From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 08:36:21 MDT
In a message dated 9/18/2000 6:26:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
emlyn@one.net.au writes:
>
> No, I don't; rational thinking is not inspiration, and can never substitute
> for it. Well, maybe a more intelligent being can use rationality to do what
> a less intelligent being would have to use inspiration/intuition for, but
> the more intelligent being can still use inspiration to reach even further.
> But this is still in the context of, and entirely bounded by, rational
> thought. You can use inspiration to decide what to prove/test, but rational
> thought must do the proof/testing.
...this is a very keen paragraph.
Forms of thought. The exploration of the effect of thoughts (of god or
otherwise) is a far more productive exploration that the exploration of proof
for (or against) god.
The thought forms we create -- literally shape our existance. Like a blue
print, inspiration or rational, we make our thoughts into buildings, churches
or garages, into skyways, teleportation devices or microwaves....
In that way, and in that way only, god does exist. Not because there really
is anything out there "shaping" things, but because for so damn long, our
existance has been infinitely shaped by the thought(s) that he/it does. And
the following mayhem or order depending on your world view.
Things would be very very different if the "god modules" weren't installed in
us. Unimagineable to say how.
No one can say that a thought is reality, yet to deny it's existance is
lunacy. There lies the conundrum.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:02 MST