God has always been there. How do you know what God is made up of?
its not why maleness can exist without famaleness, its why would, god has no need for it, he cant be classed as male unles god has a female counterpart. to label god male drags along that law, god its most likely that hasnt got a sex.
Well you can make that determination if you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, you are free to accept that. But that still doesn’t disprove God could be male. If God knows all he’d know this would cause confusion, therefore he wouldn’t have sent his son but his daughter. So here again you must Deny that Christ was the messiah. You deny alot of truths by saying that God was not male. But in denying this biblical texts you’ve accomplished nothing but Created your own opinion. In result you’ve created your own religion, an impersonal God at that.
Mother Earth is deriviative from the early religions which viewed it as a being that gave life. Gaea I believe is an early name for Mother Earth.
Earth is represented as a fertile land that gives much abundance. And besides very rare exceptions in nature only females can give birth.
Thank you, finally.
I still think it’s simply a human desire to apply our predicates to God. If He does exist, I don’t imagine he would need to be a paticular sex.
You still speak of physical laws which I agree God could create. Logical laws are different, e.g. do you think God could be exist and not exist?
What do I, myself, believe?
I don’t know what he would be made up of. How do you know God has always been there?
Why couldn’t God exist and not-exist?
I see no reason why he couldn’t.
If schroedinger’s cat and exist and not-exist, why couldn’t god do that on a grander scale?
Hmmm, OK!
Well if supposing God could exist and not exist, then the theist and the atheist both have partial truth.
Ohhhh. The foundation of a new form of agnosticism!
How exciting!
What do you suppose the implications for such a system of thought would be?
Was merely drawing out what was implicit in your suggestion. I´m glad you find your foundations amusing.
No, I was serious.
What do you suppose such a system would resemble? I think that is a fascinating new approach.
My foundations? Whatever do you mean by that Do you mean my suggestions?
I still think that you are approaching this from too anthropocentric a viewpoint.
I still disagree with the ability to exist and non-exist. But supposing it´s true, it would generate a nice compromise between theists and atheists. Yet looking closer, more bickering would probably still take place.
Whether true or not, I think agnosticism is the most reasonable stance to take.
I was simply stating how you view entailed even-ground between theists and atheists. By “What do you mean” I was asking whether you too had feelings of its implications.
How so?
I’ll take the questions in reverse order:
- How are you taking this from an anthropocentric viewpoint?
You are applying rules from this universe to God – your rules of logic only apply to this universe as we understand it. Since God exists outside of this universe, I don’t think that is a sound base to work from. On top of this, you are supposing that our understanding of the universe is sufficient to declare firm laws that a supreme being would be bound by.
- My feelings on its implications.
I don’t really know. Given how easily quantum physics has been co-opted by New Agers, and the idea of God existing/not-existing only really makes sense from a New Age take on Quantum, I’ve got to say that the idea itself is not too exciting. However, if we take it from that perspective where, “The moon appears because a mouse looks at it” then God would be real to those who create God within their own minds, and not real to those who do not produce it within their own minds. An expanded form of Pascal’s Wager, where now you get to choose the game you are betting on.
- Agnosticism is the most reasonable stance to take.
Why? Is it reasonable to believe that Elvis is alive? Is it reasonable to believe that aliens are riding in behind a comet? Is it reasonable to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? While we may never know the answer to these questions in full and the validity of the answers we provide will always be suspect because they are by-and-large unprovable, does that mean we should aknowledge the possibility of their existence? Does reason not entail a rejection of the absurd? Then why aknowledge the possibility of the absurd?
Although physical laws may vary between universes, I think one can arguably suggest that laws of logic are applicable to anything and everything. For example, if we now exist, could God bring it about that we never existed? I doubt it. He may in fact not even dwell “outside” the universe. But if we do know as little as you suggest, it thereby seems very dubious to suppose that an intelligent entity must necessarily be responsible for our existence.
Exactly, hence its lack of interest and prevalence, and supposed irreconcilability between atheists and theists. Morever Quantum Theory (if you are referring to the cat in a box being both alive and dead at the same time because its wave function being yet to collapse) is just another theory yet to be adequately proved.
A wager which can indeed be made, but would not affect objective reality.
No - because experience tells us organisms are mortal.
Yes - alien civilisastions may have developed such technology;such an idea does not contradict our known laws of physics.
No - we are aware of the properties of spaghetti and it certainly doesn´t seem likely.
Agnosticism reasonably acknowledges the possiblity of either the existence or non-existence of God; this is because it is not an absurd question. Reason entails awareness of the possible.
Actually, Quantum theory has the problem of working too well. That is one of the major critiques of it – a theory that can be used to prove just about anything is clearly flawed. But it is more than adequately supported.
That’s where you get the whole higher order theories, like Superstring, trying to reconsile Relativity with Quantum.
sigh Do I need to get into a debate with you about the scientific meaning of the word theory? I’m game for that, but it gets rather old after doing it several hundred times.
As for your assertions at the end, why doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but remain agnostic wrt God? As for the comet, good luck with Heaven’s Gate.
Also, Elvis could still be alive today, it wouldn’t be outside the span of a (albeit long) human lifetime. There are certainly people who believe he is and that his funeral was a fake. Would you rather I replaced this with Tupac? It is the same idea. If you are agnostic about the existence of God, why aren’t you agnostic on Elvis/Tupac being alive or dead?
What exactly do you wish to prove with this Quantum Theory?
Gladly spared.
Sure it could be possible; so could God. What´s the problem?
I certainly wouldn´t rule out the possibility. Nor, as I´ve already said, would I rule out the possibility of God. How is this unreasonable? What stance do you think is reasonable?
I’m not looking to prove anything with Quantum, I’m not a physicist. But I have friends who are and they’ve definately got a love-hate relationship with it.
As for your stance, hey, if you think that the FSM could be real in the same way the Christian God could be real, then we agree.
Me, I think that the chances of either being real are so remote as to not consider them. I describe myself as an atheist, specifically because any sort of image of God as represented by Western culture (and, for the most part, Eastern culture) seems patently absurd to me. I’m not going to seriously entertain the idea that maybe the FSM does exist and maybe it doesn’t, I’m quite content in saying the FSM doesn’t exist.
Nice to find some agreement 
well i definitely wouldn’t think of god as being male.
mother nature is quite a woman.