Originally Posted By: socratus

Law is God, say some:
Which Law(s)?
Law(s) of Nature. Is the material Nature a God?
No. But the Laws that manage the material Nature
have spiritual basis.
I can accept the last point you make. Then you add
Quote:
About which spiritual basis are you talking, Socratus?
So I will assume that you, Soc, are having a dialogue with yourself here, right? In asking this question I just want to make sure I am hearing what you are saying; I am not questioning your method.

You go on:
Quote:
The God said in the darkness:
Let there be light: and there was light.

So, the light - the Quantum of Light is spiritual basis for Nature.

But . . . But to be correct we must say that we have three conceptions:

God, darkness and light (Quantum of Light).
So, to understand Nature we must examine three conceptions:

God, darkness and light (Quantum of Light).

1 In the darkness it means in the space-time of dark mass/ energy.

The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.

The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.

The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T=0K.

2. The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Energy Space and we don’t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
Me? I prefer to think about the god-idea, or concept, as a majestic IT--that is, as imminent and transcendent being. Why? Because this helps me avoid thinking of god as an idol-like 'it' limited to space and time.

ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS: Do not feel left out. If you like being good, moral and humane beings, just add an extra 'O' to the word 'god'. It is also OK to call GOD, reality or nature. Deeds, not creeds, are what important, don't you agree?

As I have said before, the two acronyms I like to use are G0D and GOD--G zero D. G0D symbolizes Imminent-being (that is, god in me, as a modern person) and GOD is for Transcendent-Being (that is, god into which the physical cosmos is expanding-- (

By the way, the first two chapters of the Bible uses two words--YAHWEH (G0D) and ELOHIM (GOD). Modern Orthodox Jews, when they write in English, use G-d and Adonai.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you write 'God' as if you prefer to think of the god-idea as a person, a him--in the modern sense of the word.

For example, when you write--:
Quote:
3. So, in the beginning God created the Light. How did He do it? The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy. God simply said: ‘Let there be light: and there was light.’And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof without any doubt.
--what else can anyone think?
===================
BTW, I presume you are aware that the Latin word, PERSONA (meaning to speak or to sound (SONA) through (PER) a mask) was--and often still is--used in drama, theology, and the law.
==============================
You say that,
Quote:
Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly: "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, what are light quanta?"
But theologically speaking, as I read what he said, Einstein had no faith in a personal god--a person up there, or out there--an all-powerful being who listens to and answers all our prayers. But he never accepted the idea of atheism. Rather he respected the god-idea of Spinoza, who was a PAN EN THEIST, like I am. IMO, others gave him the mistaken label, PANTHEIST--all things make up who god is.

BTW, Soc: Do attend and support any kind of religion? Do you say your prayers?

Me? I respect all religions that are Golden-Rule based and eschew all kinds of bigotry--religions that help and inspire people to be truly humane to themselves and to others.

Born in 1930, I am a retired--I prefer to think of myself as re-directed (1994) minister of the United Church of Canada. I prefer to wear out, not rust out. smile

When the UCC was established in 1925, June 10--the first meeting was held in a hockey arena, in Toronto-- the founders seriously debated about calling the new church--a union of Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists and others--The Uniting Church of Canada. I now wish they had been so bold. Maybe, before I wear out I will test the waters and see if we can revisit that truly great, catholic, orthodox and protestant idea. Note, I used no caps.

LET'S HAVE SOME FUN WITH THE FOLLOWING--feel free to tell me: You, LGK, are nuts:
=================
KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FOLLOWING IS OFFERED SIMPLY AS MY OPINION--no dogma is intended.
=============================================
However, this time here is what I would like to propose: It is a personal idea that is totally inclusive:

Let us see if there is any interest, out there, in establishing a totally INCLUSIVE AND UNITING kind of RELIGION OF THE UNIVERSE (IA & UROTU--I am & you are of the universe). This concept of religion is based on a simple simple kind of theology. It is as follows: G0D is, and if we so choose it, GOD is the potential Love available in us. G0D/GOD is love in action.

In other words, GOD is the potential Love available in the universe. It is available to all who choose to live by, and act on, the Golden Rule.

Here I leave lots of room for posters to use their imagination: What are your ideas about what, if any, are, for you, appropriate doctrines, rituals and polity.

Again I say: LET US HAVE FUN WITH ALL THIS. Yes, it is OK to mock as long as you give your reasons ... OK, away you go!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org