h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Rev

Hmmm...let's see:

Q. What you seem to be saying is that god(s) exist and will exist whether we believe in or worship them or not.
A. Yup, any other conclusion would reduce them to febrile fantasies.

Q. Are you saying that all the various pantheons must necessarily exist or that both the monothiestic deity and the panthesistic gangs of deities are alternate manifestations or embodiments of the same supreme power.
A. Could be. In reality though I can only speak of my own experience where my gods are my guides on my journey. The fact that my experience is extremely similar to that of many others gives me satisfaction, but is not necessary to my continued development.

Q. Is/are god/the gods actually a supreme power or must they obey a set of physics that we are ignorant of?
A. The gods of my ken are bound by phsical laws of the universe of which they are part. However, it must be understood that we mere humans have only begun to scratch the paintwork on these laws, no matter what our arrogance leads us to believe.

Q. If they are not omnipotent, are they really gods?
A. Omnipotence, Omniescence and Omnipresence are only required traits for a monotheist's god. If they do not have these traits then they cannot be the only god.

Q. That is what arguing a deity or deities must exist leads me too, and they are questions that cannot presently be answered in any way meaningful in terms of objective logic because the eventual answer turns out to be "it is so, because I believe it to be so" which I think we can all agree doesn't really stand up too well to scrutiny.
A. Why doesn't it stand up well to scrutiny? I don't have to believe in my gods, or have faith in them, for I have direct experience of them. That you don't, doesn't make that experience any less for me, your scrutiny is irrelevant.

Be wary of calls for 'objective logic'. Objectivity doesn't exist and logic is a moveable feast.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

A man who still howls at the moon.

Thought some may be interested in this short article about the brain and proof of a soul.

http://www.reason.com/links/links041805.shtml

Nancey Murphy from Fuller Theological Seminary-
" Murphy argued that the idea of an immaterial soul was smuggled in when Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek around 250 BCE. For example, the Hebrew word nefesh, which referred to the whole living person, was translated as psyche, or soul. In Hebrew thought, the concept of spirit stands the whole person in relation to God, not some separable part of a person."

'"The Christian hope for eternal life is staked on bodily resurrection, not on the existence of an immaterial soul," concluded Murphy.'

Okay. . .

'"Thus contemporary believers can formulate their views in conformance with science. There is no conflict between science and religion."'


except maybe with that 'bodily resurrection' bit.

Surprised me to see her asssume most believers think they will have a body in the after life.

I do not desire a body without sex , eating, or enjoy a good belly laugh. I guess there are many thoughts on ways to have a nice afterlife!

I prefer to concentrate on this one in any case.

I, like Hamlet, find a certain attraction in oblivion -- it is the possible dreams that may disturb the Big Sleep that are worrisome.



(yes--Shakespeare and Chandler references in one sentence.)