Ed, Leo, and Pavithra, (01)
EJB
> Assuming we hypothesize the Big Bang to dispense with creation myths,
> how did the Big Bang itself come to be? (02)
Indeed. The term 'Big Bang' was coined by Fred Hoyle as a *derogatory*
term for what he considered an unscientific creation myth. Since then,
the amount of evidence for it is overwhelming, but physicists are
generating more creation myths about what occurred before the big bang. (03)
EJB
> It is my (possibly erroneous) recollection that the Gospel of St. John
> was originally written in Aramaic. So he probably didn't use "logos". (04)
Disclaimer: I am not a Biblical scholar, but I did a bit of Googling
to check the dates. There is a huge amount of debate about all the
issues, but the consensus seems to be that the gospels by Matthew and
Mark were almost certainly written in Aramaic, but the originals were
lost. Most say that the gospel by John was probably written in Greek,
and the one by Luke may have been written in Aramaic or Greek. (05)
For more about the logos in Jewish philosophy of that era, note the
following excerpts about Philo of Alexandria (AKA Philo Judaeus). (06)
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/
> Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BCE—40 CE)... may have influenced Paul,
> his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John and
> the Epistle to the Hebrews... In the process, he laid the foundations
> for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East...
>
> The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo’s writings on which
> hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos.
> By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with
> Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity,
> first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations
> of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines
> of the second century... (07)
Leo
> I suggest reading Ron Dworkin's final article in the NYRB...
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/ (08)
Excerpt from that article:
> Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions
> and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers
> count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a
> “personal” god, they nevertheless believe in a “force” in the universe
> “greater than we are.” (09)
In his magnum opus, which he wrote in Latin, Spinoza used the word
'Deus' repeatedly, but he also used the word 'Natura'. One of his
friends remarked "What you say about God is almost identical to what
you say about nature." Spinoza replied "That's exactly my point." (010)
When somebody asked Einstein whether he believed in God,
Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God." (011)
PK
> As an Ontologist, one can study the concept of "God" as it is being
> practiced, preached, believed, followed etc. (012)
Yes. And the number of different definitions is almost as numerous as
the number of people who claim that they do or do not believe in God. (013)
If we are going to develop an ontology that can be used for science
and engineering, we will need to include the laws of physics and
other sciences. (014)
My recommendation is to identify those laws with the Logos.
Then if anybody asks where is God in the ontology, I would give an
answer along the same lines as Einstein and St. John: God = Logos. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (017)
|