Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)

1. I think that could be worked into a sort of process-theology framework.

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Fri Mar 2, 2012, 11:54 AM

Mar 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Universal Attractor: a concept of god that emerges from Chaos Theory [View all] GliderGuider Mar 2012 OP

I think that could be worked into a sort of process-theology framework. Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #1

Yes, the attractor in my example looks a lot like Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point" GliderGuider Mar 2012 #4

Reminiscent of Terrence McKenna's Novelty Theory and The Transcendental Object at the End of Time bananas Mar 2012 #14

Not just "reminiscent" - that's exactly what I'm talking about. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #15

It is indeed nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #36

Irrelevant, really dmallind Mar 2012 #2

Yes, it's not an Abrahamic sky-daddy-god. The capital G is simply force of habit. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #5

As long as you are stuck on defining God as a person or a being or an entity you are right nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #37

So gawd exists, but nobody will ever know because the end is the end. tridim Mar 2012 #3

It's just an idea to play around with. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #6

I remember a great quote from Einstein about how Voice for Peace Mar 2012 #7

Vacuum fluctuations tama Mar 2012 #18

What is a living universe? rug Mar 2012 #10

The one you're living in? nt GliderGuider Mar 2012 #11

I live in a house. It's not alive. Couuntry? Nope. dmallind Mar 2012 #12

You know there are theoretical physicists who disagree with that nonconscious viewpoint? GliderGuider Mar 2012 #13

Electrons are friendly tama Mar 2012 #16

They only wave when they're feeling "particularly" friendly... GliderGuider Mar 2012 #20

Conscious quarks? Via what process? Synapses? Neurons? Brains? dmallind Mar 2012 #23

It's nice when one leaves room to be surprised later on. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #24

Unfortunately (perhaps), reality does not change based on our interest level. dmallind Mar 2012 #29

It doesn't? Again the physicists would demur. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #31

A friend tama Mar 2012 #33

Academic criteria tama Mar 2012 #17

It still has to satisfy them. Rock is definitively not alive. dmallind Mar 2012 #22

Do things need to be biologically "alive" to be conscious? GliderGuider Mar 2012 #25

Yes. Of course they do. What a strange question. dmallind Mar 2012 #28

Perhaps it would generate a little more respect for the world we live in. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #30

Can you tama Mar 2012 #32

In phyics, philosophy and process theology Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #38

Unhelpful and unapplicable muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #8

Maybe so. "Attractor" is the closest thing I've found to the concept I'm looking for. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #9

And tama Mar 2012 #19

I agree with you and muriel on your objections GliderGuider Mar 2012 #21

Weighing on the matter tama Mar 2012 #34

:-) GliderGuider Mar 2012 #35

I don't see how this makes the initial state inevitable (if I understand what you're saying). Jim__ Mar 2012 #26

"Reality" almost certainly bears no resemblance to anything I said. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #27