View allAll Photos Tagged knowledge
18MAR12 SLYNNLEE-7027
The Big Fish, the Salmon of Knowledge This is one of the coolest public art sculptures I've ever seen. I particularly liked that the scales of the fish contain various newspaper clippings, photos, and drawings that illustrate aspects of Belfast's rich history and culture. It's wonderfully conceived and beautifully done.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa made an inspection tour of the construction site of the “Knowledge Park” (former Tripoli Market) in Pettah yesterday (Augsut 6) morning. The complete cost is estimated to be around 7 million US dollars where knowledge-based industries will be allowed to setup of their operations. The first stage construction work in the 25 acre land plot has now been completed. Mahinda Chinthana future vision envisages to make Sri Lanka a knowledge hub in Asia. The government expects to earn a revenue of one thousand million US dollars from the information sector by the year 2016. In order to achieve this target the knowledge park complex will also be developed as a city consisting business research institutions.
දැනුම පදනම් කරගත් කර්මාන්ත සිදු කිරීමේ මධ්‍යස්ථානයක් ලෙස ඉදිකෙරෙන පිටකොටුව, නොලේජ් පාර්ක් සංකීර්ණය ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ නිරීක්ෂණයට ඊයේ (06) ලක් කෙරිණි. මරදාන ආසන්නයේ පිහිටා ඇති අක්කර 25කින් සමන්විත ට්‍රිපෝලි මාර්කට් නැමැති පැරණි ගොඩනැඟිල්ල පිහිටි ස්ථානයේ මෙහි ඉදිකිරීම් කටයුතු සිදු කෙරෙන අතර එහි පළමු අදියර යටතේ මේ වන විට අක්කර 12ක ඉදිකිරීම් සිදු කර ඇත. මහින්ද චින්තන ඉදිරි දැක්මට අනුව ශ්‍රී ලංකාව ආසියාවේ දැනුමේ කේන්ද්‍රස්ථානය බවට පත් කිරීමට සැලසුම් කර තිබෙන අතර වර්ෂ 2016 වන විට තොරතුරු තාක්ෂණ කර්මාන්තයෙන් ඩොලර් බිලියනයක අපනයන ආදායමක් ලබාගැනීමට බලාපොරොත්තු වේ. ඒ යටතේ නවීන පන්නයේ අපනයන පහසුකම් සහිත ව්‍යාපාර පර්යේෂණ ආයතන සහිත නගරයක් ලෙස මෙය සංවර්ධනය කෙරේ. විෂයානුබද්ධ ඉහළ අධ්‍යාපනය ලැබූවන් සඳහා රැකියා අවස්ථා පුළුල් කිරීම ඉන් අපේක්ෂා කෙරේ. දැනුම පදනම් කරගත් ව්‍යාපාරික ස්ථාන පිහිටුවීම සඳහා ලාබ ලැබීමේ චේතනාවකින් තොරව සමාගම් කිහිපයක්ද එක්ව කටයුතු කරන අතර එම සමාගම් සන්ධානය ට්‍රේස් යන නමින් හඳුන්වයි.
அறிவைப் பயன்படுத்தும் தொழில் துறைகளின் மத்திய நிலையமாக உருவாகிவரும் புறக்கோட்டை நிர்மாணிக்கப்படும் கைத்தொழில் நிலையமான ‘நொலேஜ் பார்க்’ கட்டிடத் தொகுதியை ஜனாதிபதி மஹிந்த ராஜபக்ஷ அவர்கள் நேற்று (ஆகஸ்ட் 6) பார்வையிட்டார். புறக்கோட்டைக்கு சமீபமாக 25 ஏக்கர் நிலப்பரப்பு கொண்ட திரிப்போலி மார்க்கட் என்றழைக்கப்படும் பிரதேசத்தில் இக்கட்டடத் தொகுதி உருவாக்கப்பட்டு வருகின்றது.
(Photos by: Nalin Hewapathirana)
As part of the required course knowledge pupils need to be able to outline the process involved in taking a square wooden blank and preparing it for turning between centres. These pictures depict that process chronologically.
Stage 1 * Preparation of wooden blank. Cut to size. Sand square. Mark across diagonals. Centre punch the centre point. Use spring dividers to mark circumference. Repeat on other end.
