echi
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:19 pm
queen annie--

Thanks for walking me through all that. I'm much closer to seeing what you mean about "unity", and it seems like you also get where I am coming from. The "cycle" is not so digestible; still, I think I am closing in on that one, too.

I'll post more in the morning. Right now I have an ant problem to deal with. Confused
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:51 pm
beyond human conception.

Limitless. Omnipotent.

Wanda
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:52 pm
Wow Jason, for an athiest, you explained that well.

Wanda
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:35 am
God:
That which constitutes the stuff of the ego and the wholeness of the 'I'
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:42 am
Who is Jason!?!

Echi--are you Jason?

BTW, I just love your avatar. King Friday is an old and dear friend of mine!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 08:54 pm
Doktor S wrote:
God:
That which constitutes the stuff of the ego and the wholeness of the 'I'
OK, well. . .

I don't believe in that god either.

Is that what you meant?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 12:52 am
timberlandko--

Okay. Forget what I said about "rest" or "motion". None of that is objective, as you pointed out.

What I'm still having trouble with is what you stated about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

timberlandko wrote:
Equilibrium is stable - by defintion. Second law of thermodynamics and all that. If not, for instance, orbits wouldn't work. The observed and/or deduced mechanics of atoms, planets and their satellites, stars and their satellites, star systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters throw a huge wrench into your hypotheses.


Are you saying that satellites maintain equilibrium and that this is supported by the Second Law? The way I understand it is that orbits of any kind are not stable; the speed is always changing, and eventually the satellite will either collide with the center or it will escape and fly away.

I know this all relates somehow to what queen was going on about, but heck if I know how to get back around to it.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:10 am
I am not Jason...
Who is Jason? Confused
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 10:03 am
I think maybe Jason is the other other one.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 12:23 pm
No, I'm Jason. I don't see the point in creating aliases to agree with myself (that's funny, though). I'm an atheist, and that doesn't mean I have to lie or lose my honor. I don't think that because I don't believe in God I'm a bad guy. I think I'm a good guy, really. People have different outlooks. I wanted just to comment on that.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 12:32 pm
Thanks Jason. I wasn't aware that you had posted on this thread and was wondering how Itoo got your name.

But now that you are here, would you mind explaining your concept of the god you don't believe in?
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:57 am
echi wrote:

Are you saying that satellites maintain equilibrium and that this is supported by the Second Law? The way I understand it is that orbits of any kind are not stable; the speed is always changing, and eventually the satellite will either collide with the center or it will escape and fly away.


Think about the human body. Osmosis is one process by which our body maintains homeostasis (which is a state of equilibrium). Homeostasis is the opposite of disease, so to speak. Disease occurs as a result of imbalance. Therefore, we know that balance is health and it will maintain stability if it given appropriate nutrition and as little chemical enhancement as possible (preferably none). The mind has more to do with it than the physiological processes, themselves, but I won't confuse that into this explanation.

Now, the healthy body is stable and balanced. Yet it is in motion, even when we are still, our innards are busy. Osmosis is the exchange of fluids between that which flows in the circulatory system, interstitial (in and among the cells) and I think there is one more but my memory fails me...

Anyway, electrolytes, such as sodium and all those, are what determines the specific gravity of any given liquid, think about a glass full of dissolved salt in water compared to a glass of just water. If these where in a container that had a permeable divider between them, the salty water would exchange with the plain until there were solutions of equal concentration on both sides of the divider. That kind of thing is constantly taking place in our bodies.

That is just one example. But maybe it helps to explain equilibrium as a balanced state yet not an 'at rest' state.
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 12:04 pm
neologist wrote:

I've been considering a new thread on the topic of determinism.

Which is, exactly? I'm not always in the know about many '-isms.'

Quote:
But first, a few definitions:
Ambrose Bierce in [i]The Devil's Dictionary[/i] wrote:
Destiny: A tyrant's authority for crime and a fool's excuse for failure.


I'm not sure what you are saying with that. I always thought Bierce's work was satire, anyway. But, then maybe I'm just the bumpkin I accuse my neighbors of being. hee hee
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 12:21 pm
Will Durant wrote:
Determinism is predestinarianism without theology.
Do we have free will?

I finally did start a new thread here.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 01:28 pm
queen annie--

I think I totally get it, now. It's just the words. I understand "equilibrium" and "homeostasis" a lot better (in this context) than "balance" or "stablility". Thanks for indulging my picky-ness.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 10:03 pm
Quote:
No, I'm Jason. I don't see the point in creating aliases to agree with myself (that's funny, though). I'm an atheist, and that doesn't mean I have to lie or lose my honor. I don't think that because I don't believe in God I'm a bad guy. I think I'm a good guy, really. People have different outlooks. I wanted just to comment on that.


It's ok Jason, I can tell you're a nice guy.

Wanda
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 11:40 pm
echi wrote:
queen annie--

I think I totally get it, now. It's just the words. I understand "equilibrium" and "homeostasis" a lot better (in this context) than "balance" or "stablility". Thanks for indulging my picky-ness.


Not picky-ness! Just an open mind and interest in what others think... I would never think of it as indulging--I thought you were indulging me! Laughing
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 01:02 pm
neologist wrote:
. . . would you mind explaining your concept of the god you don't believe in?
Hop right in, folks
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 10:44 pm
*hop*

We did kinda get off topic again, didn't we?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 12:08 am
OK, Kiddo. What is God like?
Define God
Is there anything he cannot do?
Is there anything he would not do?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define God
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 08:01:17