måndagen den 2:e november 2009

The large Ahura Mazda vs The small Ahura Mazda

No no no, Mehran, you totally miss my point:
There is no evidence whatsoever of any ORDER OF PLANNING. It may LOOK LIKE an order of planning to you but once you start studying physics there is no such order of planning at all. Just ORDER! Because order only appears AFTER The Universe has taken the form it has to us (Immanuel Kant's great insight in the 18th century).
The Universe is not a machine, it is much more like an organism which constantly reinvents itself. Possibly there are many many different universes with rather different orders (which is why they do not interact) from ours.
The question is therefore, again, whether you believe that Ahura has a small Mazda or a very large Mazda. Do you believe in a small or a very big god? Because if Ahura Mazda is a big and GREAT deity, Ahura Mazda reinvents itself constantly, for the JOY of reinvention.
Which is precisely what Science says that The Universe does.
Ahura Mazda is too big to have to plan in advance. Ahura Mazda is an artist and not a building constructor. Think bigger, Mehran!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/11/3 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi


Dear Alexander
dorood
We do not know any about Creator God except for the thing that we observe. However, Universe as we are able to observe, has such order of planning and so on. If you observe, other thing please explain scientifically, but however it does not mean that there is not spiritual God.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Mon, 11/2/09, Alexander Bard wrote:


From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Big Ahura Mazda vs The Small Ahura Mazda
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 11:33 PM



Dear Mehran

What strikes me with your Creator is that he is NOT very intelligent or creative. I call him The Small Ahura Mazda.
Your creator needs to plan everything BEFORE he acts (great artists certainly don't). A very slow and conservative old man.
Why don't you believe in a creator who CREATES AS HE GOES ALONG rather than sits for a long time and plans in advance?
Because THEN you would really believe in an amazing and fantastic Creator who looks a lot more like The Creator Science believes in. The Universe develops ITSELF from WITHIN in REAL TIME. It is THAt amazing!!! Planning not needed!
Now THAT is how amazing Ahura Mazda really is!!! The Big Ahura Mazda, infinite, artistic and truly amazing, not the small one who merely designs a block of houses for his obedient children to live in.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/11/1 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi


Dear Dino
dorood
1- Any wise, intelligent, order, such as brain, photosynthesis, gene book, and so on is an evidence by itself. Each of them has proved the existence of a something that is not material but is able of planning and making. Why? Because no component is able of recognizing its best place to sit on, if it is so much intelligent, then there should be a sub-atomic particle that the summation of its properties results in such intelligence.
Is not this an evidence?
2- Every day, science improves itself, new findings results in making new tools and so on. Well is not it possible that one day a tool to be made that be able of measuring non-material= spiritual entities and finds observed evidences of God?

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Sat, 10/31/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, October 31, 2009, 5:41 PM



Dear Mehran,

The point is that you are the one who has never presented any evidence. And we've repeatedly asked you to do so. But all you come up with is very same question, but never an answer. And, by the way, it's only metaphysics: different vocabularies that do not depict or reveal anything true about the real world. All things experienced empirically are what they are experienced as, so a true belief is known to be such by the consequences of its employment rather than any psychological or ontological foundation.

Ushta, Dino

--- MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi schrieb am Sa, 31.10.2009:


Von: MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Samstag, 31. Oktober 2009, 11:25


Dear Dino
dorood
You have just written that this is so, that is so, this is not so, that is not so. Well You are a scientist, if you write such paper, does any university accept it, or ask you for evidences?
Is the r any intelligent or not, is there any order or not, is there action and interaction or not? well why such action has this proper recation/interactio n........ ....?
You just jump the matter, but it is not a scientific answer, as you are a scientist and know how should answer in a scientific manner.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Sat, 10/31/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, October 31, 2009, 1:30 PM


Dear Mehran,

(1) Monism states that there is only one world or only one guiding principle or set of principles that apply to all existence. For example, it's perfectly OK to be a monist and still believe that astral theme parks exist, but you'd have to admit that the same set of principles (Asha) apply to the physical world and such astral theme parks simultaneously. That is, the physical world and such astral theme parks are the two sides of the same coin. It's one substance with an infinite number of attributes.

