On 26 Feb 2008, at 01:10, Dan M wrote:
So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not
believe
in a God rooted in the mundane.
Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the
transcendent :-)
Or potting compost Maru.
--
William T Goodall
Mail :
William wrote:
Dan M wrote:
So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not
believe
in a God rooted in the mundane.
Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the
transcendent :-)
Or potting compost Maru.
Oh, I _so_ believe in potting compost...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:15 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: On Godliness
Not that speculative fiction really influences my personal philosophy, but
On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Ronn!
You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;):
http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html
I made no claim concerning originality.
from the website:
As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are
religious
consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time
something similar to what we are today?
When I was religious, that was the only possibility
Charlie wrote:
Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't going
to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then
intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater
degree...) However, most atheists I know who have any sort of science
Max wrote:
I wrote:
Sheesh, we can't even remember lessons learned from a war a few
decades
ago and we're going to perfect godhood? 8^)
Certainly we don't seem quite up to the challenge at the moment, but if
Kurzweil's tracking for the upcoming singularity is correct we may have
to
Charlie wrote:
Of course I consider the possibility. In fact, given the size of the
universe, I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of
transcendental or sublimed beings of mind or something.
But that's a fair cry from saying that there's a being above and
outside the universe that
Warren wrote:
There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods.
(That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.)
Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're
undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out?
Doug
Pluto! WTF am I supposed to
On Feb 25, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Warren wrote:
There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods.
(That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.)
Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're
undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How
On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Warren wrote:
There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods.
(That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.)
Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're
undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are
Dan wrote:
Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It
reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God.
Only to those that reach God's level of knowledge, eh?
I think the question and the comments made within this thread of whatever
Warren wrote:
snip
Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are
sealed (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse
ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own
world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies.
Yikes.
On 26/02/2008, at 2:32 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't
going
to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then
intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater
degree...)
On 26/02/2008, at 2:54 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So how would you define your atheism?
You phrase it like it's a belief. It's not. I spent a long time
exploring my Christianity, and in the end found it empty. So I stopped
believing.
I do not believe in gods, ghosts, telepathy, bigfoot,
Doug Pensinger wrote:
And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility
that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms
that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods?
Well, anything can be a possibility. So yes, I consider it a
At 05:14 PM Sunday 2/24/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious
consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time
something similar to what we are today?
You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;):
Ronn!
You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;):
http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html
I made no claim concerning originality.
from the website:
As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be
So why would there only be one? Or is there just
Max wrote:
Hi Max, welcome to the list.
Well, anything can be a possibility. So yes, I consider it a
possibility. But on the other hand, have we any evidence of higher life
forms? No. So I still don't believe in them either, be they
man-become-god or your average
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Hi Max, welcome to the list.
I'm not that new, I just post extremely infrequently, leaving me most
months as nothing but a lurker.
If you were to shrink the a solar system with one planet full of
(ostensibly) intelligent beings to the size of an atom and place it in
On 25/02/2008, at 10:14 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the
possibility
that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life
forms
that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods?
Of course I consider the
On 25/02/2008, at 5:15 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
And my point is that any conclusion that we are unique in the
unimaginable
vastness that is the universe for lack of evidence overestimates the
utility
of our perspective.
Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't
22 matches
Mail list logo
