"Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall understand fully."

--Paul (A.D. 1st cent.). 1 Corinthians 13:12

I was talking to a rescue coordinator,about opening our home to a rescue in need and he had sent me a picture and the rescue mission. Here is what our poor baby looked like in the first picture on April 28, 2011.She had no back toenails,she has buck shot still in her leg,a chunk out of her ear where a rat ate it and my understanding she had lots of ticks and her hair was thin and short, hook worms(When we got her she was so malnourished that she hardly had any hair)and bad dandruff that just flecked off. They felt our home would be perfect for this little girl, so she was fostered until she could get her shots. She was in such bad shape that it took 30 days before she could get her shots and even then she was too thin, but they decided she would be ok. On May 27, 2011, Memorial weekend this skinny little girl came and enriched our lives.

The first time Tessa came to meet us and her little brother. Lily said that she is so docile and has no prey instincts and the next moment she is pointing at a squirrel. She still loves these squirrels that come in her yard. She is like a statue, as still as she can be. She has created a special spot under the Nellie to watch them and then chase them out of the yard. She caught one and it squealed and she let it go and ran on the deck for safety. She wasn’t house broken when we got her, but she is now. It took a little time to figure what worked for her. She was having nightmares and urinating in her sleep, but we have gone two weeks now with no nightmares and no sleeping accidents.She still has some insecurity issues, so she has a special spot between my husband and me. She is such a little love bug. She doesn’t know how to play with toys, but she is learning. She will take one out, drop it and then go tussle with her brother, whom she can wrestle to the ground and he’s a good 12 pounds heavier, but that doesn’t stop her. . At night she would get a cookie in her crate. Nothing was more exciting than a cookie at bedtime. She races as fast as she can up those stairs. Now she wants no more crate, but cookie in the bed. Now she talks to me going up the stairs to bed to get her cookie. Heaven help us if we run out of night time cookies. We have stocked up on those for safety. She tries to fool us to go to bed early, so she can get her cookie earlier. My husband calls her “Tappy Toes”; she is such a happy little girl. She has grown so much in our hearts.

Cosplayers at Leipziger Buchmesse / Leipzig Book Fair 2014

2014_031

2014#090

2014#091

 

Kaylean (Ina) 084569 as Steampunk

Airay (Lene) 532562 as Steampunk

 

Photos posted are 1024x768 pixels in size. Higher resolution (3000x2000) for models only, sorry.

 

Thank you for any group invites which I will gladly accept. However, if I can't check the content of such groups ("This group is not available to you") I'd rather not add any of my photos. Thanks for your understanding.

Understanding Weather by O.G. Sutton

First published 1960

Reprinted 1961

Cover design by Derek Birdsall

Sometimes a single image can change one's understanding of a person, place or thing.

 

Here, seeing a photo of Joe Knowles standing next to his car, one of the most advanced vehicles of the era, transformed my view of the pioneering reality star who was known in his day as The Nature Man from coast to coast.

 

Yes, Americans are notorious for living beyond their means, and that may have been the case here. Or perhaps Joe Knowles was just enjoying the rewards of his hard work.

 

As newspapers of the era liked to point out, Joe Knowles became famous for his ability to abandon the trappings of civilization and survive in the wilderness, but he was equally well adapted to the comforts and luxuries of city living.

 

Proving a point about humankind's ingenuity under primitive conditions was Knowles' passion, but he was also a hard-working entrepreneur and promoter. This photo suggests that Knowles not only made good money but was able to hang onto it.

 

As soon as Knowles returned from the forests of the Siskiyous in 1914, he began making personal appearances in Oregon and California to demonstrate his survival skills. In time he added a tame bear to his act. Then he landed a movie deal that took him back to the Siskiyous, There, his encounters with a cougar and perilous rapids put him back in the headlines.

 

Turning up In New York, Knowles announced the next chapter in his wilderness adventures: he would mentor two intrepid women in his woodcraft! To prove he was serious, Knowles sat for a publicity photo with the two "Eves" that graced the pages of many a publication.

 

This twist was hardly surprising. By then, several women had already made their own bids for the limelight by publicly professing their intention to emulate The Nature Man on their own. Almost from the outset, the press had evinced a coy preoccupation over how Knowles's female imitators might be attired on Day One. Victorian prudishness had receded far enough by the teens of the 1900s that reporters could write that Knowles planned to enter the forest nude, though not far enough that they could publish photos of Knowles in the altogether. Today, some might call that state of affairs titillating.

 

The story behind Joe Knowles' announcement that Elaine Hammerstein (a cousin of the hugely famous Oscar Hammerstein II) would be joining him in the Adirondacks for a reprise of his earlier exploits in the woods is surely worthy of a movie. Nothing in Elaine's basic biography even hints that such a feat might have interested her. Nothing more appeared about the project in the New York press after the splash of the announcement. An item in a Western newspaper reported that an early winter had forced the two of them to call off their plans. Joe himself said that Elaine found her grass skirt not up to the challenge of keeping her warm.

 

When America's entry into the Great War in 1917 muted the public's enthusiasm for Joe Knowles' nature act, he reinvented himself as the West's leading instructor on woodlore at scout gatherings.

 

It was his first such event that brought him to the North Beach Peninsula for the first time around 1916. By 1917 Joe Knowles had settled in the village of Seaview, where was immediately hailed as a regional celebrity and accomplished artist. In other words, he was the classic local character. Knowles was famous for being famous, making him a celebrity, but unlike many of that ilk, he had solid accomplishments to his name. By then, "Knowles" had entered the American lexicon as a metaphor for nudity or a penchant for roughing it.

 

His stature led him to secure numerous commissions, including a series of murals in 1924 for the newest theater in Astoria, Oregon, which was just then rebuilding its downtown after a devastating fire. That year he also painted portraits of the chief justices of the Supreme Courts of Oregon and Washington. The former was received with great fanfare in the press and in real life.

 

It's at that juncture that we catch up with Joe Knowles standing next to his flashy new car in Portland. This was as much a publicity shot for Knowles as it was for the auto dealership.

 

© Alan Davey 2024 All rights reserved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Rickenbacker Vertical Eight Superfine

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By

 

David Conwill

Updated

August 27, 2024

in Classics, Hemmings Classic Car, Magazine

 

Too Much, Too Soon – 1925 Rickenbacker Vertical Eight Superfine

 

The creative genius of car enthusiasts and the cold calculations of businessmen are the age-old yin and yang of the automobile industry. Think of the car enthusiast as an artist, driven to create the purest expression of his or her vision in steel, glass, and rubber–regardless of expense. The businessmen are there to make sure that the unfettered vision doesn’t bankrupt the company. Both the artist and his or her fans may decry the artificial limitation on mechanical genius, but the graveyard of the car business is littered with nameplates that went too far, too fast, and were unable to sustain themselves.

 

By the time he was approached to append his appellation to the eponymous company in 1921, Eddie Rickenbacker’s car-enthusiast credentials were already well-established: He first rose to prominence as a race-car driver in the 1911-’17 era, having appeared in every Indianapolis 500 race before World War I, and as a driver for the factory teams of Peugeot and Maxwell.

 

During the war, he was the United States’ “Ace of Aces,” having shot down a confirmed 26 enemy aircraft at the controls of his Nieuport and SPAD biplanes. He was promoted to the rank of major at the end of his service, but throughout his life preferred the rank he felt he had earned, that of captain. By 1918, “Captain Eddie” was already a household name in America.

 

Rickenbacker wasn’t merely a good driver and pilot. Before his skill at the wheel was recognized, Rickenbacker had seen to his education via a correspondence course in engineering. An early internal-combustion enthusiast, he had also worked for the Columbia Buggy Company selling its Firestone-Columbus automobiles.

 

Further, Rickenbacker was already associated with General Motors founder Billy Durant, thanks to a marketing arrangement wherein Rickenbacker promoted GM’s Sheridan division. In 1922, he would actually marry Durant’s ex-daughter-in-law. So when Barney Everitt, William Metzger, and Walter Flanders– three men with enormous experience in the auto industry– joined with Rickenbacker, they were getting far more than just a famous name.

 

Everitt, Metzger, and Flanders are best remembered for the E-M-F Company, which was eventually folded into Studebaker– though that was far from their only accomplishment. They were, respectively, a body man, a salesman, and a production man. All three had good reputations as auto executives, though their companies usually did not survive long after their personal leadership had departed. Rickenbacker was, sadly, not to be an exception.

 

Captain Eddie himself had initially wished to stay in aviation after the war. Unfortunately, the postwar recession, combined with a glut of surplus aircraft, meant that the fledgling aircraft industry was struggling. Instead, he reverted to his prewar enthusiasm for the automobile. In the 1920s, the line between automotive technology and aviation was far thinner than today, and the disciplines cross-pollinated liberally.

 

What Rickenbacker wanted in his own new car was to bring the high-performance technology of military aircraft and racing cars to the street. He was not alone in this, with the Chevrolet brothers (who had previously sold their family name to Durant) making similar plans at the same time to turn their Frontenac racing team into a producer of road cars. Rickenbacker got further, however, and while Frontenac was forced to produce speed parts for the Ford Model T, Rickenbacker really did produce what the company termed “a car worthy of its name.”

The biggest technical triumph of the original Rickenbacker Six was its “tandem flywheel.” Captain Eddie had been impressed by the smoothness of the liquid-cooled inline engines of his German opponents in the skies over France. When he was able to inspect the inner workings of crashed or captured airplanes, he discovered that their crankshafts had flywheels at both ends, greatly reducing the vibration transmitted outside of the engine.

 

What most people remember about Rickenbacker, however, was its pioneering use of four-wheel brakes in the medium-price field. Even the prototype chassis, displayed at the 1922 New York Auto Show, had front-wheel brakes present, a major departure for the time. In June of 1923, both Duesenberg and Rickenbacker announced that four-wheel braking would now be standard. For Duesenberg, a race-bred, high-performance, luxury car, this was not much of a surprise. For a less-expensive car like Rickenbacker, it was remarkable in the extreme.

 

Other companies soon followed suit, though Studebaker actually launched a smear campaign attempting to paint front brakes as unsafe, and Rickenbacker felt the pressure to continue to update its product line. For 1925, the year of our feature car, the original 58-horsepower, 218-cu.in. straight-six was upgraded to a 236-cu.in. engine with seven main bearings, producing 68 horsepower. The six-cylinder engine was also joined by an L-head, 80-horsepower, 268-cu.in. straight-eight with nine main bearings. The six retained the traditional 117-inch wheelbase, but the eight received a lengthened 121.5-inch wheelbase. The lines were otherwise quite similar.

 

This “Vertical Eight Superfine,” as the new-for-1925 eight was called, was an excellent car–smooth and powerful. The details are outstanding for a car at its price point, right down to the “hat-in-the-ring” logo, borrowed from the United States Army Air Service’s 94th Pursuit Squadron, Rickenbacker’s own unit, cast into the rear axle housing where only someone crawling underneath the car could see it. In bringing luxury-car features to the mid-price field, it was arguably five years ahead of the competition.

 

Unfortunately, just as the company seemed to be finding its footing, Flanders–a crack production specialist who had helped Ford Motor Company on its way to the moving assembly line– was killed in a car accident. At the same time, dealers began fleeing the fold, possibly due to Studebaker’s hatchet job (though it wouldn’t stop newcomer Chrysler from adopting four-wheel hydraulic brakes that year) or possibly due to word of the kind of executive infighting that had brought down other efforts by the founders of E-M-F.

It was in this environment that Captain Eddie left the automotive firm bearing his name in 1926. Soon after, he would buy the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which he would own until 1945, and embark on a career as an aviation executive that would keep his name in the public eye until his death in 1973.

 

Rickenbacker, the company, kept trying, promoting its Super Sport boat-tailed coupe as the fastest four-passenger automobile for sale (faster models from the likes of Duesenberg seated only two) and introducing dual-carburetor engines for 1927. But it was not enough, and the firm did not survive to sell 1928 models.

 

It is said that after the company folded, Captain Eddie personally repaid all debts he had guaranteed for the company, despite a bankruptcy discharge, burnishing his reputation as an ethical businessman. Everitt went on to help found the Verville Aircraft Company in the same Detroit factory building that had housed Rickenbacker. Metzger also got into aviation, helping form Stinson Aircraft in 1926.

 

As an interesting aside, the tooling for both the six-cylinder and eight-cylinder 1927 Rickenbackers was sold to a Danish businessman in Germany named Jørgen Skafte Rasmussen who had planned to produce the engines for sale to European automakers. When no orders were forthcoming, Rasmussen instead shopped his designs to Audi, in which he was the majority shareholder. This resulted in the Rickenbacker 6-70 becoming the Audi Type-T “Dresden” and the eight-cylinder Rickenbackers becoming the Audi Type-SS “Zwickau.” Both were produced until 1932.

 

That makes the four-passenger coupe on these pages a rarity to begin with. In fact, it is believed by the Rickenbacker Club of America to be the only surviving 1925 eight-cylinder coupe. It should come as no surprise, then, that for the past 48 years it has been a part of the Automobile Gallery of the Heritage Museums & Gardens, in Sandwich, Massachusetts. The Automobile Gallery has as its nucleus the collection of pharmaceutical heir J.K. Lilly III, and the Rickenbacker was acquired by Lilly in 1966.

 

We spoke with Director of Collections and Exhibits Jennifer Madden, and she told us that Lilly acquired the car from a Dearborn, Michigan, collector named J. Walter Heater. We don’t know if there is a connection, but Heater was an executive with a Detroit firm called Fleet Supply Corp. (“parts and supplies for trucks, trailers, and cars”). The address for Fleet Supply, 2896 Central Avenue, was less than a mile from the still-extant former Rickenbacker factory at 4815 Cabot Street–could that have sparked Heater’s interest in finding a Rickenbacker?

 

Heater found the car in 1960 in what the Detroit Free Press described as “an abandoned garage on Ferry Park Avenue near the Lodge Freeway.” The previous owner, a man named Gauss, was a retired Army engineer. According to a letter in the car’s file at the Heritage Museums, Gauss had sold his home and actually lived in the car in his garage for 15 years!

 

Heater restored the Rickenbacker, completing the job in 1962. The coupe was immediately recognized as Grand Champion at the Henry Ford Museum’s Old Car Festival in the division for cars built between 1917 and 1925. While it was in his care, it was reunited with Captain Eddie for a television show apparently called On the Street.

 

Sometime around 1966, Heater and Lilly happened to encounter one another, and Heater told Lilly about his Rickenbacker. The two men corresponded that summer regarding the car, and eventually it was settled that Lilly would purchase it for $5,000 (a little more than $37,500 adjusted for inflation).

 

Heater even offered to drive the Rickenbacker from Dearborn to Boston for Lilly to take delivery. In a letter, he noted “it runs very well at 55-60 mph, which means two days on the road from here.” Eventually, it was settled that Heater would meet a representative of Lilly’s in Syracuse, New York, about half way between the two men. Heater apparently took the Greyhound home.

 

It’s not recorded why the Rickenbacker caught Lilly’s fancy. Perhaps it was just the excellent restoration that the car still wears today–having been museum-kept since 1969 and undriven since sometime in the 1970s, although the museum intends to get it driving again soon. It is worth noting that the Lilly family’s roots are not in Boston, or Cape Cod, but rather in Indianapolis, Indiana, where the Rickenbacker name and the speedway are icons. It’s not impossible that Lilly, who was six when this car was built, recalled the excitement associated with Captain Eddie and his airplane-inspired car way back when.

 

Though it survived only a brief six model years, and only an estimated two dozen examples remain, the Rickenbacker is well remembered today, thanks to its technical sophistication and its association with one of America’s greatest aviation heroes. If you are lucky enough to see or experience one, linger awhile and soak in the details, quality construction, mechanical elegance, and handsome styling. You will be glad you did.

  

www.hemmings.com/stories/too-much-too-soon-1925-rickenbac...

ift.tt/2H1Dtkg Osteoporosis is a condition whereby the bones in your body become extremely porous, less dense and much more brittle. Your bones become extremely weak and are more prone to breakage. It is a fairly common condition amongst the elderly, especially amongst women. It is dangerous condition if left unmanaged as osteoporosis symptoms are barely noticeable. The post Understanding Osteoporosis appeared first on HC Orthopaedic Surgery.

I customized this LEXUS LS400 for some pals who are doing the ScumRun Rally which by my understanding is like the GumBall Rally but your car has to have cost less than £500. Prettiest car on a tow truck 2009.

Navigating the health care world can be a nightmare at best. However, navigating it for your child is a must. Check out these comparing probiotic pages for more info: healthadviceworld.com/best-probiotics-kids/

Valeriy Ivanov, CEE Associate Professor, works to install sensors in the Amazon Rainforest outside of Santarém, Brazil on October 30, 2018.

 

Ivanov aims to collect water flow data from the trees to build a model that will help us gain an understanding of our push and pull on the region, and how it potentially affects the world’s climate.

 

Photo: Joseph Xu/Michigan Engineering, Communications and Marketing

monday 16th february 2015

 

we concluded part 2 by asserting that each entangled alter-universe which extends to constitute our understanding-with (and comprehending of) pure singleness - propagates (and is propagated by) its own proper time and space.

 

we also claimed that the auto-extending differentials which constitute alter-universes, must have a profound understand-with the others from which they derive their difference(s). (inasmuch as each is constituted as nothing but its difference from the others.) we furthermore claimed that each differential feels this profound understanding-with as the (effective) force of its own otherness. all force is the force of otherness - of our entangled self at a distance.

 

we also claimed provisionally that energy is force relative to time. (force is actually theoretical, - the condition of our understanding-with prior to time; while energy is really physical, because it is temporally extensive). we also asserted that if we comprehend space as the differential extending of pure singleness, then time extends as the reiteration of that extending.

 

energy, mass and entanglement.

 

let us then comprehend the mass of a thing, not as the property of a particulate thing, but rather as the energy of our own understandings-with that thing. in other words for example, we do not feel the force of gravity of the planet on which we stand, rather we comprehend our ownmost alter-universal understandings-with the earth and everything, as the temporal energy called ‘gravity’ - but which is in fact our ‘self in the distance’ all around. we assume that the mass of a thing is relative to our energetic comprehendings of that thing in the context of every other thing.

  

infinite degrees of darkness

 

as pure singleness, we are entangled in every possible way, and at every possible moment, with every possible alter-universal condition. in other words and so to speak, this infinity of alter-universal conditions varies from infinitely primitive, to not quite so infinitely primitive, to primitive but infinitely complex, to infinitely complex but not yet visible, to visible but infinitely primitive, to quite comprehensive but not yet visible, to visible but not a comprehensive thing, to a comprehensively sensible existing thing…. ∞

 

let us assert that dark matter is the pre-existence of infinitely complex entanglements of alter-universes, which are not yet visible as comprehensive things.

 

for the rest of this text, we will be concerned with the justification of all these various claims. in it we will try to illustrate schematically, some of the primitive alter-universal conditions which constitute our comprehending - hoping to show eventually how they can become comprehensible as things.

 

tuesday 17th february 2015

 

the elementary moment

 

our comprehending is this - pure singleness extends as understanding-with alterity; and it does so as an infinitely variable entanglement of alter-universes. each n-fold alter-universe has a basic pattern of mutual understanding-with (of the others of its constitution), which governs how its differentials are entangled. we call this pattern the ‘elementary moment’, and although it extends prior to the time of the alter-universe, by its auto-reiteration, it is the basis of proper time.

 

pure singleness extends as the sum total of all possible entangled, reiterating, elementary moments.

 

(graphic)

 

wednesday 18th february 2015

 

let us comprehend pure singleness as the elementary moment of a two-fold alter-universe. each differential (coloured red and violet for our benefit) is nothing but the extending of the other. this is how they are entangled.

 

inasmuch they are nothing but a simple extending of alterity, the constitution of each differential is (each understands itself as) nothing but a spacing from the other. we understand space as and with the the very otherness of the other. each is real as the auto-understanding of the other.

 

(graphic)

 

let us comprehend pure singleness as the moment of realisation of a two-fold alter-universe. by this, we do not mean to imply that there is anything like a brain which has a 'moment of realisation'. rather, we mean a moment constituted by the differentials of an alter-universe, for which each becomes real as the other. it is the realising of the elementary moment.

 

each is real as the auto-understanding of the other

rehto eht of gnidnatsrednu-otua eht sa laer si hcae

 

continued in part 4.

  

the complete photo/video collection (1972-2016) of Stan Bonnar's artworks is accessible here :

 

www.flickr.com/photos/stan_bonnars_artworks/collections

Leipziger Buchmesse 2015 / Leipzig Book Fair 2015

2015-03-14 (Saturday)

2015_050

2015#172

 

Ai-Megumi (___) 017194 as Umi from Magic Knight Rayearth

Inulein (Saskia) 035125 as Hikaru Shidô from Magic Knight Rayearth

Shizuku (Juliane) 033235 as Fuu Hooji from Magic Knight Rayearth

 

Thank you for any group invites which I'd be glad to accept. However, if I can't check the content of such groups ("This group is not available to you") I'd rather not add any of my photos. Thanks for your understanding.

In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good), and all loving.

 

God is most often held to be non-corporeal,[3] and to be without any human biological sex,[4][5] yet the concept of God actively creating the universe (as opposed to passively)[6] has caused many religions to describe God using masculine terminology, using such terms as "Him" or "Father". Furthermore, some religions (such as Judaism) attribute only a purely grammatical "gender" to God.[7]

 

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is not believed to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[8]

 

There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about God's identity and attributes. In the ancient Egyptian era of Atenism, possibly the earliest recorded monotheistic religion, this deity was called Aten,[9] premised on being the one "true" Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe.[10] In the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, "He Who Is", "I Am that I Am", and the tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה‎‎, which means: "I am who I am"; "He Who Exists") are used as names of God, while Yahweh and Jehovah are sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, God, consubstantial in three persons, is called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular names Elohim or Adonai, the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten.[11][12][13][14][15] In Islam, the name Allah, "Al-El", or "Al-Elah" ("the God") is used, while Muslims also have a multitude of titular names for God. In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic deity.[16] Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá'í Faith,[17] Waheguru in Sikhism,[18] and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.[19]

 

The many different conceptions of God, and competing claims as to God's characteristics, aims, and actions, have led to the development of ideas of omnitheism, pandeism,[20][21] or a perennial philosophy, which postulates that there is one underlying theological truth, of which all religions express a partial understanding, and as to which "the devout in the various great world religions are in fact worshipping that one God, but through different, overlapping concepts or mental images of Him."[22]

 

Contents [hide]

1Etymology and usage

2General conceptions

2.1Oneness

2.2Theism, deism and pantheism

2.3Other concepts

3Non-theistic views

3.1Agnosticism and atheism

3.2Anthropomorphism

4Existence

5Specific attributes

5.1Names

5.2Gender

5.3Relationship with creation

6Depiction

6.1Zoroastrianism

6.2Islam

6.3Judaism

6.4Christianity

7Theological approaches

8Distribution of belief

9See also

9.1In specific religions

10References

11Further reading

12External links

Etymology and usage

 

The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.

Main article: God (word)

The earliest written form of the Germanic word God (always, in this usage, capitalized[23]) comes from the 6th-century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was likely based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[24] The Germanic words for God were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.[25]

  

The word 'Allah' in Arabic calligraphy

In the English language, the capitalized form of God continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[26][27] The English word God and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton YHWH, in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity, Yahweh. In many translations of the Bible, when the word LORD is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.[28]

 

Allāh (Arabic: الله‎‎) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God" (with a capital G), while "ʾilāh" (Arabic: إله‎‎) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.[29][30][31] God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[32]

 

Ahura Mazda is the name for God used in Zoroastrianism. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form Mazdā-, nominative Mazdå, reflects Proto-Iranian *Mazdāh (female). It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its Sanskrit cognate medhā, means "intelligence" or "wisdom". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect Proto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European mn̩sdʰeh1, literally meaning "placing (dʰeh1) one's mind (*mn̩-s)", hence "wise".[33]

 

Waheguru (Punjabi: vāhigurū) is a term most often used in Sikhism to refer to God. It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language. Vāhi (a Middle Persian borrowing) means "wonderful" and guru (Sanskrit: guru) is a term denoting "teacher". Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all descriptions. The most common usage of the word "Waheguru" is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other:

 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Wonderful Lord's Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord.

Baha, the "greatest" name for God in the Baha'i faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious".

 

General conceptions

Main article: Conceptions of God

There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.[34] The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheistic definition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic. Divinity was recognized by the historical Buddha, particularly Śakra and Brahma. However, other sentient beings, including gods, can at best only play a supportive role in one's personal path to salvation. Conceptions of God in the latter developments of the Mahayana tradition give a more prominent place to notions of the divine.[citation needed]

 

Oneness

Main articles: Monotheism and Henotheism

 

The Trinity is the belief that God is composed of The Father, The Son (embodied metaphysically in the physical realm by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.

Monotheists hold that there is only one god, and may claim that the one true god is worshiped in different religions under different names. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in Hinduism[35] and Sikhism.[36] In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in three persons. The Trinity comprises The Father, The Son (embodied metaphysically by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.[37] Islam's most fundamental concept is tawhid (meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness"). God is described in the Quran as: "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him."[38][39] Muslims repudiate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, and are not expected to visualize God.[40]

 

Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.[41]

 

Theism, deism and pantheism

Main articles: Theism, Deism, and Pantheism

Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; and that God is personal and interacting with the universe through, for example, religious experience and the prayers of humans.[42] Theism holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world.[43] Not all theists subscribe to all of these propositions, but each usually subscribes to some of them (see, by way of comparison, family resemblance).[42] Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. Theism is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism.[44][45]

  

"God blessing the seventh day", a watercolor painting depicting God, by William Blake (1757 – 1827)

Deism holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it.[43] In this view, God is not anthropomorphic, and neither answers prayers nor produces miracles. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. Pandeism and Panendeism, respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs.[21][46][47] Pandeism is proposed to explain as to Deism why God would create a universe and then abandon it,[48] and as to Pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.[48][49]

 

Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.[50] It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church; Theosophy; some views of Hinduism except Vaishnavism, which believes in panentheism; Sikhism; some divisions of Neopaganism and Taoism, along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God—which has wide acceptance in Hasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder The Baal Shem Tov—but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God.[citation needed]

 

Other concepts

Dystheism, which is related to theodicy, is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the problem of evil. One such example comes from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, in which Ivan Karamazov rejects God on the grounds that he allows children to suffer.[51]

 

In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life.[52]

 

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[53] Augustine of Hippo,[53] and Al-Ghazali,[8] respectively.

 

Non-theistic views

See also: Evolutionary origin of religions and Evolutionary psychology of religion

Non-theist views about God also vary. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, whilst accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. The nineteenth-century English atheist Charles Bradlaugh declared that he refused to say "There is no God", because "the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation";[54] he said more specifically that he disbelieved in the Christian god. Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.[55]

 

Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[56] Carl Sagan argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.[57]

 

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[58] Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.[59]

 

Agnosticism and atheism

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[60][61][62]

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or a God.[63][64] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[65]

 

Anthropomorphism

Main article: Anthropomorphism

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.[66] Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.[67] Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.[68]

 

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[69]

 

Existence

Main article: Existence of God

 

St. Thomas Aquinas summed up five main arguments as proofs for God's existence.

 

Isaac Newton saw the existence of a Creator necessary in the movement of astronomical objects.

Arguments about the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Different views include that: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist" (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism[70]);"God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (de facto theism); and that "God exists and this can be proven" (strong theism).[55]

 

Countless arguments have been proposed to prove the existence of God.[71] Some of the most notable arguments are the Five Ways of Aquinas, the Argument from Desire proposed by C.S. Lewis, and the Ontological Argument formulated both by St. Anselm and René Descartes.[72]

 

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[73] His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.[74]

 

Scientist Isaac Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[75] Nevertheless, he rejected polymath Leibniz' thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

 

For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[76]

 

St. Thomas believed that the existence of God is self-evident in itself, but not to us. "Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."[77] St. Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in the Summa theologiae and more extensively in the Summa contra Gentiles, he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the quinque viae (Five Ways).

 

For the original text of the five proofs, see quinque viae

Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.

Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.

Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.

Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God (Note: Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself).

Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas's view, the source of all our knowledge comes from God as well).[78]

 

Alister McGrath, a formerly atheistic scientist and theologian who has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins' version of atheism

Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the scientific method.[79][80] Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict and do not overlap.[81]

 

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by some atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.[82][83][84] These atheists claim that a single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner.[85] Richard Dawkins interprets such findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, but as extensive evidence to the contrary.[55] However, his views are opposed by some theologians and scientists including Alister McGrath, who argues that existence of God is compatible with science.[86]

 

Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.[59]

 

Specific attributes

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

 

Names

Main article: Names of God

 

99 names of Allah, in Chinese Sini (script)

The word God is "one of the most complex and difficult in the English language." In the Judeo-Christian tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood".[87]

 

Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are many names for God. One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, meaning "God Almighty".[88] A third notable name is El Elyon, which means "The Most High God".[89]

 

God is described and referred in the Quran and hadith by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning "Most Compassionate" and Al-Rahim, meaning "Most Merciful" (See Names of God in Islam).[90]

  

Supreme soul

The Brahma Kumaris use the term "Supreme Soul" to refer to God. They see God as incorporeal and eternal, and regard him as a point of living light like human souls, but without a physical body, as he does not enter the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. God is seen as the perfect and constant embodiment of all virtues, powers and values and that He is the unconditionally loving Father of all souls, irrespective of their religion, gender, or culture.[91]

 

Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has list of titles and names of Krishna.

 

Gender

Main article: Gender of God

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form.[92][93] Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.[6]

 

Biblical sources usually refer to God using male words, except Genesis 1:26-27,[94][95] Psalm 123:2-3, and Luke 15:8-10 (female); Hosea 11:3-4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2 (a mother); Deuteronomy 32:11-12 (a mother eagle); and Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 (a mother hen).

 

Relationship with creation

See also: Creator deity, Prayer, and Worship

 

And Elohim Created Adam by William Blake, c.1795

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God.[96][97] He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.[98] Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."[99]

 

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

 

Jews and Christians believe that humans are created in the likeness of God, and are the center, crown and key to God's creation, stewards for God, supreme over everything else God had made (Gen 1:26); for this reason, humans are in Christianity called the "Children of God".[100]

 

Depiction

God is defined as incorporeal,[3] and invisible from direct sight, and thus cannot be portrayed in a literal visual image.

 

The respective principles of religions may or may not permit them to use images (which are entirely symbolic) to represent God in art or in worship .

 

Zoroastrianism

 

Ahura Mazda (depiction is on the right, with high crown) presents Ardashir I (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief at Naqsh-e Rustam, 3rd century CE)

During the early Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sassanid empire. Zoroastrian iconoclasm, which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback which is found in Sassanian investiture.[101]

 

Islam

Further information: God in Islam

Muslims believe that God (Allah) is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of His creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, are not expected to visualize God.[40]

 

Judaism

At least some Jews do not use any image for God, since God is the unimageable Being who cannot be represented in material forms.[102] In some samples of Jewish Art, however, sometimes God, or at least His Intervention, is indicated by a Hand Of God symbol, which represents the bath Kol (literally "daughter of a voice") or Voice of God;[103] this use of the Hand Of God is carried over to Christian Art.

 

Christianity

 

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Early Christians believed that the words of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time" and numerous other statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God.[104]

  

Use of the symbolic Hand of God in the Ascension from the Drogo Sacramentary, c. 850

However, later on the Hand of God symbol is found several times in the only ancient synagogue with a large surviving decorative scheme, the Dura Europos Synagogue of the mid-3rd century, and was probably adopted into Early Christian art from Jewish art. It was common in Late Antique art in both East and West, and remained the main way of symbolizing the actions or approval of God the Father in the West until about the end of the Romanesque period. It also represents the bath Kol (literally "daughter of a voice") or voice of God,[103] just like in Jewish Art.

 

In situations, such as the Baptism of Christ, where a specific representation of God the Father was indicated, the Hand of God was used, with increasing freedom from the Carolingian period until the end of the Romanesque. This motif now, since the discovery of the 3rd century Dura Europos synagogue, seems to have been borrowed from Jewish art, and is found in Christian art almost from its beginnings.

 

The use of religious images in general continued to increase up to the end of the 7th century, to the point that in 695, upon assuming the throne, Byzantine emperor Justinian II put an image of Christ on the obverse side of his gold coins, resulting in a rift which ended the use of Byzantine coin types in the Islamic world.[105] However, the increase in religious imagery did not include depictions of God the Father. For instance, while the eighty second canon of the Council of Trullo in 692 did not specifically condemn images of The Father, it suggested that icons of Christ were preferred over Old Testament shadows and figures.[106]

 

The beginning of the 8th century witnessed the suppression and destruction of religious icons as the period of Byzantine iconoclasm (literally image-breaking) started. Emperor Leo III (717–741), suppressed the use of icons by imperial edict of the Byzantine Empire, presumably due to a military loss which he attributed to the undue veneration of icons.[107] The edict (which was issued without consulting the Church) forbade the veneration of religious images but did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross.[108] Theological arguments against icons then began to appear with iconoclasts arguing that icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of Jesus at the same time. In this atmosphere, no public depictions of God the Father were even attempted and such depictions only began to appear two centuries later.

 

The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 effectively ended the first period of Byzantine iconoclasm and restored the honouring of icons and holy images in general.[109] However, this did not immediately translate into large scale depictions of God the Father. Even supporters of the use of icons in the 8th century, such as Saint John of Damascus, drew a distinction between images of God the Father and those of Christ.

 

In his treatise On the Divine Images John of Damascus wrote: "In former times, God who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see".[110] The implication here is that insofar as God the Father or the Spirit did not become man, visible and tangible, images and portrait icons can not be depicted. So what was true for the whole Trinity before Christ remains true for the Father and the Spirit but not for the Word. John of Damascus wrote:[111]

 

"If we attempt to make an image of the invisible God, this would be sinful indeed. It is impossible to portray one who is without body:invisible, uncircumscribed and without form."

 

Around 790 Charlemagne ordered a set of four books that became known as the Libri Carolini (i.e. "Charles' books") to refute what his court mistakenly understood to be the iconoclast decrees of the Byzantine Second Council of Nicaea regarding sacred images. Although not well known during the Middle Ages, these books describe the key elements of the Catholic theological position on sacred images. To the Western Church, images were just objects made by craftsmen, to be utilized for stimulating the senses of the faithful, and to be respected for the sake of the subject represented, not in themselves. The Council of Constantinople (869) (considered ecumenical by the Western Church, but not the Eastern Church) reaffirmed the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea and helped stamp out any remaining coals of iconoclasm. Specifically, its third canon required the image of Christ to have veneration equal with that of a Gospel book:[112]

 

We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator and Savior of all people, must be venerated with the same honor as is given the book of the holy Gospels. For as through the language of the words contained in this book all can reach salvation, so, due to the action which these images exercise by their colors, all wise and simple alike, can derive profit from them.

 

But images of God the Father were not directly addressed in Constantinople in 869. A list of permitted icons was enumerated at this Council, but symbols of God the Father were not among them.[113] However, the general acceptance of icons and holy images began to create an atmosphere in which God the Father could be symbolized.

 

Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize God the Father in Western art.[104] Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of Man in the image of His own (thus allowing Human to transcend the other animals).

 

It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted.[114]

 

By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French illuminated manuscripts, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in stained glass church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the Baptism of Christ on the famous baptismal font in Liège of Rainer of Huy is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in Giotto's fresco of c. 1305 in Padua.[115] In the 14th century the Naples Bible carried a depiction of God the Father in the Burning bush. By the early 15th century, the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry has a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the Garden of Eden, which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The "Gates of Paradise" of the Florence Baptistry by Lorenzo Ghiberti, begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The Rohan Book of Hours of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, like the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painter Meister Bertram, continued to use the old depiction of Christ as Logos in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as similar or identical figures with the usual appearance of Christ.

 

In an early Venetian school Coronation of the Virgin by Giovanni d'Alemagna and Antonio Vivarini, (c. 1443) The Father is depicted using the symbol consistently used by other artists later, namely a patriarch, with benign, yet powerful countenance and with long white hair and a beard, a depiction largely derived from, and justified by, the near-physical, but still figurative, description of the Ancient of Days.[116]

 

. ...the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (Daniel 7:9)

  

Usage of two Hands of God"(relatively unusual) and the Holy Spirit as a dove in Baptism of Christ, by Verrocchio, 1472

In the Annunciation by Benvenuto di Giovanni in 1470, God the Father is portrayed in the red robe and a hat that resembles that of a Cardinal. However, even in the later part of the 15th century, the symbolic representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit as "hands and dove" continued, e.g. in Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ in 1472.[117]

  

God the Father with His Right Hand Raised in Blessing, with a triangular halo representing the Trinity, Girolamo dai Libri c. 1555

In Renaissance paintings of the adoration of the Trinity, God may be depicted in two ways, either with emphasis on The Father, or the three elements of the Trinity. The most usual depiction of the Trinity in Renaissance art depicts God the Father using an old man, usually with a long beard and patriarchal in appearance, sometimes with a triangular halo (as a reference to the Trinity), or with a papal crown, specially in Northern Renaissance painting. In these depictions The Father may hold a globe or book (to symbolize God's knowledge and as a reference to how knowledge is deemed divine). He is behind and above Christ on the Cross in the Throne of Mercy iconography. A dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit may hover above. Various people from different classes of society, e.g. kings, popes or martyrs may be present in the picture. In a Trinitarian Pietà, God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms. They are depicted as floating in heaven with angels who carry the instruments of the Passion.[118]

 

Representations of God the Father and the Trinity were attacked both by Protestants and within Catholicism, by the Jansenist and Baianist movements as well as more orthodox theologians. As with other attacks on Catholic imagery, this had the effect both of reducing Church support for the less central depictions, and strengthening it for the core ones. In the Western Church, the pressure to restrain religious imagery resulted in the highly influential decrees of the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563. The Council of Trent decrees confirmed the traditional Catholic doctrine that images only represented the person depicted, and that veneration to them was paid to the person, not the image.[119]

 

Artistic depictions of God the Father were uncontroversial in Catholic art thereafter, but less common depictions of the Trinity were condemned. In 1745 Pope Benedict XIV explicitly supported the Throne of Mercy depiction, referring to the "Ancient of Days", but in 1786 it was still necessary for Pope Pius VI to issue a papal bull condemning the decision of an Italian church council to remove all images of the Trinity from churches.[120]

  

The famous The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, c.1512

God the Father is symbolized in several Genesis scenes in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, most famously The Creation of Adam (whose image of near touching hands of God and Adam is iconic of humanity, being a reminder that Man is created in the Image and Likeness of God (Gen 1:26)).God the Father is depicted as a powerful figure, floating in the clouds in Titian's Assumption of the Virgin in the Frari of Venice, long admired as a masterpiece of High Renaissance art.[121] The Church of the Gesù in Rome includes a number of 16th century depictions of God the Father. In some of these paintings the Trinity is still alluded to in terms of three angels, but Giovanni Battista Fiammeri also depicted God the Father as a man riding on a cloud, above the scenes.[122]

 

In both the Last Judgment and the Coronation of the Virgin paintings by Rubens he depicted God the Father using the image that by then had become widely accepted, a bearded patriarchal figure above the fray. In the 17th century, the two Spanish artists Velázquez (whose father-in-law Francisco Pacheco was in charge of the approval of new images for the Inquisition) and Murillo both depicted God the Father using a patriarchal figure with a white beard in a purple robe.

  

The Ancient of Days (1794) Watercolor etching by William Blake

While representations of God the Father were growing in Italy, Spain, Germany and the Low Countries, there was resistance elsewhere in Europe, even during the 17th century. In 1632 most members of the Star Chamber court in England (except the Archbishop of York) condemned the use of the images of the Trinity in church windows, and some considered them illegal.[123] Later in the 17th century Sir Thomas Browne wrote that he considered the representation of God the Father using an old man "a dangerous act" that might lead to Egyptian symbolism.[124] In 1847, Charles Winston was still critical of such images as a "Romish trend" (a term used to refer to Roman Catholics) that he considered best avoided in England.[125]

 

In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the Great Moscow Council specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a whole range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list,[126][127] mostly affecting Western-style depictions which had been gaining ground in Orthodox icons. The Council also declared that the person of the Trinity who was the "Ancient of Days" was Christ, as Logos, not God the Father. However some icons continued to be produced in Russia, as well as Greece, Romania, and other Orthodox countries.

 

Theological approaches

Theologians and philosophers have attributed to God such characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable being existent.[3] These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including Maimonides,[53] St Augustine,[53] and Al-Ghazali.[128]

 

Many philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[8] while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience may seem to imply that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their ostensible free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.[129]

 

However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge. Although knowledge of the options presented to that will, combined with perfectly infinite intelligence, could be said to provide God with omniscience if omniscience is defined as knowledge or understanding of all that is.

 

The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, as does Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic", or to take, as does Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.[130] Some theists agree that only some of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Pascal as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know."[131] A recent theory using concepts from physics and neurophysiology proposes that God can be conceptualized within the theory of integrative level.[132]

 

Many religious believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings such as angels, saints, jinn, demons, and devas.[133][134][135][136][137]

 

Distribution of belief

Paula Tucci and Priscilla Squires of Understanding Disabilities, with Joel Swets, executive director of Cummings Foundation

 

History of the Museum

Scientific research and gathering in Austria found relatively late understanding and promotion. Indeed contained the chambers of art and curiosities of the Habsburgs also natural produce but for a long time they have been regarded as mere oddities, not as objects of scientific importance. It was not until Emperor Franz I. (Francis Stephen of Lorraine, 1745-1765), the husband of Maria Theresia, founded in 1748 with the purchase of the famous collection of Johann Baillous a private Naturalienkabinett. It was put up in accordance to Baillous' own scientific system in the Hofburg and was initially managed by this self.

The main emphasis was put on minerals and fossils as well as snail and mussel shells and corals. Plants and animals with soft parts were then (mainly because of the preparation problems) yet little appreciated as collector's items. They were held alive in botanical gardens and menageries.

After the death of Francis I the collection in which the Emperor had invested large sums of money was transferred into state ownership, reorganized and made ​​twice a week accessible to the public. 1776 appointed Maria Theresa, particularly dear to her being mainly the earth sciences as a basis for mining and industry, the excellent mineralogist and montanist Ignaz von Born to Vienna and entrusted him with the systematic expansion of the collection. Born was a leader of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry, he might even have given the model for Sarastro in Mozart's "Magic Flute". With him for "Austria", definitely, dawned the scientific-technological age. The Naturalienkabinett (a cabinet of curiosities) then became a center of mineralogical research in Europe.

The nature-loving Emperor Franz II (I, 1792-1835) expanded the natural history collection for a private animal cabinet. The foundation for this were the trophies of the Habsburgs, which date back to Emperor Maximilian II (1564-1576), as well as the famous collection of prepared native vertebrates and insects of the falconer Joseph Natterer. After several reclassifications followed in 1807 the foundation of a separate plants cabinet. The Emperor lay with the gift of his Privatherbars (private plant collection) the foundation.

The exhibition practice around 1800 was marked by an often curious juxtaposition of little scientific and very progressive tendencies. The stuffed animals were shown in artificial landscape dioramas, ie already in ecological context. Alongside, however, stood also Stopfpräparate (stuffed compounds) of people of non-native breeds such as the "high princely Moor' Angelo Soliman, who came to literary fame.

The eminent scholar and organizer Carl Schreibers who from 1806 until 1851 headed the Natural History Collection, provided for key reforms in all areas. He extented all departments to major research centers and was supported not only by the museum officials, but also by a number of often highly skilled, unpaid volunteers.

On the occasion of the marriage of his daughter Leopoldina with the Brazilian crown prince Dom Pedro in 1817 sent Emperor Franz also well-known researchers to South America. Through their collecting activities, the growth of the museum's experienced a glorious climax. So stayed the zoologist Johann Natterer for 18 years in South America and established an in an exemplary manner documented collection of scientific and ethnographic objects for Vienna. This contributed significantly to the worldwide reputation of the museum, but also led to a decades-long lack of space.

With various, not always felicitous chosen emergency solutions on tried in vain to handle space problems sussesfully. During the revolutionary turmoil of 1848, the Imperial Palace was bombarded by imperial troops and partially set on fire. A part of the collection was destroyed, tragically, also many irreplaceable objects from the Brazilian material.

In the years after the Revolution, the collection was converted into an independent zoological, botanical and mineralogical Hofkabinett (Court cabinet). These cabinets with their extremely rich stocks offered not only ideal possibilities to explore, they contributed to the establishment of scientific disciplines in the university sector in 1870 also considerably to the formation of young scientists. The collections have been enhanced through exchange and purchases, by the collecting activities of the researchers as well as legacies, especially of scientifically inclined travelers, constantly . In addition, the by the Imperial Court generously funded cooperation with the Austrian navy became very important: Especially the circumnavigation of the world of the frigate "Novara" (1857-1859), which was attended by numerous excellent naturalist, gave an exceedingly rich collection of new material to the museum. The scientific word off should take decades.

This scientific Poiniergeist (pioneering spirit), reflecting the general belief in progress in the second half of the 18th Century, was facing the more and more oppressive need of space. Although Emperor Franz Joseph had already in 1857 the razing of the fortification lines around the city center ordered. On the cleared area should along a boulevard alongside other representative public buildings also new museums emerge. Up to the completion of this project, however, it was still a long way to go.

The liberal bourgeoisie then undergoing a steep political and economic upswing was inclined to replace the old cabinets through research and education centers for broad strata of the population and thus make its own cultural advancement clearly visible. But the neo-absolutist empire of the gradually decaying Habsburg monarchy, too, wanted erect itself a modern, artistically accomplished monument: A monumental Imperial Forum following the ancient example was planned, that should be reaching from the Imperial Palace to the royal stables. Realized of it was only a torso: the New Castle and Maria Theresa Square with Museum of Art History and Museum of Natural History.

The internal organization of the new 'Imperial and Royal Natural History Court Museum", which on 10 August was officially opened in 1889, goes back to the great geologist, New Zealand researcher and first director of the museum, Ferdinand von Hochstetter, and has been preserved largely in its clear systematic today. However, the proliferation of resources and new demands on the research and display collection activities required new spatial and structural solutions. Thus, an underground storage was created in 1990, which extends under the building on four levels and in fully air-conditioned rooms keeps a portion of the collection material. Due to the roof extension (1991 to 1995) further collection, but also numerous new working rooms were gained.

The research, the preservation and completing of the major scientific collections and the presentation of selected natural objects to this day have not lost any of their topicalities. In a time of increasingly rapid destruction of our environment, they are more important than ever. Just as the white patches have become smaller on the map, penetrates the science into ever smaller areas. Long scanning electron microscope and X-ray equipment have replaced hand magnifier. In the permanent exhibition area visitors also have access to advanced optical devices, especially in "Microcosmos" ( Hall 21). The preservation of collection, too, follows modern conservation knowledge.

Over a century ago, the Museum hace been created for the systematic presentation - the diversity of nature sorted strung together, the palace-like building, the interplay of means and objects as well as the historic atmosphere giving it a distinctive character.

Even with the redesign of many exhibition halls systematic classification was basically retained to make the visitors aware of the immense diversity of life. However, the presentation is successively adapted to the museological requirements and needs of the 21st century. Also presented are interesting topics and new contents in a contemporary didactic form.

Copyright Museum of Natural History

www.wien-konkret.at/kultur/museum/naturhistorisches-museu...

Gabriela Perez

 

Loos Museum, based on analysis of the Muller House. Gabriela reinterpreted the theatrical aspects of the house by turning them inside out. The house is formally expressive on the outside, but the central "stage" space is a cube.

FileMaker and Understanding PHP | PART 1 | FileMaker Pro 16 Videos | FileMaker 16 Training Most Recent Upload https://goo.gl/Dbn9fm Get up to speed with the FileMaker Pro 16 Video Training Course! Top Rated Course by FileMaker Expert, Richard Carlton. http://learningfilemaker.com/fmpro16.php Experience Richard's dynamic and exciting teaching format, while learning both basic, intermediate, and advanced FileMaker development skills. With 26 years of FileMaker experience and a long time speaker at FileMaker's Developer Conference, Richard will teach you all the ins and outs of building FileMaker Solutions. The course is 50 hours of video content! Richard has been involved with the FileMaker platform since 1990 and has grown RCC into one of the largest top tier FileMaker consultancies worldwide. Richard works closely with RCC's staff: a team of 28 FileMaker developers and supporting web designers. He has offices in California, Nevada, and Texas. Richard has been a frequent speaker at the FileMaker Developers Conference on a variety of topics involving FileMaker for Startups and Entrepreneurs, and client-server integration. Richard is the Product Manager for FM Starting Point, the popular and most downloaded free FileMaker CRM Starter Solution. Looking for FM Starting Point free software download: http://www.fmstartingpoint.com Richard won 2015 Excellence Award from FileMaker Inc (Apple Inc) for outstanding video and product creation, leading to business development. RCC, Filemaker Videos, and LearningFileMaker.com are headquartered in Santa Clara, CA. http://www.rcconsulting.com/ Please feel free to contact us at support@rcconsulting.com FileMaker Pro is simply a powerful software used to create custom apps that work seamlessly across iPad, iPhone, Windows, Mac, and the web Transform your business with the FileMaker Platform Free FileMaker Training Videos Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/FileMakerVideos 50 Hour FileMaker Pro 16 Video Training Course-FileMaker 16 News-Online FileMaker 16 Training Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpQqLLDcZ8I Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpQqLLDcZ8I&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBTMCfjM6LLwBAwGf_yXfvd_&index=13 Top 10 New Features in FileMaker 16-FileMaker 16 News-FileMaker 16 Instructional Videos-FileMaker 16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urh8iHOCxkg Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urh8iHOCxkg&t=130s&index=1&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBTMCfjM6LLwBAwGf_yXfvd_ Sharing your Database with Other Devices and Users-FileMaker 16 News-FileMaker 16 Database Sharing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF82vkYtCtA Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF82vkYtCtA&index=8&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBTMCfjM6LLwBAwGf_yXfvd_ Introduction to FileMaker WebDirect 16-FileMaker 16 News-Online FileMaker 16 Training Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaZKIpBjMAM Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaZKIpBjMAM&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBSVV1-4pFG4SHAhCIP3Yy-I&index=17&t=10s FileMaker Behavior Change-Go To Object-FileMaker 16 Video Training-FileMaker 16 News-FileMaker Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFwFjZem3AM Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFwFjZem3AM&index=15&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBQVDIUvoRkcvrMLi7sTZmj5 A database management system (DBMS) is a computer software application that interacts with the user, other applications, and the database itself to capture and analyze data Official site provides the SDK, Developer's Guide, Reference, and Android Market for the open source project http://learningfilemaker.com/FIAS.html Here is a video introduction to iOS App Training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVxQe_yAshw For more Free FileMaker videos check out ...http://www.filemakervideos.com Download the FileMaker Pro 16 & FileMaker GO 16 for mobile devices training videos at http://www.learningfilemaker.com Download FileMaker Go 16 video training at http://learningfilemaker.com/FMGO-16/fmgo16.php Download FileMaker 16 Full Video Training Bundle at http://learningfilemaker.com/subscription.php FileMaker Video Training Review-FileMaker 16 Video Course Review-FileMaker Pro 16 101 Course Review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6Uor0KmKo Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6Uor0KmKo&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBT8tNHuzF6cOKC_37zCTQl6&index=18 Learn how to use FileMaker to create an app with the FileMaker Training Series FileMaker Pro is a cross-platform relational database application from FileMaker Inc. Please Comment, Like & Share All of Our Videos. Feel Free to Embed any of Our Videos on Your Blog or Website. Follow Us on Your Favorite Social Media https://www.facebook.com/FileMakerVideos https://twitter.com/filemakervideos https://plus.google.com/+FileMakerVideos/videos #WhatisFileMaker16 #FileMakerPro16Training #FileMaker16VideoTutorial #FileMakerPro16Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sZ9O7948ko&list=PLjTvUZtwtgBQVDIUvoRkcvrMLi7sTZmj5&index=28

Stronger Bones, Healthier Life

Many women miss the early signs of calcium deficiency—fatigue, brittle nails, and cramps. Learn how to spot the symptoms early and boost your bone health naturally.

👉 Read more

Secwépemc Chiefs, the Honourable Katrine Conroy, British Columbia Minister of Children and Family Development, and the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on jurisdiction for child and family services. This MOU provides a framework that charts the path forward in recognizing and implementing Secwépemc jurisdiction.

 

Read more: news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2018IRR0058-001451

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."

 

Tenerife

Park with first defense city wall and gun Maastricht Netherlands.Yo Leenders. ONLY PERSONAL COMMENTS NO LOGOS, THANK YO FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. © RESPECT THE COPY RICHT.

Mausoleum

MIT Media Lab "Understanding Networks" conference, Oct 12-13th, 2011.

 

Leica M9-P with 35mm Summilux Aspherical

Maestro, Daniel Barenboim ( back to camera ) pianist and conductor and the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra during repetition at a concert for the Understanding of Civilizations and Human Rights in the United Nations in Geneva. 31 october 2015. UN Photo / Jean-Marc Ferré

History of the Museum

Scientific research and gathering in Austria found relatively late understanding and promotion. Indeed contained the chambers of art and curiosities of the Habsburgs also natural produce but for a long time they have been regarded as mere oddities, not as objects of scientific importance. It was not until Emperor Franz I. (Francis Stephen of Lorraine, 1745-1765), the husband of Maria Theresia, founded in 1748 with the purchase of the famous collection of Johann Baillous a private Naturalienkabinett. It was put up in accordance to Baillous' own scientific system in the Hofburg and was initially managed by this self.

The main emphasis was put on minerals and fossils as well as snail and mussel shells and corals. Plants and animals with soft parts were then (mainly because of the preparation problems) yet little appreciated as collector's items. They were held alive in botanical gardens and menageries.

After the death of Francis I the collection in which the Emperor had invested large sums of money was transferred into state ownership, reorganized and made ​​twice a week accessible to the public. 1776 appointed Maria Theresa, particularly dear to her being mainly the earth sciences as a basis for mining and industry, the excellent mineralogist and montanist Ignaz von Born to Vienna and entrusted him with the systematic expansion of the collection. Born was a leader of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry, he might even have given the model for Sarastro in Mozart's "Magic Flute". With him for "Austria", definitely, dawned the scientific-technological age. The Naturalienkabinett (a cabinet of curiosities) then became a center of mineralogical research in Europe.

The nature-loving Emperor Franz II (I, 1792-1835) expanded the natural history collection for a private animal cabinet. The foundation for this were the trophies of the Habsburgs, which date back to Emperor Maximilian II (1564-1576), as well as the famous collection of prepared native vertebrates and insects of the falconer Joseph Natterer. After several reclassifications followed in 1807 the foundation of a separate plants cabinet. The Emperor lay with the gift of his Privatherbars (private plant collection) the foundation.

The exhibition practice around 1800 was marked by an often curious juxtaposition of little scientific and very progressive tendencies. The stuffed animals were shown in artificial landscape dioramas, ie already in ecological context. Alongside, however, stood also Stopfpräparate (stuffed compounds) of people of non-native breeds such as the "high princely Moor' Angelo Soliman, who came to literary fame.

The eminent scholar and organizer Carl Schreibers who from 1806 until 1851 headed the Natural History Collection, provided for key reforms in all areas. He extented all departments to major research centers and was supported not only by the museum officials, but also by a number of often highly skilled, unpaid volunteers.

On the occasion of the marriage of his daughter Leopoldina with the Brazilian crown prince Dom Pedro in 1817 sent Emperor Franz also well-known researchers to South America. Through their collecting activities, the growth of the museum's experienced a glorious climax. So stayed the zoologist Johann Natterer for 18 years in South America and established an in an exemplary manner documented collection of scientific and ethnographic objects for Vienna. This contributed significantly to the worldwide reputation of the museum, but also led to a decades-long lack of space.

With various, not always felicitous chosen emergency solutions on tried in vain to handle space problems sussesfully. During the revolutionary turmoil of 1848, the Imperial Palace was bombarded by imperial troops and partially set on fire. A part of the collection was destroyed, tragically, also many irreplaceable objects from the Brazilian material.

In the years after the Revolution, the collection was converted into an independent zoological, botanical and mineralogical Hofkabinett (Court cabinet). These cabinets with their extremely rich stocks offered not only ideal possibilities to explore, they contributed to the establishment of scientific disciplines in the university sector in 1870 also considerably to the formation of young scientists. The collections have been enhanced through exchange and purchases, by the collecting activities of the researchers as well as legacies, especially of scientifically inclined travelers, constantly . In addition, the by the Imperial Court generously funded cooperation with the Austrian navy became very important: Especially the circumnavigation of the world of the frigate "Novara" (1857-1859), which was attended by numerous excellent naturalist, gave an exceedingly rich collection of new material to the museum. The scientific word off should take decades.

This scientific Poiniergeist (pioneering spirit), reflecting the general belief in progress in the second half of the 18th Century, was facing the more and more oppressive need of space. Although Emperor Franz Joseph had already in 1857 the razing of the fortification lines around the city center ordered. On the cleared area should along a boulevard alongside other representative public buildings also new museums emerge. Up to the completion of this project, however, it was still a long way to go.

The liberal bourgeoisie then undergoing a steep political and economic upswing was inclined to replace the old cabinets through research and education centers for broad strata of the population and thus make its own cultural advancement clearly visible. But the neo-absolutist empire of the gradually decaying Habsburg monarchy, too, wanted erect itself a modern, artistically accomplished monument: A monumental Imperial Forum following the ancient example was planned, that should be reaching from the Imperial Palace to the royal stables. Realized of it was only a torso: the New Castle and Maria Theresa Square with Museum of Art History and Museum of Natural History.

The internal organization of the new 'Imperial and Royal Natural History Court Museum", which on 10 August was officially opened in 1889, goes back to the great geologist, New Zealand researcher and first director of the museum, Ferdinand von Hochstetter, and has been preserved largely in its clear systematic today. However, the proliferation of resources and new demands on the research and display collection activities required new spatial and structural solutions. Thus, an underground storage was created in 1990, which extends under the building on four levels and in fully air-conditioned rooms keeps a portion of the collection material. Due to the roof extension (1991 to 1995) further collection, but also numerous new working rooms were gained.

The research, the preservation and completing of the major scientific collections and the presentation of selected natural objects to this day have not lost any of their topicalities. In a time of increasingly rapid destruction of our environment, they are more important than ever. Just as the white patches have become smaller on the map, penetrates the science into ever smaller areas. Long scanning electron microscope and X-ray equipment have replaced hand magnifier. In the permanent exhibition area visitors also have access to advanced optical devices, especially in "Microcosmos" ( Hall 21). The preservation of collection, too, follows modern conservation knowledge.

Over a century ago, the Museum hace been created for the systematic presentation - the diversity of nature sorted strung together, the palace-like building, the interplay of means and objects as well as the historic atmosphere giving it a distinctive character.

Even with the redesign of many exhibition halls systematic classification was basically retained to make the visitors aware of the immense diversity of life. However, the presentation is successively adapted to the museological requirements and needs of the 21st century. Also presented are interesting topics and new contents in a contemporary didactic form.

Copyright Museum of Natural History

www.wien-konkret.at/kultur/museum/naturhistorisches-museu...

Scientists announced a new research project aimed at understanding the relationships between severe thunderstorms and how tornadoes form across the Great Plains with the goal of improving forecasts.

 

They discussed the project, Targeted Observation by Radars and Unmanned Aircraft Systems of Supercells, or TORUS, during a news conference and public open house on Tuesday, May 14, at the Salina (Kansas) Regional Airport.

 

The TORUS project involves more than 50 researchers using 20 tools to measure the atmosphere, including unmanned aircraft systems, mobile radars and NOAA's WP-3D Orion "Hurricane Hunter" aircraft. Fieldwork will be conducted May 15 to June 16 throughout a 367,000-square-mile area of the Central Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas and Iowa to Wyoming and Colorado.

 

Funded by the National Science Foundation and NOAA, the project is led by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Partner institutions are the University of Colorado Boulder, Texas Tech University, NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory, NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, and the University of Oklahoma Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies.

Participants who choose this track will volunteer in community centers and organizations that promote Arab-Israeli coexistence and understanding, and study sessions will explore the background of Arab-Israeli relations and coexistence.

 

www.tikunolamisrael.org

បុគ្គលិក ACCB ជួបជាមួយសមាជិក YSEALI ដើម្បីនិយាយអំពីបញ្ហាសំខាន់ ដែលប៉ះពាល់ដល់សត្វព្រៃ និងជីវចំរុះក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា។

 

អ្នកចូលរួមសិក្ខាសាលា “YSEALI Generation: EARTH" រួមមានយុវជនយុវ​នារីអាយុពី 18-25 ឆ្នាំ មកពីប្រទេសប្រុយណេ កម្ពុជា ឥណ្ឌូនេស៊ី ឡាវ ម៉ាឡេស៊ី មីយ៉ាន់ម៉ា ហ្វីលីពីន សិង្ហបុរី ថៃ និង វៀតណាម។

 

ចំណុច​ផ្ដោត​សំខាន់​នៃកម្មវិធីនេះ គឺ​ដើម្បី​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​មាន​ការយល់​ស៊ីជម្រៅ​ទៅ លើ​បញ្ហា​ប្រឈម ​ផ្នែក​បរិស្ថាន ​ដែល​តំបន់​អាស៊ាន​ និង​តំបន់​ដទៃទៀត​កំពុង​មាន​។

 

The "YSEALI Generation: EARTH" participants visit Angkor Centre for Conservation of Biodiversity (ACCB) at Kbal Spean, Siem Reap.

 

ACCB staff meet with the ‪‎YSEALI‬ members to talk about critical issues affecting wildlife and biodiversity in Cambodia.

 

The U.S. Embassy brings together 72 young Southeast Asian leaders to Siem Reap for the workshop aiming to to foster a deeper understanding of challenges to the environment facing the ASEAN region and beyond.

 

Participants include young people between the age of 18-25 from Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

 

[U.S. Embassy photo by Un Yarat]

KIGALI, December 16, 2020: Rwanda Development Board has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with trade enabler-DP World to launch its new global B2B and B2C e-commerce platform, Dubuy.com, in Rwanda early next year. The vision of the MoU is to make it easier for Rwandan businesses to engage in international trade.

 

Rwanda will become DP World’s hub for expanding e-commerce across the East Africa Community and beyond. Rwandan businesses will also benefit from broader DP World services and investment that will help to facilitate and develop trade. This includes the promotion of Rwandan exports of coffee, tea, and horticulture on Dubuy.com, the modernising of Rwanda’s supply chain logistics including in rural areas, and access to digital tools to help businesses save money and expand their reach to local, regional, and global markets.

 

The decision to launch Dubuy.com in Rwanda follows the country’s consistent superior annual rating in the World Bank’s global “Ease of Doing Business” rankings and its commitment to international trade and investment.

 

The e-commerce site will bring Rwandan products to global markets and help enterprises from around the world to invest in Rwanda. In turn, Rwandans will have greater access to international products.

 

DP World has already invested in world-class port and logistics facilities in Kigali, demonstrating its strong belief in Rwanda’s future.

The First Unitarian Church in Rochester, New York was designed by architect Louis Kahn in 1959 to replace the previous church designed in 1859 by architect Richard Upjohn, founder of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

 

Kahn's idea of the building began with a concept sketch that represented his understanding of Unitarian aspirations, with several concentric circles surrounding a central question mark. This led, through several iterations, to the final design in which the sanctuary (where questions are raised and addressed) is surrounded by a corridor and classrooms. The problem of bringing natural light into the central space was solved by the four light towers which are perhaps the most distinctive feature of the building.

 

An addition completed in 1969 at the east end of the building was also designed by Kahn.

 

"Architecture is the thoughtful making of spaces," said architect Louis I. Kahn. "It is the creating of spaces that evoke a feeling of appropriate use."

 

Kahn was commissioned in 1959 to design a new building for the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, New York. The congregation had met for many years in a building of special architectural quality, designed in 1859 by Richard Upjohn, a leading 19th century architect and founder of the American Institute of Architects. When that building had to be demolished for downtown redevelopment, the congregation felt a responsibility to replace it with one by a leading 20th century architect, giving the community a notable example of contemporary architecture.

 

A search committee interviewed a number of nationally known architects and recommended Kahn. Those who interviewed him felt that he was instinctively close to Unitarian Universalist ideas as well as an innovative architectural leader. His aesthetic philosophy was expressed in terms close to mysticism, words struggling to communicate a complex creative process. His intuitive architectural solutions began with a concern for the integrity of materials, a feeling for the expression of structure, and a desire to return to essentials, to express "only what matters."

 

In designing the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, Kahn began with a simple concept sketch. As he faced the initial congregational meeting, he drew on the blackboard, as he later explained, "my first reaction to what may be a direction in the building of a Unitarian Church. Having heard the minister give a sense of the Unitarian aspirations, it occurred to me that the sanctuary is merely the center of questions and that the school was that which raised the question and I felt that that which raised the question and that which was the sense of the question - the spirit of the question - were inseparable."

 

Published on April 26, 2013 at The Official Gazette

Scientists announced a new research project aimed at understanding the relationships between severe thunderstorms and how tornadoes form across the Great Plains with the goal of improving forecasts.

 

They discussed the project, Targeted Observation by Radars and Unmanned Aircraft Systems of Supercells, or TORUS, during a news conference and public open house on Tuesday, May 14, at the Salina (Kansas) Regional Airport.

 

The TORUS project involves more than 50 researchers using 20 tools to measure the atmosphere, including unmanned aircraft systems, mobile radars and NOAA's WP-3D Orion "Hurricane Hunter" aircraft. Fieldwork will be conducted May 15 to June 16 throughout a 367,000-square-mile area of the Central Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas and Iowa to Wyoming and Colorado.

 

Funded by the National Science Foundation and NOAA, the project is led by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Partner institutions are the University of Colorado Boulder, Texas Tech University, NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory, NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, and the University of Oklahoma Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies.

International Symposium on Understanding the Double Burden of Malnutrition for Effective Interventions held at the Agency headquarters in Vienna, Austria. 10 December 2018

 

Photo Credit: Dean Calma / IAEA

 

Opening Session

Aldo Malavasi, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications

Clemens M. Auer, Special Envoy for Health for the Federal Ministry for Labour, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection

France Beginn, UNICEF

Laurance Grummer-Strawn, World Health Organization

May Abdel-Wahab, IAEA Director, Division of Human Health

Cornelia Loechl, IAEA Section Head, Nutritional and Health-Related Environmental Studies

 

It's funny how they just seem to know and want to provide comfort.

the UNITED BUDDY BEARS promote living together in peace and harmony on their global tour. Around 140 Buddy Bears (each 2 m tall) represent as many countries recognised by the United Nations.

 

The United Buddy Bears are visiting Helsinki in Finland with their 20th exhibition from 1 September to 26 October 2010.

 

Taken in Helsinki Finland.

Understanding Azure Mobile Web Services – Rocky Lhotka

 

Windows Azure Mobile Web Services allows for the streamlined representation of structured data in the cloud. It provides a platform for managing users and a scripting platform for push notification, SMS, and email. In short, you can focus on your app’s core functionality. Rocky will tell you all about this exciting new platform, and how to get started!

codemastery.com/chicago/

 

Magenic

Founded in 1995 by the same technical minds that still run the company, Magenic is a custom application development firm that focuses on the Microsoft stack and mobile application development. Fronted by numerous Microsoft MVPs and V-TSPs, our development team is current on all of the newest Microsoft technologies, including Windows 8 and SQL Server 2012. With an in-house UI/UX design team and proven quality assurance and testing practice in place, Magenic is a logical fit for Fortune 1000 organizations seeking enterprise custom application development.

magenic.com/

 

Photo taken by Michael Kappel on Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Check out the high resolution photo on my photography website

Pictures.MichaelKappel.com

In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good), and all loving.

 

God is most often held to be non-corporeal,[3] and to be without any human biological sex,[4][5] yet the concept of God actively creating the universe (as opposed to passively)[6] has caused many religions to describe God using masculine terminology, using such terms as "Him" or "Father". Furthermore, some religions (such as Judaism) attribute only a purely grammatical "gender" to God.[7]

 

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is not believed to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[8]

 

There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about God's identity and attributes. In the ancient Egyptian era of Atenism, possibly the earliest recorded monotheistic religion, this deity was called Aten,[9] premised on being the one "true" Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe.[10] In the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, "He Who Is", "I Am that I Am", and the tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה‎‎, which means: "I am who I am"; "He Who Exists") are used as names of God, while Yahweh and Jehovah are sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, God, consubstantial in three persons, is called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular names Elohim or Adonai, the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten.[11][12][13][14][15] In Islam, the name Allah, "Al-El", or "Al-Elah" ("the God") is used, while Muslims also have a multitude of titular names for God. In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic deity.[16] Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá'í Faith,[17] Waheguru in Sikhism,[18] and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.[19]

 

The many different conceptions of God, and competing claims as to God's characteristics, aims, and actions, have led to the development of ideas of omnitheism, pandeism,[20][21] or a perennial philosophy, which postulates that there is one underlying theological truth, of which all religions express a partial understanding, and as to which "the devout in the various great world religions are in fact worshipping that one God, but through different, overlapping concepts or mental images of Him."[22]

 

Contents [hide]

1Etymology and usage

2General conceptions

2.1Oneness

2.2Theism, deism and pantheism

2.3Other concepts

3Non-theistic views

3.1Agnosticism and atheism

3.2Anthropomorphism

4Existence

5Specific attributes

5.1Names

5.2Gender

5.3Relationship with creation

6Depiction

6.1Zoroastrianism

6.2Islam

6.3Judaism

6.4Christianity

7Theological approaches

8Distribution of belief

9See also

9.1In specific religions

10References

11Further reading

12External links

Etymology and usage

 

The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.

Main article: God (word)

The earliest written form of the Germanic word God (always, in this usage, capitalized[23]) comes from the 6th-century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was likely based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[24] The Germanic words for God were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.[25]

  

The word 'Allah' in Arabic calligraphy

In the English language, the capitalized form of God continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[26][27] The English word God and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton YHWH, in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity, Yahweh. In many translations of the Bible, when the word LORD is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.[28]

 

Allāh (Arabic: الله‎‎) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God" (with a capital G), while "ʾilāh" (Arabic: إله‎‎) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.[29][30][31] God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[32]

 

Ahura Mazda is the name for God used in Zoroastrianism. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form Mazdā-, nominative Mazdå, reflects Proto-Iranian *Mazdāh (female). It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its Sanskrit cognate medhā, means "intelligence" or "wisdom". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect Proto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European mn̩sdʰeh1, literally meaning "placing (dʰeh1) one's mind (*mn̩-s)", hence "wise".[33]

 

Waheguru (Punjabi: vāhigurū) is a term most often used in Sikhism to refer to God. It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language. Vāhi (a Middle Persian borrowing) means "wonderful" and guru (Sanskrit: guru) is a term denoting "teacher". Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all descriptions. The most common usage of the word "Waheguru" is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other:

 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Wonderful Lord's Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord.

Baha, the "greatest" name for God in the Baha'i faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious".

 

General conceptions

Main article: Conceptions of God

There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.[34] The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheistic definition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic. Divinity was recognized by the historical Buddha, particularly Śakra and Brahma. However, other sentient beings, including gods, can at best only play a supportive role in one's personal path to salvation. Conceptions of God in the latter developments of the Mahayana tradition give a more prominent place to notions of the divine.[citation needed]

 

Oneness

Main articles: Monotheism and Henotheism

 

The Trinity is the belief that God is composed of The Father, The Son (embodied metaphysically in the physical realm by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.

Monotheists hold that there is only one god, and may claim that the one true god is worshiped in different religions under different names. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in Hinduism[35] and Sikhism.[36] In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in three persons. The Trinity comprises The Father, The Son (embodied metaphysically by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.[37] Islam's most fundamental concept is tawhid (meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness"). God is described in the Quran as: "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him."[38][39] Muslims repudiate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, and are not expected to visualize God.[40]

 

Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.[41]

 

Theism, deism and pantheism

Main articles: Theism, Deism, and Pantheism

Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; and that God is personal and interacting with the universe through, for example, religious experience and the prayers of humans.[42] Theism holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world.[43] Not all theists subscribe to all of these propositions, but each usually subscribes to some of them (see, by way of comparison, family resemblance).[42] Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. Theism is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism.[44][45]

  

"God blessing the seventh day", a watercolor painting depicting God, by William Blake (1757 – 1827)

Deism holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it.[43] In this view, God is not anthropomorphic, and neither answers prayers nor produces miracles. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. Pandeism and Panendeism, respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs.[21][46][47] Pandeism is proposed to explain as to Deism why God would create a universe and then abandon it,[48] and as to Pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.[48][49]

 

Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.[50] It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church; Theosophy; some views of Hinduism except Vaishnavism, which believes in panentheism; Sikhism; some divisions of Neopaganism and Taoism, along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God—which has wide acceptance in Hasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder The Baal Shem Tov—but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God.[citation needed]

 

Other concepts

Dystheism, which is related to theodicy, is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the problem of evil. One such example comes from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, in which Ivan Karamazov rejects God on the grounds that he allows children to suffer.[51]

 

In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life.[52]

 

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[53] Augustine of Hippo,[53] and Al-Ghazali,[8] respectively.

 

Non-theistic views

See also: Evolutionary origin of religions and Evolutionary psychology of religion

Non-theist views about God also vary. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, whilst accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. The nineteenth-century English atheist Charles Bradlaugh declared that he refused to say "There is no God", because "the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation";[54] he said more specifically that he disbelieved in the Christian god. Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.[55]

 

Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[56] Carl Sagan argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.[57]

 

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[58] Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.[59]

 

Agnosticism and atheism

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[60][61][62]

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or a God.[63][64] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[65]

 

Anthropomorphism

Main article: Anthropomorphism

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.[66] Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.[67] Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.[68]

 

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[69]

 

Existence

Main article: Existence of God

 

St. Thomas Aquinas summed up five main arguments as proofs for God's existence.

 

Isaac Newton saw the existence of a Creator necessary in the movement of astronomical objects.

Arguments about the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Different views include that: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist" (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism[70]);"God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (de facto theism); and that "God exists and this can be proven" (strong theism).[55]

 

Countless arguments have been proposed to prove the existence of God.[71] Some of the most notable arguments are the Five Ways of Aquinas, the Argument from Desire proposed by C.S. Lewis, and the Ontological Argument formulated both by St. Anselm and René Descartes.[72]

 

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[73] His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.[74]

 

Scientist Isaac Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[75] Nevertheless, he rejected polymath Leibniz' thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

 

For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[76]

 

St. Thomas believed that the existence of God is self-evident in itself, but not to us. "Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."[77] St. Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in the Summa theologiae and more extensively in the Summa contra Gentiles, he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the quinque viae (Five Ways).

 

For the original text of the five proofs, see quinque viae

Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.

Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.

Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.

Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God (Note: Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself).

Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas's view, the source of all our knowledge comes from God as well).[78]

 

Alister McGrath, a formerly atheistic scientist and theologian who has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins' version of atheism

Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the scientific method.[79][80] Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict and do not overlap.[81]

 

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by some atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.[82][83][84] These atheists claim that a single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner.[85] Richard Dawkins interprets such findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, but as extensive evidence to the contrary.[55] However, his views are opposed by some theologians and scientists including Alister McGrath, who argues that existence of God is compatible with science.[86]

 

Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.[59]

 

Specific attributes

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

 

Names

Main article: Names of God

 

99 names of Allah, in Chinese Sini (script)

The word God is "one of the most complex and difficult in the English language." In the Judeo-Christian tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood".[87]

 

Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are many names for God. One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, meaning "God Almighty".[88] A third notable name is El Elyon, which means "The Most High God".[89]

 

God is described and referred in the Quran and hadith by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning "Most Compassionate" and Al-Rahim, meaning "Most Merciful" (See Names of God in Islam).[90]

  

Supreme soul

The Brahma Kumaris use the term "Supreme Soul" to refer to God. They see God as incorporeal and eternal, and regard him as a point of living light like human souls, but without a physical body, as he does not enter the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. God is seen as the perfect and constant embodiment of all virtues, powers and values and that He is the unconditionally loving Father of all souls, irrespective of their religion, gender, or culture.[91]

 

Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has list of titles and names of Krishna.

 

Gender

Main article: Gender of God

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form.[92][93] Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.[6]

 

Biblical sources usually refer to God using male words, except Genesis 1:26-27,[94][95] Psalm 123:2-3, and Luke 15:8-10 (female); Hosea 11:3-4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2 (a mother); Deuteronomy 32:11-12 (a mother eagle); and Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 (a mother hen).

 

Relationship with creation

See also: Creator deity, Prayer, and Worship

 

And Elohim Created Adam by William Blake, c.1795

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God.[96][97] He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.[98] Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."[99]

 

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

 

Jews and Christians believe that humans are created in the likeness of God, and are the center, crown and key to God's creation, stewards for God, supreme over everything else God had made (Gen 1:26); for this reason, humans are in Christianity called the "Children of God".[100]

 

Depiction

God is defined as incorporeal,[3] and invisible from direct sight, and thus cannot be portrayed in a literal visual image.

 

The respective principles of religions may or may not permit them to use images (which are entirely symbolic) to represent God in art or in worship .

 

Zoroastrianism

 

Ahura Mazda (depiction is on the right, with high crown) presents Ardashir I (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief at Naqsh-e Rustam, 3rd century CE)

During the early Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sassanid empire. Zoroastrian iconoclasm, which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback which is found in Sassanian investiture.[101]

 

Islam

Further information: God in Islam

Muslims believe that God (Allah) is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of His creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, are not expected to visualize God.[40]

 

Judaism

At least some Jews do not use any image for God, since God is the unimageable Being who cannot be represented in material forms.[102] In some samples of Jewish Art, however, sometimes God, or at least His Intervention, is indicated by a Hand Of God symbol, which represents the bath Kol (literally "daughter of a voice") or Voice of God;[103] this use of the Hand Of God is carried over to Christian Art.

 

Christianity

 

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Early Christians believed that the words of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time" and numerous other statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God.[104]

  

Use of the symbolic Hand of God in the Ascension from the Drogo Sacramentary, c. 850

However, later on the Hand of God symbol is found several times in the only ancient synagogue with a large surviving decorative scheme, the Dura Europos Synagogue of the mid-3rd century, and was probably adopted into Early Christian art from Jewish art. It was common in Late Antique art in both East and West, and remained the main way of symbolizing the actions or approval of God the Father in the West until about the end of the Romanesque period. It also represents the bath Kol (literally "daughter of a voice") or voice of God,[103] just like in Jewish Art.

 

In situations, such as the Baptism of Christ, where a specific representation of God the Father was indicated, the Hand of God was used, with increasing freedom from the Carolingian period until the end of the Romanesque. This motif now, since the discovery of the 3rd century Dura Europos synagogue, seems to have been borrowed from Jewish art, and is found in Christian art almost from its beginnings.

 

The use of religious images in general continued to increase up to the end of the 7th century, to the point that in 695, upon assuming the throne, Byzantine emperor Justinian II put an image of Christ on the obverse side of his gold coins, resulting in a rift which ended the use of Byzantine coin types in the Islamic world.[105] However, the increase in religious imagery did not include depictions of God the Father. For instance, while the eighty second canon of the Council of Trullo in 692 did not specifically condemn images of The Father, it suggested that icons of Christ were preferred over Old Testament shadows and figures.[106]

 

The beginning of the 8th century witnessed the suppression and destruction of religious icons as the period of Byzantine iconoclasm (literally image-breaking) started. Emperor Leo III (717–741), suppressed the use of icons by imperial edict of the Byzantine Empire, presumably due to a military loss which he attributed to the undue veneration of icons.[107] The edict (which was issued without consulting the Church) forbade the veneration of religious images but did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross.[108] Theological arguments against icons then began to appear with iconoclasts arguing that icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of Jesus at the same time. In this atmosphere, no public depictions of God the Father were even attempted and such depictions only began to appear two centuries later.

 

The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 effectively ended the first period of Byzantine iconoclasm and restored the honouring of icons and holy images in general.[109] However, this did not immediately translate into large scale depictions of God the Father. Even supporters of the use of icons in the 8th century, such as Saint John of Damascus, drew a distinction between images of God the Father and those of Christ.

 

In his treatise On the Divine Images John of Damascus wrote: "In former times, God who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see".[110] The implication here is that insofar as God the Father or the Spirit did not become man, visible and tangible, images and portrait icons can not be depicted. So what was true for the whole Trinity before Christ remains true for the Father and the Spirit but not for the Word. John of Damascus wrote:[111]

 

"If we attempt to make an image of the invisible God, this would be sinful indeed. It is impossible to portray one who is without body:invisible, uncircumscribed and without form."

 

Around 790 Charlemagne ordered a set of four books that became known as the Libri Carolini (i.e. "Charles' books") to refute what his court mistakenly understood to be the iconoclast decrees of the Byzantine Second Council of Nicaea regarding sacred images. Although not well known during the Middle Ages, these books describe the key elements of the Catholic theological position on sacred images. To the Western Church, images were just objects made by craftsmen, to be utilized for stimulating the senses of the faithful, and to be respected for the sake of the subject represented, not in themselves. The Council of Constantinople (869) (considered ecumenical by the Western Church, but not the Eastern Church) reaffirmed the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea and helped stamp out any remaining coals of iconoclasm. Specifically, its third canon required the image of Christ to have veneration equal with that of a Gospel book:[112]

 

We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator and Savior of all people, must be venerated with the same honor as is given the book of the holy Gospels. For as through the language of the words contained in this book all can reach salvation, so, due to the action which these images exercise by their colors, all wise and simple alike, can derive profit from them.

 

But images of God the Father were not directly addressed in Constantinople in 869. A list of permitted icons was enumerated at this Council, but symbols of God the Father were not among them.[113] However, the general acceptance of icons and holy images began to create an atmosphere in which God the Father could be symbolized.

 

Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize God the Father in Western art.[104] Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of Man in the image of His own (thus allowing Human to transcend the other animals).

 

It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted.[114]

 

By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French illuminated manuscripts, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in stained glass church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the Baptism of Christ on the famous baptismal font in Liège of Rainer of Huy is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in Giotto's fresco of c. 1305 in Padua.[115] In the 14th century the Naples Bible carried a depiction of God the Father in the Burning bush. By the early 15th century, the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry has a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the Garden of Eden, which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The "Gates of Paradise" of the Florence Baptistry by Lorenzo Ghiberti, begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The Rohan Book of Hours of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, like the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painter Meister Bertram, continued to use the old depiction of Christ as Logos in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as similar or identical figures with the usual appearance of Christ.

 

In an early Venetian school Coronation of the Virgin by Giovanni d'Alemagna and Antonio Vivarini, (c. 1443) The Father is depicted using the symbol consistently used by other artists later, namely a patriarch, with benign, yet powerful countenance and with long white hair and a beard, a depiction largely derived from, and justified by, the near-physical, but still figurative, description of the Ancient of Days.[116]

 

. ...the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (Daniel 7:9)

  

Usage of two Hands of God"(relatively unusual) and the Holy Spirit as a dove in Baptism of Christ, by Verrocchio, 1472

In the Annunciation by Benvenuto di Giovanni in 1470, God the Father is portrayed in the red robe and a hat that resembles that of a Cardinal. However, even in the later part of the 15th century, the symbolic representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit as "hands and dove" continued, e.g. in Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ in 1472.[117]

  

God the Father with His Right Hand Raised in Blessing, with a triangular halo representing the Trinity, Girolamo dai Libri c. 1555

In Renaissance paintings of the adoration of the Trinity, God may be depicted in two ways, either with emphasis on The Father, or the three elements of the Trinity. The most usual depiction of the Trinity in Renaissance art depicts God the Father using an old man, usually with a long beard and patriarchal in appearance, sometimes with a triangular halo (as a reference to the Trinity), or with a papal crown, specially in Northern Renaissance painting. In these depictions The Father may hold a globe or book (to symbolize God's knowledge and as a reference to how knowledge is deemed divine). He is behind and above Christ on the Cross in the Throne of Mercy iconography. A dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit may hover above. Various people from different classes of society, e.g. kings, popes or martyrs may be present in the picture. In a Trinitarian Pietà, God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms. They are depicted as floating in heaven with angels who carry the instruments of the Passion.[118]

 

Representations of God the Father and the Trinity were attacked both by Protestants and within Catholicism, by the Jansenist and Baianist movements as well as more orthodox theologians. As with other attacks on Catholic imagery, this had the effect both of reducing Church support for the less central depictions, and strengthening it for the core ones. In the Western Church, the pressure to restrain religious imagery resulted in the highly influential decrees of the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563. The Council of Trent decrees confirmed the traditional Catholic doctrine that images only represented the person depicted, and that veneration to them was paid to the person, not the image.[119]

 

Artistic depictions of God the Father were uncontroversial in Catholic art thereafter, but less common depictions of the Trinity were condemned. In 1745 Pope Benedict XIV explicitly supported the Throne of Mercy depiction, referring to the "Ancient of Days", but in 1786 it was still necessary for Pope Pius VI to issue a papal bull condemning the decision of an Italian church council to remove all images of the Trinity from churches.[120]

  

The famous The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, c.1512

God the Father is symbolized in several Genesis scenes in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, most famously The Creation of Adam (whose image of near touching hands of God and Adam is iconic of humanity, being a reminder that Man is created in the Image and Likeness of God (Gen 1:26)).God the Father is depicted as a powerful figure, floating in the clouds in Titian's Assumption of the Virgin in the Frari of Venice, long admired as a masterpiece of High Renaissance art.[121] The Church of the Gesù in Rome includes a number of 16th century depictions of God the Father. In some of these paintings the Trinity is still alluded to in terms of three angels, but Giovanni Battista Fiammeri also depicted God the Father as a man riding on a cloud, above the scenes.[122]

 

In both the Last Judgment and the Coronation of the Virgin paintings by Rubens he depicted God the Father using the image that by then had become widely accepted, a bearded patriarchal figure above the fray. In the 17th century, the two Spanish artists Velázquez (whose father-in-law Francisco Pacheco was in charge of the approval of new images for the Inquisition) and Murillo both depicted God the Father using a patriarchal figure with a white beard in a purple robe.

  

The Ancient of Days (1794) Watercolor etching by William Blake

While representations of God the Father were growing in Italy, Spain, Germany and the Low Countries, there was resistance elsewhere in Europe, even during the 17th century. In 1632 most members of the Star Chamber court in England (except the Archbishop of York) condemned the use of the images of the Trinity in church windows, and some considered them illegal.[123] Later in the 17th century Sir Thomas Browne wrote that he considered the representation of God the Father using an old man "a dangerous act" that might lead to Egyptian symbolism.[124] In 1847, Charles Winston was still critical of such images as a "Romish trend" (a term used to refer to Roman Catholics) that he considered best avoided in England.[125]

 

In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the Great Moscow Council specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a whole range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list,[126][127] mostly affecting Western-style depictions which had been gaining ground in Orthodox icons. The Council also declared that the person of the Trinity who was the "Ancient of Days" was Christ, as Logos, not God the Father. However some icons continued to be produced in Russia, as well as Greece, Romania, and other Orthodox countries.

 

Theological approaches

Theologians and philosophers have attributed to God such characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable being existent.[3] These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including Maimonides,[53] St Augustine,[53] and Al-Ghazali.[128]

 

Many philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[8] while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience may seem to imply that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their ostensible free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.[129]

 

However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge. Although knowledge of the options presented to that will, combined with perfectly infinite intelligence, could be said to provide God with omniscience if omniscience is defined as knowledge or understanding of all that is.

 

The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, as does Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic", or to take, as does Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.[130] Some theists agree that only some of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Pascal as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know."[131] A recent theory using concepts from physics and neurophysiology proposes that God can be conceptualized within the theory of integrative level.[132]

 

Many religious believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings such as angels, saints, jinn, demons, and devas.[133][134][135][136][137]

 

Distribution of belief

A Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in the cultural and creative industries between the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism of the Republic of Korea and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland was signed ahead of the Presidential Screening during the Official State Visit.

 

Director Huh Jung's thriller was selected as the opener of the London Korean Film Festival 2013. On 6th November 2013, the London Korean Film Festival celebrated its eighth anniversary with a Special Premiere Gala at Cineworld in Haymarket. Hundreds of VIPs joined us at the Gala and the reception afterwards including Director Huh Jung and actor Son Hyun Joo and many who have continued to support the London Korean Film Festival over the years.

 

Film makers and producers joined the evening as well as film enthusiasts. Before the film screening, the President of the Republic of Korea, President Park Geun-hye attended the Gala, she was accompanied by Lord David Puttnam and UK Secretary of State for Culture Maria Miller MP from DCMS.

  

Jewish Holocaust Centre

Understanding the Brain in a Digital Age session with Irene Tracey, Vice-Chancellor, University of Oxford, United Kingdom; Jeremy Jurgens, Managing Director, World Economic Forum; Michael Mager, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Precision Neuroscience, USA; at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, on 20/1/2026 from 09:00 to 09:30 in the Congress Centre – Hub 2 (Zone B), Hub. (neurotech). ©2026 World Economic Forum / Sandra Blaser

KIGALI, December 16, 2020: Rwanda Development Board has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with trade enabler-DP World to launch its new global B2B and B2C e-commerce platform, Dubuy.com, in Rwanda early next year. The vision of the MoU is to make it easier for Rwandan businesses to engage in international trade.

 

Rwanda will become DP World’s hub for expanding e-commerce across the East Africa Community and beyond. Rwandan businesses will also benefit from broader DP World services and investment that will help to facilitate and develop trade. This includes the promotion of Rwandan exports of coffee, tea, and horticulture on Dubuy.com, the modernising of Rwanda’s supply chain logistics including in rural areas, and access to digital tools to help businesses save money and expand their reach to local, regional, and global markets.

 

The decision to launch Dubuy.com in Rwanda follows the country’s consistent superior annual rating in the World Bank’s global “Ease of Doing Business” rankings and its commitment to international trade and investment.

 

The e-commerce site will bring Rwandan products to global markets and help enterprises from around the world to invest in Rwanda. In turn, Rwandans will have greater access to international products.

 

DP World has already invested in world-class port and logistics facilities in Kigali, demonstrating its strong belief in Rwanda’s future.

Secwépemc Chiefs, the Honourable Katrine Conroy, British Columbia Minister of Children and Family Development, and the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on jurisdiction for child and family services. This MOU provides a framework that charts the path forward in recognizing and implementing Secwépemc jurisdiction.

 

Read more: news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2018IRR0058-001451

Honouring journalists who have increased Canadian's understanding of human rights issues over 2016.

Jean-François Meullenet, director of the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station; Stefan Jakob, director R&D Nutrition and Animal Health, Adisseo France; and Mark Cochran, vice president of agriculture, sign a memorandum of understanding to establish an endowed professorship and collaborative research.

KIGALI, December 16, 2020: Rwanda Development Board has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with trade enabler-DP World to launch its new global B2B and B2C e-commerce platform, Dubuy.com, in Rwanda early next year. The vision of the MoU is to make it easier for Rwandan businesses to engage in international trade.

 

Rwanda will become DP World’s hub for expanding e-commerce across the East Africa Community and beyond. Rwandan businesses will also benefit from broader DP World services and investment that will help to facilitate and develop trade. This includes the promotion of Rwandan exports of coffee, tea, and horticulture on Dubuy.com, the modernising of Rwanda’s supply chain logistics including in rural areas, and access to digital tools to help businesses save money and expand their reach to local, regional, and global markets.

 

The decision to launch Dubuy.com in Rwanda follows the country’s consistent superior annual rating in the World Bank’s global “Ease of Doing Business” rankings and its commitment to international trade and investment.

 

The e-commerce site will bring Rwandan products to global markets and help enterprises from around the world to invest in Rwanda. In turn, Rwandans will have greater access to international products.

 

DP World has already invested in world-class port and logistics facilities in Kigali, demonstrating its strong belief in Rwanda’s future.