Eclectic eye

Unum, you wrote:
"Some say there is no evidence for God, Allah, dharma, etc."

Dharma is not a deity, Unum, it's a word that simply means "duty".

If you're fuzzy on Hindu deity, their "big 3" consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

'tis but a wee error, sir.

Pierre

Unum

It would be great to die peacefully in my sleep and wake up say an angel blessed with eternal bliss and happiness. If a god could give me that I would never say no. If a god cannot do things like that (“nice” things) to me I would have no need for it. If the “biggest one” is the sum total of all entities but could not touch me it would not be a god to me. So yes, I agree with you that “the biggest one” is the sum total of everything but it is not a God!

The “biggest one” is not a God because a quark is not a (sub-) god to the vibrating strings and a sub-atomic entity is not a god to the quarks and an atom is not a god to the sub-atomic entities and the molecules, cells, humans, city, state, country, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy, and finally (?) the universe are not god(s) to its “smaller one(s)”

The city is not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty and absolute truth to its inhabitants and the planet is not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty and absolute truth to the continents. Why should the universe (the biggest one?) be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty and absolute truth to its sub-entities?

By saying that the bigger one is the sum total of the smaller ones does not make it a god to the smaller one(s) – just bigger.

Finally, Unum, you say

…then, all evidence points to an atom being a god to sub atomic entities because it encompasses all these entities. If you would say that an atom in this instance would indeed be a god, then I would agree with everything you said.

But that would not be the kind of god I had in mind.

Regards from Africa

Pierre

Eclectic eye

Pierre,

From the case Unum presents I see the comparison being made between a human and the universe.

The fertilized egg could be analagous to the singularity at the start of the universe. 9 months later the baby emerges composed of approximately 6 trillion cells. In the case of the universe, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "Big Bang"!

You probably know of the analogies between atom/solar system and cell/galaxy, which reduces us to living on the surface of an electron in an atom of a molecule in a cell within the body of the universal "entity".

It was mentioned in the movie "Animal House" and I'm sure its been brought up before on this site.

(edited for spelling)

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Eclectic eye ]</p>

Pierre

Hi Eclectic eye

You said

If it was mentioned in the movie "Animal House" that I saw in the eighties with Bill Murray in the lead, it must have been said in a humorous, funny context - maybe as a dead brain joke - but I am not sure if this is the movie you are referring to.

But I knew about this analogy even as a child -

"Look at this picture of atoms and its entities - small round things spinning around each other - just like the planets in our solar system - big round things spinning around each other. What is the difference between them - except maybe their size? Could it be that we are living on a very big atom?"

I think that was my question to my older brother many moons ago. Cannot really remember what his answer was.

But coming back to Unum, I agree with you and him that there is a comparison between a human and the universe, but unlike him (not sure about you) I do not see god anywhere.

Regards from Africa

Pierre

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pierre ]</p>

Eclectic eye

Hi, Pierre,

Yes, that was the movie, only it was John Belushi who starred. The analogy was brought up when Professor Donald Sutherland got a group of his students stoned.

You wrote "...but unlike him (not sure about you) I do not see god anywhere" (I'm not sure about me either sometimes) LOL

That reminds me of another movie. It was a made for TV remake of the classic 1960 film "Inherit the Wind". There was a line in it that went
"Science looks for god. They use powerful microscopes but he's too small to see; they use powerful telescopes but he's to big to see"

Like Confucius and Buddha, I'm reluctant to discuss "god" because it really doesn't matter. In my humble opinion there are over 6 billion "religions" on Earth. How one acts, reacts and interacts with others is ones' "religion" in action. The Golden Rule is contained in all "organized religions". Therefore the Golden Rule transcends "organized religions" and in one succinct sentence describes the essence of a sound moral philosophy for relating to each other.

I see it's time to meditate on my belly button! LOL

Unum

Yes, I know that Dharma is not a deity in the traditional sense. Dharma has been defined as the basic, minute element from which all things are made. This One that I have been speaking of is also the basic, minute element from which all things are made. Also, this One that I have spoken of is singular, all-powerful and all-knowing which are some of the many characteristics of God and/or Allah. In a sense, Dharma, God and Allah (amongst many others) are equivalent names for the same principle.

Yes, but all of them combined form the supreme reality.

Peace,

Unum

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Why do we need two concepts where one will do?

Why do we need the 'universe' to be 'God'?

What's wrong with simply thinking of it as 'the universe'?

Also, the universe comprises every feature of every entity within, but only to the extent that those features are possessed by the individual entities involved.

So, if a given entity is somewhat ugly, a part of the universe is somewhat ugly--but not the universe in toto.

It's irrational to think that there is one overriding all-encompassing characteristic to the universe, when clearly this is not the case at all.

Keith.

Unum

God can do these things for you. However, because you make demands of these things you will most likely not get them. Nothing in life is free. It is something that you must work for. To have eternal life, one must be in perpetual motion. To stay in perpetual motion, one must avoid friction. The more attachements one has the more friction they generate.

Have you ever been touched by anyone or anything? If so, you have been touched by God. It might only be a part of the overall God, however it is still as if God is touching you.

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. Only the entity that encompasses all things is the One. The other entities are just parts of the overall One.

The universe - All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole
from Dictionary.com

As you can see, from its definition, the universe is everything. If the universe is everything it natually would contain any and all things that have power making it all-powerful. It would contain any and all things that have knowledge making it all-knowing. It would contain any and all things that contain might making it all-mighty. It would be the only thing that is perfect and complete making it absolute as well as containing all things that are true making it absolute truth. By being everything, we would be a part of it, it would be the only thing we know the only thing we can even attempt to comprehend. It would be what religion, philosophy and science are all trying to explain. It is universal to all of us. However, each and every one of us is unique and would likewise have a unique relative perspective on the One.

An atom is One and part of the One at the same time. It is One of many (subatomic particles) while is is also one of Many (atoms).

I'll agree that not many people think of God the way I do. But, if someone claims God is all-powerful by logical extension this God then must be all things as anything that exists has the ability to cause an effect and therefore has power. I would agree that many Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others would not agree with me categorizing God or Allah in this way. Yet, these groups often throw out the notion that God or Allah is all-powerful and by saying this it is obvious that they haven't followed it all the way through to it's logical meaning. That's my take on it.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

We certainly don't need two concepts. However, it is an inherent trait in most languages that they allow multiple words to share equivalent definitions. This is what thesaurus' are for. For example, say I have a bunch of tools on a table and I want them put into a bag. I could say "put each tool on the table into the bad", "put every tool on the table into the bag", "put all tools on the table into the bag". These sentences have equivalent meanings yet (each, every) one of them has a different word.

Again, we don't need it to be God. However, if the universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated" and God is defined as "all-powerful and all-knowing" then these are also equivalent definitions. It might not seem that way on the surface but if you logically follow them to their conclusion they are.

There is nothing wrong with this. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with simply thinking of it as 'God', as long as God is defined as a singular, all-powerful entity.

Ugly is a subjective word that is very relative to the observer using it. Also, you are picking parts, yet I am talking about the whole. If you were to see everything in the universe as ugly, then yes the universe to you would be ugly. Likewise, if you were to see everything in the universe as beautiful, then the universe would be considered beautiful.

A word such as power is more of an additive word. If you have power and I have power, combined we will have more power than either of us alone. Likewise, all of the people on earth combined have more power then either one of us alone, or even joined as we are a subset of all the people on earth. The same can be said of knowledge. There is a set of knowledge that both of us know (x) and there is a set that you know and I do not (y) and a set that I know and you do not (z). Your knowledge can be represented as (x+y), while my knowledge can be represented as (x+z). Together our knowledge is (x+y+z). Together we have more knowledge than either one of us alone.

The universe is One, that in and of iteself is all-encompassing and hardly irrational.

Peace,

Unum

Keith Russell

Unum said:
"If you were to see everything in the universe as ugly, then yes the universe to you would be ugly. Likewise, if you were to see everything in the universe as beautiful, then the universe would be considered beautiful."

Wrong.

Beautiful and ugly are comparitive evaluations. There is nothing else with which to compare 'everything', so it would be ludicrous to claim that the universe is 'ugly'.

Ugly--compared to what?

Earlier, I said:
"It's irrational to think that there is one overriding all-encompassing characteristic to the universe, when clearly this is not the case at all."

You replied:
The universe is One, that in and of iteself is all-encompassing and hardly irrational.

Unum, this is not a rebuttal. All you did is restate your original claim. That in no way comprises any sort of argument.

Keith.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>