but who created the atoms, energy?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

It sure does! Look at your list. If I were to call the universe "Cosmic Consciousness", don't you think that term carries a lot of conceptual baggage? When I think of the universe, I don't think of some conscious megaentity.eudaimonia,Mark

I call the universe the universe, and a rock a rock, a dog a dog, and you Mark...but that doesn't imply that I don't think all of you are expressing G-d...nor you thinking that none of you are...

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by wil

I call the universe the universe, and a rock a rock, a dog a dog, and you Mark...but that doesn't imply that I don't think all of you are expressing G-d...nor you thinking that none of you are...

There is a big difference between using a term that carries extra conceptual baggage than what one believes, and using a term that says less than what one could say.

It's never wrong to say less about a thing than you could say, because you may want to focus only on a limited aspect of that thing. It is not necessary, in order "to tell the truth", to "tell the whole truth", as long as you "tell nothing but the truth". (Except in a court of law. )

However, using loaded terms that say more than one believes is true is clearly an error.

I'm not saying that you personally shouldn't use the term "Cosmic Consciousness", if that says something you believe to be true of the cosmos. However, it would be a big mistake for me to use that term, and it may be wrong for many religious people to use the term, for instance non-pantheists who view God as transcending the physical Universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wil

I was refering to the version of God and Creation

I feel sorry for that guy You'd of thought being that close to god, he'd of done him a bit more of a favour in the downstairs department...

[m16150]

love the pun.

[17th Angel]