Stage 2 * Plane off corners down to circumference line. This takes cross section from square to octagon. This reduces force on cutting toll in initial prep of blank. Mount between fork [driven] centre and dead [or live ] centre at tailstock end. Apply grease a dead centre end. apply force from tailstock end to force fork into material at driven end. Adjust toolstock height to suit. Check for clearance.
Stage 3 * Roughout using scraper to diameter. Use combination of gouges and skew chisels to add beads and other decorative detailing as required. Ensure spindle speed is appropriate for material and cross section under consideration. Obey all safety instructions.
Oil on wood, plaster, gold leaf About 3.5 feet tall and 2 feet wide.
Detail of: flickr.com/photos/21702692@N05/2102534758/
Hit 'L' to view on large.
I must have been mad but the other guys who missed out wanted to go so I thought what the hell, lets go again and maybe capture something different. So thats what I did today.
A real time capsule but nature is taking back a lot of the rooms with full on decay and collapsed floors. Not to mention a shotgun wielding farmer and a bull roaming the enclosure to make matters worse. No chase today - bull was curiously watching us run away but did not decide to pursue.
Full set here: www.flickr.com/photos/41371468@N05/sets/72157630462121120/
Speed Geeking at the Share Fair -
Knowledge Sharing for Agricultural Development and Food Security. FAO, Rome. 20-22 Jan 2009.
more at www.share-fair.net and ictkm.wordpress.com/tag/sharefair09/
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of the judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
So what are we sinning against? The knowledge of the truth just revealed to us in verses 17 - 18. “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” 18 And where these HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
So we are sinning against this truth when we continue to ask for forgiveness of sin, when we’ve been given this knowledge, THAT WE’VE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WE AREN’T GOING TO GET ANY MORE FORGIVEN THAN WE ALREADY ARE. We either except the truth of that, or we have become an ENEMY OF GOD, by denying that truth, and teaching others to do the same. This is as bad as it gets folks, this then is the unpardonable sin you’ve been hearing about all your lives.
So do you want to come to REAL FAITH IN JESUS, or do you wish to merely continue to give lip service to the cross?
Do you have any idea how many people go to church every time the doors are open, tithe, get baptized, try to babble in some unknown tongue, pray constantly asking God to forgive them, again and again. Thinking their saved, and are as lost as Muslims beheading people for Allah? We aren’t saved by believing a LIE, we are saved by believing TRUTH not fiction.
If you are still asking for what you’ve been given in Christ Jesus, you’ve become an enemy of God. Why, because as it say’s in Hebrews 9:22 without the shedding of blood there is NO FORGIVENESS. Is Christ going to suffer and die again every time you ask him to? No, It clearly states, “The death he died, he died to sin ONCE for ALL; but the life he lives, he lives to God.” (Romans 6:10)
Most people don’t even realize what SALVATION is. Were led to believe that salvation is getting our sins forgiven. It’s not! Why, because Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. Is the whole world saved do you think? NO! Merely being forgiven, as important as that is, in and of itself is NOT SALVATION! SALVATION is the imputation of LIFE FROM THE DEAD. Where is this Life found? In the RESURRECTED LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. Where he took away the sins of the whole world, so he could live his resurrected life in and through us. SALVATION, comes ONLY through FAITH in Jesus Christ, in his FINISHED work in his burial and Resurrected Life on the third day!
No faith, no Life, and no Forgiveness of sins. Because all that is found only in the person of Jesus Christ. Not believing a half gospel, asking for what you have already been given, proving you’re still an unbeliever.
This is truth, grab hold of it, and never allow somebody by persuasive words, to keep you from entering into the Sabbath Rest for people of God, that are resting from their works, just as Christ rested from his... Look at verses 19 – 23.
Real Faith say’s, “THANK YOU JESUS, FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR ME, I WILL PRAISE YOUR HOLY NAME FOREVER, FOR YOUR GLORY AND GRACE.” Amen?
Want to learn more about who YOU ARE in the New Covenant?
------------------------ JESUS ✝️ SAVES -------------------------
Grace and Peace to you from God our Father in the Lord Jesus Christ, FOREVER! Through Faith in Jesus!
10 The thief comes only to STEAL and KILL and DESTROY; I have come that they may have LIFE, and have it to the FULL. (John 10:10)
Jesus came to bring spiritual LIFE to the spiritually dead and set the captives FREE! FREE from RELIGION, ERROR and outright LIES, so they might serve THE LIVING GOD! In SPIRIT and in TRUTH!
For the best Biblical teaching in the last 2 centuries! Please listen to and down load these FREE audio files that were created with YOU in mind. It's ALL FREE, if you like it, please share it with others. ❤️ ✝️ ❤️
archive.org/details/PeopleToPeopleByBobGeorgeFREE-ARCHIVE...
CLICK THE LETTER "L" TO ENLARGE THE IMAGE.
My THANK'S to all those who have taken the time to view, fave, comment or share my photo's with others. I really appreciate it! ❤️
2022-12-11: Kevin Chika Urama, Acting Chief Economist and Vice President for Economic Governance & Knowledge Management at the AfDB addressing during African Economic Conference - Closing Ceremony in Balaclava, Mauritius. On stage, Mr. Gerard Pascal Bussier, Executive Director, AfDB.
Mission Statement of Missouri Botanical Garden: "To discover and share knowledge about plants and their environment." As part of this year's annual holiday light show, strings of lights were suspended over the reflecting pools. I haven't discovered how this light show (and particular the type of installation in the photo) shares knowledge about plants and their environment. I think it sends a very different message about what the Botanical Garden thinks is important and about how they think we should relate to plants in our environment. Saint Louis, Missouri.
Knowledge comes by taking things apart. Wisdom comes by putting things together.
— John A. Morrison
5200 x 5200 pixel image designed to work as wallpaper on most iOS devices.
Typefaces: Mesquite, Playbill, Juniper, Columbia Titling
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/31894359
As part of the required course knowledge pupils need to be able to outline the process involved in taking a square wooden blank and preparing it for turning between centres. These pictures depict that process chronologically.
Stage 1 * Preparation of wooden blank. Cut to size. Sand square. Mark across diagonals. Centre punch the centre point. Use spring dividers to mark circumference. Repeat on other end.
Stage 2 * Plane off corners down to circumference line. This takes cross section from square to octagon. This reduces force on cutting toll in initial prep of blank. Mount between fork [driven] centre and dead [or live ] centre at tailstock end. Apply grease a dead centre end. apply force from tailstock end to force fork into material at driven end. Adjust toolstock height to suit. Check for clearance.
Stage 3 * Roughout using scraper to diameter. Use combination of gouges and skew chisels to add beads and other decorative detailing as required. Ensure spindle speed is appropriate for material and cross section under consideration. Obey all safety instructions.
Une bibliothèque, au-delà de son aspect pratique, c'est aussi très joli à regarder. Donc sans trop de chichis, une petite photo d'encyclopédie !
As part of the required course knowledge pupils need to be able to outline the process involved in taking a square wooden blank and preparing it for turning between centres. These pictures depict that process chronologically.
Stage 1 * Preparation of wooden blank. Cut to size. Sand square. Mark across diagonals. Centre punch the centre point. Use spring dividers to mark circumference. Repeat on other end.
Stage 2 * Plane off corners down to circumference line. This takes cross section from square to octagon. This reduces force on cutting toll in initial prep of blank. Mount between fork [driven] centre and dead [or live ] centre at tailstock end. Apply grease a dead centre end. apply force from tailstock end to force fork into material at driven end. Adjust toolstock height to suit. Check for clearance.
Stage 3 * Roughout using scraper to diameter. Use combination of gouges and skew chisels to add beads and other decorative detailing as required. Ensure spindle speed is appropriate for material and cross section under consideration. Obey all safety instructions.
隨筆閒聊：關於學藝不精
自幼便認為自己繪畫頗有天賦，讀美術學校時，成積好不在話下。老師教導一定必須先講理論、技法、概念等等，之後才會讓學生動筆，而一定也是基本功必須先練好。每年學校都有一次作品展，有一次主題訂好後，內容可以自由發揮，但老師警告大家，畫什麼都可以就是不可以畫人像，因為我們能力不夠領會奧義，無論你畫得再好一定給0分，偶這成績優異鐵齒白目的小子，自然不把老師講的當一回事，出展後，老師也很給面子，給了我不及格分數，這是我第一次拿到不及格。這是給我一個非常好的啟發，自己丟臉沒關係，但總不能丟老師的臉。那怕是現在我玩攝影已經20幾年，也在業界打混過幾年，初期沒10年我還真不敢拿出來獻寶。直到這1-2年才敢收學生。
現在的人拿手機、傻瓜相機拍照OK普及很好，偶沒啥意見，但很多人拿的單眼才沒幾年搞得好像大師一樣。
前一陣子我遇到一位格西，自己也覺得專研多年佛學，有個問題很難理解，於是請教格西，他說縱使他學佛30餘年也無法保證能解釋的好，這要看問題的目的與方向，我一再央求請他簡單解釋一下即可，格西打死不願說，我想他畢竟不了解我的程度，萬一令我錯解在戒律上可是有過失的。如同先前所述，老師用意是值得尊敬的。
很多學問都是一致的求學過程，現在的人太沒有耐性了，按讚多就以為受肯定，殊不知這會害死自己。我發現越媚俗的東西按讚等比擴大，有深度的則反之，習慣了自然就墮入俗套了。深度的創作都是條孤獨的道路，我跟學生說過，100個外行人對你按讚是一點幫助也沒有，那怕是僅一位高手來對你肯定，那才是勝過千百人莫大的鼓勵。
.
PS.很多網站都說要你建立良好社交關係(多去吹捧他人)，你的作品才會得到個多讚.......讚你個頭，我不想藐視專業，更不想害死你。我當然會按讚，但起碼我是認真的!!
All this info is basic and reflects my current knowledge. I am largely self taught, but flickr has helped immensely. Feel free to point out flaws in what I say. I am by no means an authority on the subject.
I took this before I started to really appreciate what good equipment can achieve. The photo is of a spectacular sunset from my Lincoln Ridge Apartment. The clouds were scattered around the sky in a nice pattern and the light from the setting sun was still visible. I had to capture this picture...and this was the best my SD550 could do. How did I take it and a similar vertical shot?
I used the balcony as a tripod, used vivid colors (to boost the saturation bascially) and the slow synchro mode. Turning up the ISO on these camera typically results in lots of noise (and besides I barely knew what ISO was in August last year).
What is wrong with this picture you ask? Besides the exaggerated saturation, the picture only works in medium size. Try looking at the large or original sizes and the lack of detail becomes apparent. If you want to frame this, forget about it. It is not a good picture, but of course better than no picture...
What would I do today? First, I'd run and get my tripod. Tripods are a must for crisp low light shots, and it works especially well from the no-hassle environment of your balcony. The tripod provides absolute stability for the shot (assuming you don't kick it). That being said make sure to use remote release other the mere act of pressing the button may shake the camera. There are two options to avoid this: (1) use a timer or (2) buy a remote release device that plugs into the camera. Since your camera is firmly attached to the tripod and therefore stable, you can reduce the ISO to 100 and avoid noise/grainy issues (seeing pixels when you see the picture big basically).
Then I'd start playing in the Tv mode and have the camera automatically select an appropriate Aperture. However, the camera frequently selects inadequate aperatures so make a mental note of your Tv setting and move to Manual mode and use this as a starting point. I'd also experiment with cloudy WB and higher saturation. Finally, I'd play with my zoom to frame the picture differently. Not only did my SD550 have poor zoom range, but zoomed picture quickly get blurry without a tripod.
An advanced point and shoot can achieve all this. The only problem with the S3 IS is that it has limits on aperature, and these limitations make low light shoots hard in certain situations. For instance the S3 IS had a limit of f/8 aperature (the amount of light the camera allows into the lense). This is a problem if you want to shoot objects that are very dark or take traffic shots. It is also a problem with flare (since the lights get way to bright). But I'd probably be fine in this shot. So why bother getting a dSLR like my Rebel XTi?
First, the images are much higher quality even if you select the same setting. To see this try looking at one of my night images in original size shot with the S3 IS and the Rebel. Even shots that I consider high quality with the S3 IS do not even come close in detail. Why? The Rebel has a much bigger sensor and much higher quality lenses. This holds for all shots, but it most noticable in difficult light settings.
