His Definition Of 'God' Has No Ethics; That Fits Him - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

God & Science Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| God and Science \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

His Definition Of 'God' Has No Ethics; That Fits Him

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on March 21, 2003 23:32:02 UTC

* wrote:
"So we can justifiably and scientifically define God as all the mass of the universe, which is realized in its quiet essence in the singularities of black holes. That of course is not the only possible scientific definition of God. But it is nevertheless a rather good (and evil) one, pun intended."

no comment needed

Follow Ups:

Science itself has no ethics - yanniru - March 22, 2003 - 02:17 UTC
- To be kind, simply post elsewhere instead - quiet - March 22, 2003 - 07:57 UTC
  - The science you talk about is called.. - robertgregory - March 22, 2003 - 20:02 UTC
    - I don't rely on you for definitions, Robert - quiet - March 23, 2003 - 04:42 UTC
    - Behavioral science is psychology, right? - quiet - March 23, 2003 - 20:15 UTC
      - what is imho? - robertgregory - March 24, 2003 - 05:00 UTC
        
        nice reply - quiet - March 24, 2003 - 05:58 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins