Religion

dmallind

(10,437 posts)

2. Irrelevant, really

Fri Mar 2, 2012, 12:04 PM

Mar 2012

In what way is it a god? How can it be redefined as big G Biblegod at all? (the majuscule makes it specific not generic) Even if we give the label a special remit to be applied to anything we choose, how does applying it to an attractor tell us anything at all about God, our relationship to it, or any other "great question" any more than does applying the label to a grain of sand or a pulsar or King Zog of Albania?

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