thing. However, his editor discouraged him from the title, suggesting that The God Particle would sell many more copies. This is the story that Leon tells us."

- Marcelo Gleiser



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2017 11:26AM by ificouldhietokolob.

How interesting. I had no idea. Thanks for enlightening me today. I felt the spirit.

There's a lot more to it than that one liner.

Keep reading.

Start on Page 23.
"The Tower and the Accelerator"

“And the whole universe was many languages, and of many speeches.
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Waxahachie, and they dwelt there. And they said to one another, Go to, let us build a Giant Collider, whos collisions may reach back to the beinning of time. And they had superconducting magnets for bending, and protons had they for smashing.
And the Lord came down to see the accelerator, which th children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold the people are unconfounding my confounding. And the Lord sighed and said, Go to, let us go down, and there give them the God Particle so that they may see how beautiful is the universe I have made. – The Very New Testament, 11:1

https://books.google.com/books?id=-v84Bp-LNNIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=Babel&f=false

Now that's some scripture that I could read every day.
I know the God(damn) particle is true with every fiber of my being.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a lot more to it than that one liner.

There's more that people have *made up,* but that's not actually "more to it."

Anyway, your claim was that a Nobel Prize Winning physicist named it the "god particle."
That's false.

Your claim was that he did it for "good reasons."
Also false.
An editor gave it that moniker -- to sell more books.

It's not a 'god particle,' and particles aren't 'god.'
You can of course think they are if you want...doesn't change reality.

I might whimsically/poetically call my morning cup of coffee "ambrosia of the gods."
But it's still just coffee.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2017 11:50AM by ificouldhietokolob.

I get it. You find any and all concepts snd definitions of the word, "god" completely meaningless.
Is it ok if the rest of us, who are decidedly NOT atheist, don't?

I say go for it, create as much something out of nothing as you can, and praise ghawd that you're not being charged by the word. As for the weight, it runs from ineffable (which I think was my first wife's goal) to soul crushing.

I never said you couldn't. In fact, I specifically said you had every right to do so.

However, when in support of your belief you mis-represent science, scientists, and the statements of other people...I'm gonna take issue. And I don't really care if that's OK with you or not :)

Instead of saying there is "no evidence," Hie, I suggest that you postulate it as, "there is no evidence that I find sufficiently convincing." As I stated in another post, I think you are over-generalizing to the point of universalizing your personal lack of belief. Spirituality involves faith, which I liken to a "string theory for the soul," something which we discern not by empirical validation but by extrapolation.

BTW, I gather you, also, were a no-show at the Global Atheist Convention (theme: "A Reason for Hope"):

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23590/global-atheist-convention-called-reason-hope-amanda-prestigiacomo

Salman Rushdie! Dawkins! Atheist comics!! A chance to find "hope" for us human "scum on a medium-sized planet!" (Dawkins) Boy, did you miss out! :)

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Instead of saying there is "no evidence," Hie, I
> suggest that you postulate it as, "there is no
> evidence that I find sufficiently convincing."

I'll pass on your suggestion. I don't find it accurate.

> Spirituality
> involves faith, which I liken to a "string theory
> for the soul," something which we discern not by
> empirical validation but by extrapolation.

Yes, I'm aware that spirituality involves "faith." Which, as you yourself point out, isn't "empirical validation." It doesn't involve evidence. And I'd disagree that it's "extrapolation." Nothing intrinsically wrong with the "hope" behind "faith" -- but it ain't evidence. So...I'll continue to pass on your suggestion. :)

> BTW, I gather you, also, were a no-show at the
> Global Atheist Convention (theme: "A Reason for
> Hope"):

I was busy :)

I came up with a no-meaningful ghawd after mormonism; although I do seem to be in awe of The Bell Shaped Curve, but that is completely random, and completely unaware of the good or harm it does.

WTF

They may not be gods, per se, but some Daedric princes have gotten my attention. Some of them are probably on par with Cthulhu.

The power within DNA

I found my "higher power" within myself. It occurred to me that every time I prayed for god to deliver me from some terrible situations, he/she/it never came through. I realized that it was my own fortitude that got me through and out of those situations. So that's my sub for god. If I need strength or wisdom, I look inside myself, haul myself up by my boot straps, and power through whatever the challenge is.

applesauce

Zen Buddhism does not believe in a "God," pantheistic or otherwise. It explicitly posits that God/gods are illusory and that they, like us, have no ultimate existence.

There is nothing in Taoism that says the Tao is the balance between opposites. Have you ever read the two Taoist texts--the Daodejing by Laozi and the Zhuangzi? If so, please point me to the doctrine that you ascribe to that school of thought.

The same goes for Zen Buddhism. Show me the passages in the original documents that describe a pantheistic God.

Otherwise, just describe your own personal religion. It should stand honestly on its own tenets.

I came up with a more meaningful life.

Excellent.

I hope we all achieve that, as you and Koriwhore have. I am sure that is everyone's aspiration.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the, "immutable laws that govern the
> Cosmos" god of Sagan.

Saying that laws govern the cosmos is a misunderstanding of the laws. They are simply descriptions of what happens. Not that they are required to happen that way, just that they happen that way every time.

> And the "music of the spheres" god of Einstein,
> Kaku and Dawkins

I'm confused.

> I like thevpantheist god of the Zen Buddhist,
> natives and pagans.

Two things. Good for you. What?

> I love the Logos god of the Stoics and the Genius
> god of the Epicureas and Socrotes's daemon.

This is an unbearable word salad. Logos is the philosophy of argument. Genius and daemon is duality not god.

> All the same.

Not at all the same.

> Turns out the Taoists had it right all along, the
> Tao is the balance beteeen opposites.
> Dark Energy/Dark Matter=God Particle^2
> Yin/yang=Tao

Another word salad.


I have no doubt that you draw strength from this alliance of duality and pantheism. What I don't understand is your insistence in marrying various philosophies and then justifying your belief with an eclectic salad of opposing points of view. Own your beliefs, there is no need to justify them and you loose in the effort.

By the way, I'd kind of like a bibliography in your posts.

I love you koriwhore and what you say.

For me, God kinda went out with the bathwater. Not that I wanted it that way. I miss praying for things...Now days, I feel like god is a myth just like JS and his krap fiction book. I want to be thankful for things, but who to thank?

Big guy in the sky left orbit.......

Yes i did.

However does my new 'God' met all of the God criteria - that i'm not sure of since whatever 'God' i don't think has ever been explicitly defined.

In an ironic sense i don't think Mormonism - or at least it's sources like Thomas Dick etc, were too far off the mark in some respects.

The convergence between abiogenesis, evolution, and theology strikes me as fascinating, since out of 'nothing' comes life, out of life comes intelligence, and out of intelligence over Billenia comes omniscience - or as near to it as can be imagined.

The big concern i have is not, whether all of the above follows in an Aristotelian sense, but the Fermi Paradox. That may yet prove to be the fatal flaw in the idea of an evolved 'God', be that being biological or bio-originated.

I don't think in terms of gods anymore.

Oh, yes.

God needed to strip Mormonism from my life to in order for me to be able to gain some needed insights into a broader concept of what godhood exemplifies to me.

Mormonism is practiced idolatry. Of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, its modern day false prophets, and worship of self. I regard it now as more of a prosperity gospel, but not the gospel as recorded biblically.

^^^
Yes, I did.