Okay, thanks for elaborating on that. I follow along pretty well, and see the point you are trying to make. Apart from this consideration, however, when you introduce "karma" into the equation, then I think things get more personal. Like, you die. You are reborn. You have a period of reflection in between. (my notion only) You have your good and bad actions which now need to be balanced back on the earthly plane. >From some of things I 've read, mostly from Rudolf Steiner, there is a pretty elaborate, yet straight forward protocal. (and by the way, he does not bring up the idea of God in describing this work out) But I am not sure how the notion of karma, and the resolution of our karma gets balanced without the intervention of some kind of higher organzizing power, divine or otherwise.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > Thanks for the feedback > > Thanks for perceiving it *as* feedback, and nothing > more. One of the points I was trying to make about > quantum physicists talking about God or astrophys- > icists merely *assuming* that the universe had a > starting point or a moment of "creation" is what > I'd term "the persistence of early conditioning." > > LONG before any of these people were taught math > and the tents of science, they were taught that an > all-powerful interfering being named "God" existed. > Is there any question that they would hold to such > beliefs while developing theories about the nature > of the universe, and thus consciously or unconsciously > "color" their theories with such beliefs? > > They were also taught just by dealing with birth and > death in humans and other life forms that such > things seem inevitable. Is there any question that > they would then think "As below, so above," and > believe that the universe had a starting point > (the moment of "creation" or the "Big Bang")? > > I think it would be interesting to see what a > scientist who had been raised with *zero* exposure > to teachings about a sentient God or about the > *assumability* of a universe that (like humans) > was "born" and thus someday must "die" would > come up with. > > But that is not easily accomplished. Einstein > made comments about God during his lifetime, even > though his newly-discovered letters indicate that > he was more consistently in the atheist camp than > in the God camp. Nevertheless, God freaks continue > to portray the man who said in a letter to philosopher > Erik Gutkind, "The word God is for me nothing more > than the expression and product of human weakness, > the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely > primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty > childish" as a fellow believer in God. > > My grandfather, who worked with Einstein, described > him to my father as someone who was willing to chuck > *any* idea out the window the moment its usefulness > ended. Even his own. Being a thoughtful man, I am > sure that he examined both sides of the "Is there a > God" question all his life. But he seems to have > settled firmly in the "No" camp. *Especially* with > regard to the idea that God, if one existed, could > "interfere with" or "affect" the world. He stated > several times that he did not believe this. IMO that > may have freed him to come up with concepts that a > person who could never get *past* early conditioning > that taught him that *of course* there is a God, and > *of course* He can do whatever he wants could not. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > > > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > > > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > > > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > > > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > > > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > > > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > > > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > > > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > > > > interfering with it and running it. > > > > > > > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > > > > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > > > > spring up on its own? > > > > > > The problem with your question, Lurk (as I mentioned > > > before) is the assumption that it "sprung up." > > > > > > Humans have a tough time with the concept of eternality. > > > > > >
