Miscellaneous desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 26

God

Who is god? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.226.130 (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See God --Tagishsimon (talk)

Which god? — Kieff | Talk 01:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From which perspective are you asking? bibliomaniac 1 5 02:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think I'm god. Now, I admit, I write some decent stories, but I would never claim to be god... I let others do that for me. Soon I shall be the leader of a new religion, and I'll barely have to lift a finger to do it. mattbuck (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God

God is whoever you want Him/Her to be.--TreeSmiler (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... hypothetically if there were a God it would be a living object, so thus it is not open to opinion who he is. To say God is whoever you want him/her to be is basically saying that I think all white people are actually black because I want them to be. Just saying hypothetically. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. But remember, the keywords here are "if there was". — Kieff | Talk 05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "if there were a God it would be a living object." I think you are assuming too much. God may transcend mere object-ness and therefore may disregard the rules of physics, such as being the same thing to all observers. That said, one can easily doubt that God's nature would be completely dependent on one's wishes, for that would turn the traditional religious question around and say that God has no free will. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is: where does God live?--TreeSmiler (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm God (or, at least, the closest to that you'll ever see). --Taraborn (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to him as sort of an object limited by physics, merely stating if he exists then he exists as something... whether everpresent or everywhere, he still would be something. And your more talking about a genie I think, than a god, if he is completely dependent on one's wishes and has no free will. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 18:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over there in the bus shelter standing next to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. --WebHamster 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be pointed out that our article on God is not autobiographical - see the commandments "Thou shalt not have COI" and "Thou shalt not lust after OR" - but has been compiled by humans who never had direct contact with the entity.

The working assumption amongst theists is that God exists in a dimension which is not (or not directly) accessible to us, maybe in a reality where our laws of physics are not applicable, maybe as a purely energetic field. Not surprisingly, unless his / her dimensionality / reality somehow intrudes into our 3D world, little but speculation (ranging from belief to disbelief to apathy) is possible. There are also thinkers who have postulated a non-overlapping magisterium, which may allow the glimpse of a non-rational universe. Atheists, by definition, consider God as they consider Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf.

Most Gods - as the comments above indicate - are banished to an existence as omniscient referencedeskopedians. Even then, omniscience has its limits - it is all of science and not more - thus there is no answer to your question. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS:The OP, 69.242, may also be interested in the articles on Abrahamic religion and Dharmic religion. Quite a few in our (assumed Western) society find the Indian and Buddhist concepts of God much more human and humane than the Jewish / Christian / Islamic edifice of religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it must be said that there are many conceptions -- or perceptions, if you will -- of God within the Abrahamic faiths. God as described in the Zohar is a lot different than the idea of an old man with a long, flowing beard sitting on a cloud. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I never knew that the Abrahamic faiths promoted that image of an old man with a long, flowing bear sitting on a cloud. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 06:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that would be Jerry Garcia! --WebHamster 12:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shift left: Let me postulate a - purely hypothetical scientific - answer: "God is a super massive distortion in space-time", annihilating both. As such, the phenomenon is not observable by those outside the divine event horizon, i.e. inside the local continuum.

In cosmological terms, God is the singularity which created the universe. As there was nobody around, it never bothered about garments and was known as "the Naked Singularity".

Of course, neither of these entities, God and Singularity, are directly observable in reality, leading some to the conclusion that neither exist, others deduct that one or the other is real and still others believe both to be manifest.

Unless, and until, you plummet into a conveniently located black hole - available at your favourite cemetery - you may find little opportunity to find an answer to your question.

Given that my above scientific answer has any merits, then your question about God should be directed to the Science Desk. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of short answers from a particular point of view:
* Robert Heinlein: "Thou Art God."
* Meister Eckhart: "The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love."
* Robert Hunter: "Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world..."
* Wavy Gravy: "We are all the same person trying to shake hands with our self."
* Steve Gaskin: "You can't understand God, you can't define God, you can't contain God, but you can be God."
* And finally, from Joseph Campbell: "We want to think about God. God is a thought. God is an idea. But its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. He is beyond being! Beyond the category of being and non-being! Is He or is He not? ...Neither is, nor is not. Every god - Every mythology - Every religion is true in this sense; It is true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. "He who thinks he knows, doesn't know." "He who knows that he doesn't know, knows." There is an old story that is still good; The story of the "quest" - the spiritual quest. That's to say, to find the inward thing, which you basically are. All of these symbols refer to you... Have you been reborn? Have you died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation? You are God in your deepest identity! You are one with the transcendant."
-- Saukkomies 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Spike for Keyword "Interracial"

Can anyone figure out what caused the huge spike in searches for the word "interracial" from late December 2005 to early January 2006? I found the phenomenon using Google Trends but it didn't show any press articles related to the spike. The spike looks like it started on December 21st or 22nd. The spike is huge and it is the only one. 71.243.118.2 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing wildly, but I would imagine that most weirdness related to Google results is generally related to some sort of search engine optimization (SEO)—that is, some attempt to manipulate Google's results. 'Interracial' is a keyword that frequently appears in searches for specific types of pornography. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezing eggs

Can chicken eggs be frozen defrosted and then eaten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.150.193 (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory they can, but in practice the freezing process is likely to break the shells with consequent problems. See here [1]or here[2]for more information. Richard Avery (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercially, the liquid contents of eggs (sans the shells) is sold frozen (and often, pre-scrambled). It comes in big plastic bags that are the equivalent of a hundred eggs or so.

Atlant (talk)

Frozen eggs are sold in a variety of forms, including by the individual egg or equivalent (egguivalent?), up to the 100 egg+ BIBs Atlant suggests. You can also get frozen 'whites only'. Matt Deres (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: "...eggs are available liquid, frozen and dried. Fried and poached eggs are available cooked and ready to serve, as is scrambled egg. Boiled eggs are cooked and ready shelled..." from BritEgg --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The was a talk about this on the Egg discussion page. Think outside the box 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most and least painful martial art

Which martial art has the highest and lowest injury rate? --Candy-Panda (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious martial arts have the lowest injury rate.

Atlant (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The highest would be martial arts that emphasize tournaments and other forms of full-contact sparring. The lowest depends on your definition of "martial art", but could be exercise-oriented derivatives such as Tai chi chih. --67.185.172.158 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating the obvious. --Taraborn (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origami
Spinningspark (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SandersW...

Well, in the female bodybuilders YouTube question, you asked whay it had been hard to just search for "female bodybuilders" on YouTube. Well, the reason it's hard is that there are numerous videos of female bodybuilders from people who aren't in the bodybuilding business. So, what's your reply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle smile. SaundersW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baffling --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: You are not using the RD adequately. If you want to talk to SandersW personally, use his/her talk page. --Taraborn (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]