Second, what if I did not have my tripod? The remedy is then to increase the ISO, however, if you do this on a S3 IS the shot gets extremely grainy (i.e. pixelated). Sure, the S3 IS is a IS camera i.e. image stabilization, but in practice this does not buy you much. In contrast, the Rebel XTi does an excellent job of controlling noise at high ISO so I would simply go to ISO 800 or ISO1600 and try to stabilize against the wall of the balcony. You can also buy IS lenses for the Rebel (which sadly I don't have....to $$$ basically) or lenses with wider aperature (like my f/1.4 lense) - more on that later.
Why is an IS lense useful? Basically you can only handhold a shot at say 50 mm (how much you zoom) at a shutter speed of 1/50. In a low light shot you need to open the shutter long enough to allow enough light in so that your shot is not dark, but you are handholding and if you need to handhold for more than 1/50 you will get a blurry and useless shot (it is just impossible to hold the camera steady for that long). With a IS lense the lense adjusts for the movement and you may be able to get a crisp shot at a much slower shutter speed (which allows more light to enter). People say that you can improve 3-4 steps, that is from 1/50 to 1/20-1/15.
What does high ISO do? It increases the sensitivity of the camera to light and allows you to absorb more light all else constant. The benefit of this is that you can use a faster shutter speed and this increases the likelihood of getting a sharp shot. Examples tend to help so I will give one. Lets say I want to shoot the wall in my room. I put the camera in Av mode (to keep the aperture fixed) and it says 1/13 @ f/2.8 at ISO 100. This lense is 50mm fixed so using the rule of thumb I mentioned above, 1/13 will not result in a crisp shot (you can try using the continuous mode and snapping about 10 and keeping the crispest). An IS lense would help improve the shot, but my lense is (sadly not IS). So I increase the ISO to ISO 400 and down to 1/125 @ f/2.8. Now I can easily get a crisp shot. The downside is more noise; an easy way to notice this is do look at the sky in a night shot. However, with the Rebel graininess is negligible at ISO400.
What does a wider aperture do (lower f/stop)? It allows more light to enter and thereby reduces the time the shutter needs to be open (and increases the chance of getting a crisp shot). In example above I could reduce the f/stop further. For instance, at f/1.4 and ISO 100 I get a shutter speed of 1/50; the higher aperature (annoying aperature and f/stop go in different directions) allows me to avoid increasing the ISO.
The problem is that the basic lense on a Rebel XTi is cheap and is neither IS nor has a particulary low f/stop (3.5 with no zoom). It is easily overwhelmed in low-light shots. However, as you start decreasing the f/stop and move below f/2.2ish your DOF (depth of field - baiscally your lense will focus on some object and blur the background). So whereas my f/1.4 lense helps with low-light (especially indoor shots) to is key to pick the right place to focus (I now fondly refer to this lense as 'el lente loco' :))
So if you want to take high quality night shots or shots in low light get a dSLR like the Rebel XTi. You may be thinking, when do I really need these capability? Think about indoor shots. Often flash fails (and the flash on P&S's like my SD500 is poor in any event) and often it washes out the subtle natural light. Note! Flash would do nothing in the shot above (why? the range of the flash is very limited). Think about the time around dusk and dawn or if its overcast or what about shots inside a store. What if you zoom a lot especially in less than ideal light? There are so many shots I can now take with the Rebel that I could not even dream about with either the SD550 or the S3 IS (which is way better than the SD550) The only downside I see is price and the bulky size. You don't need to know much; just stick it in the auto mode (P is better) and start shooting and then learn by experimeting.
To make a long story longer: consider an example. I've always been a car freak and car photos - especially shot of moving cars - have always fascinated me. One experiment I had recently was taken shot of a moving car at night. This is hard given the low light and the motion of both cars. Increasing the ISO to 1600 (max for the Rebel) and reducing the f-stop to f/1.8 allowed me to get a decent shot at 1/60 (just right for a 50mm lense; I snapped about 4 as the Chysler 300C sped past and one was crisp). Given the high aperture it was also important to manual select the focus point and point it at the car.
There was one problem (and I had figured this out by testing on other cars). The shot was too dark. One solution was to increase the exposure to +1. This increases the demands for light and all else constant reduces the shutter speed (and the chance of getting a crisp shot). Check out the graininess of the shot. The is pretty crisp and sharp, but you can see the noise even in the large size. Try this shot with a point and shoot once....it is illustrative and you will not get close. Even the lense that came would the Rebel would be out of luck.
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]
Participants in a high level segment on "Africa in a Knowledge-Based Economy-Challenges and Opportunities" organized in the context of the African Ministerial Conference 2015: Intellectual Property for an Emerging Africa, which met from November 3 – 5, 2015 in Dakar, Senegal.
From left to right: Mr. Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu, Professor of Practice in International Business and Public Policy, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Mr. Martial De-Paul Ikounga, Commissioner for Human Resources, Science and Technology, African Union CNBC Africa journalist Nozipho Mbanjwa, Ms. Oluwatoyin Sanni, Group Chief Executive Officer, United Capital, Nigeria Mr. Julius Akinyemi, Resident Entrepreneur, MIT Media Lab, Ms. Catherine Odora-Hoppers, Professor, University of South Africa (UNISA), Pretoria, Mr. Mactar Silla, Chief Executive Officer, MS Consulting Libreville and Dr. Snowy Khoza, Chief Executive Officer, Bigen Africa, Pretoria.
Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Cheikh Saya Diop. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO License.
Carl Wesselink, Regional Operations Director of the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, South Africa addressing at the Conference of the Parties (COP - 24) 2018 on December 10, 2018, in Katowice, Poland.
Vie difficile de Francisco Madero. Dans la cohue de l'univers le puzzle de l'existence de Francisco Madero s'organise peu à peu.
Prologue: la pensée fixe ses propres limites - les cruautés des hommes dépendent de leurs sens. La vérité n'est ni pessimiste ni optimiste; Francisco Madero est venu au monde le jour où les feuilles commençaient à tomber. Astrologie: se dit du cancer.
Physique: une profonde peine dans le regard, un nez crochu, une crinière brillante de gel, retombant sur son nez. Ses traits sont assez ingrats… une peau de couleur saine; un grand front couleur ivoire… de saines dents blanches.
Sentiments: son amitié avec Salvador Novo est fragile, elle s'appuie davantage sur le passé que sur la confiance dans le présent… passe de longues heures avec François Couperin.
Goûts: a un amour aliéné pour les ombres. Ne connaît qu'un seul livre: "Autobiographie érotique" de Paul Benderson, la musique de François Couperin lui procure d'immenses plaisirs, Francisco Madero aime par dessus tout la peinture et spécialement “Le Portrait d'Émilie Flöge” de Gustave Klimt; Francisco Madero peut passer des heures à réfléchir sur des locutions anglaises comme "no knowledge" ou "woman nothing".
Rêves: c'est au détroit de Gibraltar que Francisco Madero se sent le mieux.
Haines: Francisco Madero a toujours refusé de rencontrer Oriane Proust.
Métier: pour Francisco Madero l'art est la seule chose qui puisse compter dans une existence.
Généralités: a épuisé toutes les possibilité érotiques de Salamis.
N'a qu'un enfant, qu'il ne voit presque plus depuis qu'il fait ses études - n'a jamais rien pu inventer. Francisco Madero écrit des pièces vocales pour Michael Howe.
Pensée: une phrase d'Emma Fournier lui revient en tête : "personne ne ressemble assez à un autre pour que l'on se comprenne tout à fait".
Decided for some exercise whilst visiting the University of Southampton today. The chosen stairs looked very photogenic so here we are.
Servicemembers and DOD civilians participate in Exercise Saber Junction Phase II at Grafenwohr, Germany. The Command Post Exercise draws together different services in an effort to better understand the difficulties and challenges of foreign consequence management as it relates to natural disaster assistance and a simulated follow on industrial chemical spills.
Is Knowledge subject to decay? Yes it is, because it is bound by causes and conditions. Only wisdom isn't. And wisdom can arise from the awareness of the impermanence of all things.
Seen in an abandoned University.
Launch of knowledge management strategy for Scotland's social services.
Image of Knowledge Management Strategy printed publication
The Twenty-Fourth Session of WIPO's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) took place in Geneva, Switzerland from April 22 to April 26, 2013.
Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.