It's going to be a long day today

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1520114]

Comments

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Your mum

( ) Good
( ) Bad
(x) n/a

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Terry Pratchett already has the right to commit suicide. He just can't prevent anyone who helps him shaking hands with the law. The problem here is that by the time his disease advances far enough to threaten his dignity, he may already be incapable of both carrying out a suicide and convincing a tribunal that he is able to make the decision and they should sanction assistance. Pretending this is all morally simple and legally sortable is nonsense - it is one of the most intractable and complex questions of the age. Hard cases, I am afraid, really do make bad law.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

s/Global Warming/Global Climate Change/

[mooism.livejournal.com]

The Pope preaching bigotry
( ) Good
( ) Bad
(X) To be expected

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

IAWTC but it would be neater if it had a 'g' appended.

[meltie.livejournal.com]

Define "God"? :)

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly.

[andrewducker]

A sentient being which created the universe.

[andrewducker]

A sentient being which created the universe.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

Ah. I see. That is an incredibly narrow definition.

[andrewducker]

Why?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

There's only one to change in the sample. Why risk accidentally propagating your change beyond there, in case there's something you don't realise is there where you actually wanted to use "Global Warming"?

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Oh, not for any practical reason - you are of course quite right on good sed practice. It's just the lure of wanting three [Gg]lobals in a row.

Lunch hour definition

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

Sorry, wasn't ignoring this comment, just haven't had 5 minutes. So not to ignore your question here's an attempt at a brief response:

Given that 'God' 'Real/Fake' was completely disambiguated you're now giving a very Judeo-Christian definition, which is why I say it's narrow.

Sentient: many people believe, for example, that god is something that is part of the earth. Sort of like electricity - real, powerful, but not sentient.

Created the universe - again many people, and certainly me, would argue that any kind of god was in fact created by the universe - or co-evolved along with physical things (I'd be more in the first camp). It's why I've always been confused about the religion v evolution debate - vast swathes of people believe in both.

So both 'sentient' and 'created the universe' narrow things down a lot and to combine the two I suspect gives a very small proportion of what people worldwide who believe in something that might be defined as god (even if that's not a word they use, someone else might use it to describe the exact same thing) believe god to be.

Re: Lunch hour definition

[andrewducker]

to combine the two I suspect gives a very small proportion of what people worldwide who believe in something that might be defined as god

3.7Billion people are Christian or Islamic, which includes them. They believe in a sentient being who created the universe from the void.
Next is Hinduism, which has Ishvara, the supreme controller - which is a facet of Brahman, from which all things spring. They have another 1-1.5 billion people.

So that's 2/3 of the planet :->

If God is not sentient, and can make no choices, then what makes it "God"? If it didn't create the universe, then what did? Surely the one who created God would count as above God?

Re: Lunch hour definition

[andrewducker]

Oh - and thanks for the reply - I was hoping I'd get one, and I know you're busy :->

Re: Lunch hour definition

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

First point - yes but to define yourself as Christian, Islamic or Hindu doesn't actually mean you believe that.

Many people for example would identify themselves as Christian for example but what they actually believe in is likely nowhere near that simple.

If God is not sentient, and can make no choices, then what makes it "God"?
Briefly, its definition as such and identifying with it as such.

If it didn't create the universe, then what did?
Surely there's some circular logic in that: 'God must be fake because god did not create the universe.' If god is fake then it can't have created the universe anyway. So, the answer is probably science, I would think (being a broad answer).

Surely the one who created God would count as above God?
Ok, I have two points on that:
1. Well not necessarily. You can create something that becomes much better than you - for example Ghandi's mother was perhaps not 'above' Ghandi. (I don't know but there's a possibility she was a complete bastard). (I'm picking him as an example as he's generally considered to be A Good Thing but insert whatever name you like) But of course he wasn't just created by his mother. He physically was also created by his father and in terms of the person he became was created by everyone he ever met. Similarly using the god-created-by-the-universe theory then it's not a case of god being above an individual, but being product of the universe.

2. However my alternate and equally valid answer is 'So?'. Again that's using a definition of god as being better than the world, which personally I don't subscribe to at all. God might be evil. If you do though, see 1.

Back to work...

Re: Lunch hour definition

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

sorry, missed an tag there somewhere.

Re: Lunch hour definition

[andrewducker]

Briefly, its definition as such and identifying with it as such.

So what definition would you be using? I guess that if your definition of "God" doesn't involve one that makes any judgements on people, didn't create people, and doesn't interact with them in any meaningful way, then I don't understand what it is or does.

What makes God God?

Re: Lunch hour definition

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

half four so will reply to this later and by later I mean probably Sunday. Life is a bit manic!

(Although very very quickly - it absolutely is something that reacts with people in a meaningful way)

Re: Lunch hour definition

[andrewducker]

If it's not intelligent, how can it react in a meaningful way?

Re: Lunch hour definition

[andrewducker]

And Sunday is fine :->

Or at Ed's party!