Dawkin's Universe (evolution, creation, attending, Abraham, God)

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Tau

God doesn't exist boys and girls?

Well who do you think is the quantum observer that collapses the waveforms of all the objects/particles in the universe?

All the matter, all the stars all the galaxies all the black holes all observable matter and energy in the entire (observable) universe only equates to about 0.03% of what is actually there....dark matter and dark energy form 99.97% of the actual Greater Universe and we can't see any of it, we live on the surface of a far vaster reality.....4 dimensions of spacetime? currently we think there might be 11.

Just wondering...how many do you think know where "grok" comes from?

[Storm]

Heinlein.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Just wondering...how many do you think know where "grok" comes from?

If you don't grok, well then you just don't grok.

[YmirGF]

I am just finishing The God Delusion by Dawkins and I have to admit he is very good. Though he is very glib about all things smacking of religion he does so with great effectiveness. If only adherents of religion were so persuasive, but the bottom line is, they are not.

In my own continually emerging view of the universe, I have come to the conclusion that god-concepts may well serve as liberating us from mundane thinking initially, but at deeper, less superficial stages, severely limit our understanding of reality.

Ultimately, there would be no problem with god-concepts if those concepts were inherently flexible which is the opposite of how religions of man portrays them to be. In almost all cases, god-concepts are as if etched in stone and one is forced to mold their understanding to fit the model rather than the model expanding with understanding.

Then again, what would I know about all this?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

I am just finishing The God Delusion by Dawkins and I have to admit he is very good. Though he is very glib about all things smacking of religion he does so with great effectiveness. If only adherents of religion were so persuasive, but the bottom line is, they are not.

They speak a different language. Dawkins' language is more familiar.

In my own continually emerging view of the universe, I have come to the conclusion that god-concepts may well serve as liberating us from mundane thinking initially, but at deeper, less superficial stages, severely limit our understanding of reality.

I think that depends on the concept.

Ultimately, there would be no problem with god-concepts if those concepts were inherently flexible which is the opposite of how religions of man portrays them to be. In almost all cases, god-concepts are as if etched in stone and one is forced to mold their understanding to fit the model rather than the model expanding with understanding.

Then again, what would I know about all this?

Unfortunately, this has been my experience with religion, too. However, I don't think this is as true as it was twenty-five years ago. (My "search" began about 35 years ago.) What is more disturbing, at least to me, is that many of the criticisms of religion I see in RF don't allow for more advanced concepts. Some still think likening God to a "pink unicorn" is an intelligent argument.