You noticed that as well? I am getting the impression that there is some other "participant" and it isn't either of us.
I have to say yes, I am the definer of perfection--at least as far as my thoughts on it. IMO, perfect doesn't mean flawed or limited. I would not say that humans are perfect--we're full of flaws. In that sense, if there is a creator, it is either not perfect or has some odd need to watch us struggle? If there is this creator who wants us to have fellowship with it (not using gendered pronoun because I see no reason for a creator to need sex), are we only capable of understanding it if we see it as human-like? And is there a reason why the creator would not be a real physical presence that we could go and see in reality? If we weren't made to understand every motivation of this creator, can we be sure we were created for fellowship with it? Can we be sure which motivations we were meant to understand and which ones are just made up by humans (who see everything through the human perspective, which is the only perspective we have)? Please don't take me wrong--I'm not saying there is or isn't a creator. I have no answers, just questions. However, I don't follow the standard views of any religion I know of. At this point, my philosophy is (somewhat sarcastically) that the Big Bang is when God blew up and all that we are, know, see, comprehend--all that is--is the creator. I see no reason that my philosophy is any less valid that any other.
Your idea of "god blowing up" and we are all part of the "creator" is just as valid as anything that theists have to offer. In fact your concept has somewhat more validity given that our bodies comprise some of the most common elements in the universe. We are physically part of the universe so if we are sentient then that means that at least one small part of the universe itself is sentient. However the point I wanted to address was this bizarre concept of having a "fellowship" with an imaginary "creator". The term fellowship implies an association of friends who have common interests. How exactly do mere humans have anything in common with a "creator" of the universe? We are hardly in a position to have a knowledgeable discussion with said "creator" if all we have are superstitious beliefs as to what the "creator" actually did. An informed discussion of common interests would entail having a knowledge of science and the attributes of matter and energy and the concept of time dilation. It would appear as though an imaginary "creator" would have far more in common with scientists than theists and therefore be able to have a "fellowship" with the former rather than the latter.
Good points. I too struggle with the idea of "humanifying" a creator. But at the same time, can we possibly understand a creator in any other way? In general, Greek mythology starts with gods that are objects and concepts within the universe. Chaos created Mother Earth (Gaia), The Sky (Uranus), Time (Kronos), and the mountains, rivers, and oceans. They all had a role in explaining the world around us. The "second generation" of gods are more human like in their pettiness, but are still mostly monstrous in their sizes and descriptions. They too represent things found in the world, but they have more of a relationship with humans. By the time we get to the Olympians, the gods have become human in size and appearance. Their behaviors are human in all respects. The only real difference is that they have powers we don't. By the way, have you ever read Calvino's "Cosmicomics"? One of the stories had to do with the idea of a big bang as told by a particle traveling through time and space. Pretty wild stories using the idea of anthropomorphizing particles.
Calvino actually explains scientific concepts in his stories. It's been a while. I might need to re-read it.
You may have heard of the ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras? If not, the following will likely be of no interest to you either: Note that his groupie students were obviously very religious before he came along. Does this ring a bell (or ten)? Bell: an often nice-sounding but sometimes annoying metal ding-dong thing that probably originated in China about 2000 BC (like everything else Chinese, lol) and found use in Chinese culture and religions. Uh-oh. Once a status symbol of the wealthy, bells eventually found their way into American skools to perhaps awaken Derideo_Te, for one, from deep reverie or concentration at his studies among the stacks in the liberallary.
And so here we have the self-proclaimed innovator relying on age-old internet cliches due to his continued failure to back up anything he says. I'm afraid the only one who has a high opinion of you is you.
Did you know that stalking and/or harassing other members is a PF rule violation? I recommend that you cease and desist for your own sake. Have a nice day!
Be assured, I'm not here to troll you or anyone else -- just defend myself and my posts. Indeed, a case could be made that you have been trolling me and several others. Liberals are s-o-o-o sensitive! But let's not go there. I just want you to know that I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Please don't turn me in to Safe Space Stasi. I see that you are a programmer that once wanted to design modular software. I have always advocated modular operating systems, especially for "smart" phones soas to better control what the little ****ers are doing and also to SAVE ENERGY and help prevent global warming!!! But alas, I know of no cell phones that are modular. Whatever happened to that excellent idea? Do you know? Unfortunately, no one knows much at all about what is in their OS or what it is doing and why. Do you? Anyhoo, have a safe and fantasmical, pleasantaciously wondery day to the 10th!!!
I don't know of a cell phone that isn't quite modular. The ones I've seen let you turn off wifi, location, bluetooth, phone the communication with the outside world, which requires energy eating devices. Plus, mail, camera, and most other features are apps you can limit, disable or delete.
Uh-huh. How about apps you don't install or that you can remove? You obviously don't know the meaning of "modular". Does your pal De_re-whatever?
I thought you were interested in where your battery life is going. And, that is pretty modularized. I can even turn off my gps radio and limit maping to location by cell tower. Also, some phones have pedometer hardware that can be turned off. Cell phones have a number of radios and other hardware, and it's expensive to run those devices. For that reason, users are given a mean for turning them on or off. Also, individual modules can be customized. For example, how often do you want to check for mail, get weather updates, have your phone talk to your watch, ensure your clock and appoinment calendar are in sync with the world, etc.?