Dualism states that there are two essentially different worlds or principles that mysteriously interact with each other. Dualists, however, could never clearly identify what third (!) substance mediates the encounter between those two first substances. Then you'd need even two more substances as mediators between substance A and B, and B and C, and so forth.

(2) You haven't yet explained why such tiny particles must be intelligent. What does intelligence mean in that context? That such tiny particles just happen to interact in a way that makes further interactions probable and even fosters relatively stable and persistent inter-dynamics? Why do you have to place engineering intelligence somewhere outside our socially shared world? Haven't we been through this a million times already???

Different bodies happen to interact with each other repeatedly and, from then on, habitually. There are only habitual interactions between different bodies. No engineer required. Otherwise you'd have to look for another intelligent being placing the first intelligent being somewhere, then pick a third intelligent being that put the second intelligent being somewhere, and so on.

You are obsessed with SUBJECTS, dear Mehran. But there simply is no subject, it's only a linguistic phenomenon, there are actions and interactions only. And both habitualized interactions and fleeting events are equally real. The fixed and stable is in no way superior to anything that's "rarely happening". So all you're left with are habits and single events that effect a change in the inter-dynamics of a variety of relationships, thus generating new events and habits, and so on.

Ushta, Dino

--- MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi schrieb am Sa, 31.10.2009:


Von: MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Samstag, 31. Oktober 2009, 9:49


Dear Moobed Kamran
dorood
1- Monoism does mean that there are no spiritual God. Is it correct?
2- If so, there should be a material sub-atomic particle that has the attribute of intelligence, wisdom and so on. Is there any such particle?
3- yield and yeild have same components, but different meaning for different aims. It proves an intelligent maker and planner that recognizes the proper set of the components to reach the proper aim, unless that we believe that each component is intelligent enough to recognize its best place in the order to sit on its best place to make such set. What is your own point of view?
4- We as Zoroastrian believe in gAthA, as our source of religious knowledge. Is gAthA a monoist teaching or is monothestic one? Please write the evidences.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Fri, 10/30/09, Kamran Jamshidi wrote:


From: Kamran Jamshidi
Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 4:20 PM


Dear Parviz
As you have pointed me a direct question then there is my short answer:

First, I have to remind that whatever the answer(s) are, there is no
good or bad, right or wrong answers but only "point of views" / "beliefs" .

I believe in a monist view of the world.
For me, Ahura Mazda, is the seed/essence/ start point/ sub total of everything
As it is the seed/essence then it IS inside every creation/being
It is ONE with everything.
One is all, all is one.

That is my belief.

Mobed kamran Jamshidi





2009/10/30 Parviz Varjavand


Dear friends,

I have talked to many Iranian and Parsi Zoroastrians and when asked if this creation needs a Creator just as a shoe needs a shoe maker, almost all of them answered "YES". So this places Alex and Dino and Arthur and Me in a very small minority when compared to most born Zoroastrians or Mr. Jafarey type converts. Wishing an issue to go away will not make it go away and I am grateful for Moobedyar Mehran not letting go of his belief in an Ahoora Mazda who has MADE Asha, but is not part of Asha. For him and most Zoroastrians (including Mr. Jafarey and Mr. Khojeste Mystry) I have talked to, Ahoora Mazda is a wise creator and we are His/Her creation and separate from Him/Shim! (He-She, Him-Shim, why not?)

Let me put what Mehran wants to say in terms of what the astronomer Fred Hoyle puts it. He says, "the likelihood of even the simplest biological cell arising via random process is comparable to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747". What do you say, dear Moobed Kamran Jamshidi?

Parviz Varjavand

Inga kommentarer: