Nature as GOD

[Southtown]

Hum, this is getting closer to Earth Mother concept, from which all life springs.

Hum...

 

Done. Now what? :esmoking:

lol

[nutronjon]

That is because the BBT is a incomplete construct used to describe something we have very little if any first hand information about. Once we understand it better (if we ever do) we will almost certainly find it obeys laws as well. Life does indeed follow all the laws of the universe that were established at the BB, if the laws were even different in a small way life as we know it wouldn't exist. There might be life of some other kind but not as we know it. Everything that has transpired since the BB follows natural laws, you will not find anything that violates natural laws, life, the abiogenesis of life, evolution of life, all these things follow the laws of the universe. If you disagree then name an instance of life not following the laws of the universe:hyper: Or anything else for that matter:naughty:

 

 

Man, what you have said is so in harmony with I am saying, I must say so. Only I am okay with whatever results in this order being referred to as God, and it is clear, many here are not. I include in this system of order mathematic archetypes, and it seems others have a negative response to this idea, but I think in time, if we maintain civil argument, we will reach agreements.

 

Saying biological life creates matter, got my attention. That is obvious, but was not obvious until you said it, and my head still doesn't know what to do with the thought.

 

These laws of physics of which you speak, are surely the same from electron and proton existing before the neutron, and once the neutron came into the play, the whole game really got started. Like life on earth beginning with simple cells and becoming complex multiple celled plants and creatures. The flow chart for these simple beginnings to more the complex, are the same on all levels. Man, I wish I had more artistic ability, so I could make myself the pictures I want for my wall, to keep these concepts in my conscious thoughts, instead of getting lost in the clutter of stuff that fills me brain. Can anyone come up with a picture that demonstrates of evolution of atomic particles, as well as the evolution of biological plants/creatures, so we "see" that sameness of the laws?

[freeztar]

These laws of physics of which you speak, are surely the same from electron and proton existing before the neutron, and once the neutron came into the play, the whole game really got started.

 

I realize that this is not your main argument, but I feel that I must bring attention to his. Do you have a source for the claim above? The only reason I ask is that it goes against conventional theory.

 

Big Bang nucleosynthesis begins about one second after the Big Bang, when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to form stable protons and neutrons, after baryogenesis.

 

Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[modest]

These laws of physics of which you speak, are surely the same from electron and proton existing before the neutron, and once the neutron came into the play, the whole game really got started. Like life on earth beginning with simple cells and becoming complex multiple celled plants and creatures. The flow chart for these simple beginnings to more the complex, are the same on all levels. Man, I wish I had more artistic ability, so I could make myself the pictures I want for my wall, to keep these concepts in my conscious thoughts, instead of getting lost in the clutter of stuff that fills me brain. Can anyone come up with a picture that demonstrates of evolution of atomic particles, as well as the evolution of biological plants/creatures, so we "see" that sameness of the laws?

 

A visualization like you may be looking for is here.

 

Also, I agree with freeztar above. Protons and neutrons existed in an equilibrium reaction turning into each other until the universe cooled enough to stop the equilibrium reaction. Neutrons then further decayed into protons. I think this is the best accepted current theory that you'll see in the link above and it doesn't support "electron and proton existing before the neutron".

 

-modest

[ughaibu]

Only I am okay with whatever results in this order being referred to as God, and it is clear, many here are not. I include in this system of order mathematic archetypes, and it seems others have a negative response to this idea, but I think in time, if we maintain civil argument, we will reach agreements

Cutting to the chase, you're espousing creationism, what on Earth makes you think people will agree?

[InfiniteNow]

Only I am okay with whatever results in this order being referred to as God, and it is clear, many here are not.

You are correct. You still haven't addressed my question to you. What does adding this unprovable, non-interacting conjecture on top of the study of these things actually do for us?

 

What is the benefit of calling it "god" when it already is called something else and being studied? It adds NOTHING to the search. It adds NOTHING to our understanding, and I might even go so far as to say that it actually DETRACTS from our ability to learn more.

 

What benefit does calling it god, when that doesn't bring any new information, is pure conjecture, and is by definition unprovable... what benefit does that offer?

 

 

 

Cutting to the chase, you're espousing creationism, what on Earth makes you think people will agree?

They probably don't care.

[nutronjon]

You are correct. You still haven't addressed my question to you. What does adding this unprovable, non-interacting conjecture on top of the study of these things actually do for us?

 

What is the benefit of calling it "god" when it already is called something else and being studied? It adds NOTHING to the search. It adds NOTHING to our understanding, and I might even go so far as to say that it actually DETRACTS from our ability to learn more.

 

What benefit does calling it god, when that doesn't bring any new information, is pure conjecture, and is by definition unprovable... what benefit does that offer?

 

 

 

 

They probably don't care.

 

 

You are really hard core and persistant aren't you? Might I remind you, science has been becoming aware of more and more quantum particles, as the ancients became aware of more and more Gods. The scientist have a point of view, as the ancients had a point of view. Neither the Gods nor these quantum particles can be seen, nor experienced with any of senses. I am reminded of the witch hunts which were very serious scientific efforts. I am serious, those involved with determining who was or wasn't a witch, honestly believed their decisions were based on good science. There were rules governing the investigations, and books and training for determining who is a witch. The human fallacy is as real today as in the past. People get this notion of what is truth, and then become intolerant of those who are not speaking truth. Oviously it doesn't matter if one has studied science or theology, the human folly is the same. That is why we must remember the value of freedom of speech and the importance of good manners, and respecting each other's point of view.

 

 

What I am arguing for, is an end to the human folly. Importantly, today's technological correct science, lacking in the humanities, is not dealing well with our human condition and that is why it was wise to add to a Theology forum to the science forum. Germany prepared its young for this "technology correctness" and left moral training to the church. This is devastating! So many problems come out of this, this post would be way too long if I attempted to say everything that is to be said. "Hail Hitler" is a short cut to what I mean. Or how about the mean spirited demanding question "who is to determine morals, Bush"? Our country is in very serious trouble today, and we had better get off our horses, and allow for an open concept of God.

 

What is the benefit of calling it God. God is the X factor of the universe and it keeps our minds open. God also functions as a minor of ourselves and our highest aspirations. God is above all, and distances us from our very personal point of view and very, very personal self interest.

 

Our moral judgements are much better when grounded in a knowledge of science, so we really, really need to put science and God back together.

 

I have said this before, the best way to deal with religious fanatics, Christian or Muslem, or some weird *** cultist, is to agree there is a God, and then proceed from there. What can we know of this God and how to we know it? Why in heaven, you keep arguing against knowing God through science, is a mystery to me? That is like shooting yourself in the foot, because then you can not use science to change someone's understanding of God. If we never move the discussion beyond the point of arguing the existence of God, then we aren't going to get any where, but only reinforce intolerance of the other's belief.

 

Calling it God does progress our knowledge and improve our communication and relationships. There are many, many benefits to having an open concept of God, including avoiding a police state!

[freeztar]

Why in heaven, you keep arguing against knowing God through science, is a mystery to me?

 

Because there is no way to know God through science. :D

Explain how one would go about a scientific exploration of God? If you could provide this methodology, you'd meet less/no resistance.

 

You should also be aware that talking about a "scientific exploration of God" usually sets off people's "creationist antennas" around here. :)

[Overdog]

I was attracted to this thread because it's title "Nature as GOD" asserts a proposition that is not scientific (this IS a SCIENCE forum) and it is also a proposition I am not prepared to accept without some convincing evidence.

 

The proposition I'm referring to is the notion that there is any such thing as "GOD".

 

First, I would ask the author to clarify what he means by GOD. To say that GOD is Nature, or Nature is GOD means nothing.

[InfiniteNow]

Neither the Gods nor these quantum particles can be seen, nor experienced with any of senses.

Rubbish. Why exactly do you think we're building the LHC? It's because the particles DO have a measurable effect. God does not, no matter how you define it.

 

Try again.

 

 

I am reminded of the witch hunts which were very serious scientific efforts.

Good for you. You're still wrong, regardless of what you are reminded of.

 

 

Oviously it doesn't matter if one has studied science or theology, the human folly is the same.

As is so clearly evidenced by so many of your posts here on Hypograpahy.

 

 

That is why we must remember the value of freedom of speech and the importance of good manners, and respecting each other's point of view.

Nobody is telling you that you cannot say these things, so your calls suggesting this community has an intolerance and an inability to remember the importance of freedom of speech are unfounded.

 

Further, I DO NOT have to respect your point of view. I can mock it, I can challenge it as the crap that it is, and I can forgo manners depending on the context in which I am sharing my opinion.

 

I repeat. I DO NOT HAVE TO RESPECT YOUR OPINION, especially when I think that opinion is misguided, short-sighted, and ignorant.

 

I do respect your right to say whatever you want, and that is all. You have your freedom of speech, but so do I, and I have chosen to use my freedom to challenge these ridiculous and unsupportable notions of yours for the nonsense they are.

 

 

What I am arguing for, is an end to the human folly.

You might try leading by example then.

 

 

Germany prepared its young for this "technology correctness" and left moral training to the church. This is devastating! So many problems come out of this, this post would be way too long if I attempted to say everything that is to be said. "Hail Hitler" is a short cut to what I mean.

Uhhmmm... Nazism had a lot more involved than just a lack of god. I would welcome a debate with you on this subject, but encourage you to open a new thread if you wish to assert that atheism was the cause of the travesties which occurred circa WWII Germany.

 

I'd advise you avoid this line of reasoning, however, because it is not supportable and I will completely crush you if you try to argue in favor of such an unfounded, inaccurate, and insanely misrepresentative position.

 

 

Or how about the mean spirited demanding question "who is to determine morals, Bush"? Our country is in very serious trouble today, and we had better get off our horses, and allow for an open concept of God.

God is not the source of morals because god is a figment of your imagination. The source of morals are our evolved tendencies toward group behaviors and our need to avoid ostricization from the group to maximize our survival and also reproductive potential.

 

How many examples must I give to show you how people who believe in god still do immoral things?

 

You can assert the same thing as many times as you want. You have yet to prove your premise, and simply repeating it offers no additional validity to it.

 

 

What is the benefit of calling it God. God is the X factor of the universe and it keeps our minds open.

Nope. You want evidence to the contrary? I can provide it, even though the onus is on YOU to support YOUR assertion that "god keeps minds open."

 

 

 

God also functions as a minor of ourselves and our highest aspirations. God is above all, and distances us from our very personal point of view and very, very personal self interest.

That's all well and good, but it's still NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, CONJECTURE, and ASSERTION.

 

Let me show you what I mean. I will take the same words you used and replace the word "god" with "purple unicorn." This is how your sentence comes across to me (and you can quickly see how insanely stupid my version sounds, yet it's NO DIFFERENT than yours):

 

 

 

Purple unicorns also function as a minor of ourselves and our highest aspirations. Purple unicorns are above all, and distances us from our very personal point of view and very, very personal self interest.

 

 

Both statements rest on EXACTLY the same footing, yet for some reason you expect me to accept yours as valid? Rubbish.

 

 

Our moral judgements are much better when grounded in a knowledge of science, so we really, really need to put science and God back together.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? You may as well have said, "Since bananas are yellow, blow jobs feel good." :)

 

 

 

I have said this before, the best way to deal with religious fanatics, Christian or Muslem, or some weird *** cultist, is to agree there is a God, and then proceed from there.

So, basically, you suggest that the best way to deal with deluded people is to accept their delusion as true and incorporate it into your own psyche?

 

I ... uhhmmm... errr.... yeah.... I disagree.

 

If someone told me that sunshine is the result of millions of fairies farting as they play their harps, I'd not accept that. I'd instead describe how things actually happen.

 

The concept of god deserves no less, and I reject your suggestion on it's face.

 

 

 

Why in heaven, you keep arguing against knowing God through science, is a mystery to me?

I've told you repeatedly, but I'll say it again.

 

I argue against knowing god because there is ZERO evidence that there is one. You've accepted without evidence (or even necessity) that this imaginary ethereal entity exists, and have provided NO acceptable reasons why the rest of us should do the same.

 

 

That is like shooting yourself in the foot, because then you can not use science to change someone's understanding of God.

Actually, you can. It happens all of the time. Would you like me to cite some examples of people who stopped believing in god when they learned more about the REAL way nature operates through science? I'd be glad to. It won't be hard.

 

It doesn't really matter what their version of god was. It doesn't matter if it was abrahamic or nature or otherwise. It was imaginary, and discarded like their other imaginary friends were when they reached their post toddler years.

 

 

If we never move the discussion beyond the point of arguing the existence of God, then we aren't going to get any where,

You're right. If people refuse to let go of their childish imaginary friends, we really will have a difficult time getting anywhere. Couldn't agree more. :)

 

 

Calling it God does progress our knowledge and improve our communication and relationships.

I say AGAIN...

 

Simply repeating yourself over and over again does not make what you are saying true. Further, how can you take this seriously? People's acceptance of some God is PRECISELY what has caused so many deaths and countless challenges in communications and relationships among the global populace.

 

Do you want evidence of this, too? I'll be glad to share it, despite the fact that YOU are the one making the claims and hence the onus is on YOU to support them. I'd imagine you really cannot, though, at least if your posts thus far are to serve as any guide.

 

 

There are many, many benefits to having an open concept of God, including avoiding a police state!

 

Really, just one single example of an area where a belief in god coexisted with a police state proves your suggestion completely false. Do you want an example of that, too?

 

 

You're really making this too easy. :D

[Mike C]

I was attracted to this thread because it's title "Nature as GOD" asserts a proposition that is not scientific (this IS a SCIENCE forum) and it is also a proposition I am not prepared to accept without some convincing evidence.

 

The proposition I'm referring to is the notion that there is any such thing as "GOD".

 

First, I would ask the author to clarify what he means by GOD. To say that GOD is Nature, or Nature is GOD means nothing.

 

I would define the characteristics of GOD as:

 

A teacher

As a creator

As a protector

As a 'spiritual entity

 

So, Nature is our greatest teacher

Nature is the 'only' creator of 'life'.

Nature uses the males as protectors of the females.

Nature also displays this spiritual reality with the instincts of the animals.

 

Now how would you define God?

 

Mike C

[Overdog]

I would define the characteristics of GOD as:

 

A teacher

As a creator

As a protector

As a 'spiritual entity

 

So, Nature is our greatest teacher

Nature is the 'only' creator of 'life'.

Nature uses the males as protectors of the females.

Nature also displays this spiritual reality with the instincts of the animals.

 

Now how would you define God?

 

Mike C

 

I wouldn't, and don't. Why would I?

 

I'd just lose the word from my vocabulary and use the word Nature.

[REASON]

I would define the characteristics of GOD as:

 

A teacher

As a creator

As a protector

As a 'spiritual entity

 

So, Nature is our greatest teacher

Nature is the 'only' creator of 'life'.

Nature uses the males as protectors of the females.

Nature also displays this spiritual reality with the instincts of the animals.

 

Now how would you define God?

 

Mike C

 

I believe that the need to supplant the term "nature" with the term "god" serves only to fulfill some personal desire.

 

Mike, I wonder if you could elaborate on why you feel that understanding what we observe in nature as reflective of god is satisfying to you? What desires are fulfilled for you by orienting your beliefs in this way?

 

This is an honest question. I'm very curious as to what this belief does for people.

[freeztar]

This is an honest question. I'm very curious as to what this belief does for people.

 

I should be able to shed some insight as I once believed in this.

 

For me, I believed that everything in Nature was part or parcel of God, including myself. I gained satisfaction from this belief because when I would commune with Nature, the feeling of being connected with the Nature I was experiencing (sitting on a mountain looking out for example) resulted in an inner and outer merger that felt holy. Coming from a Lutheran upbringing, I found the idea of Nature as God much more believable and real than a personified version of God. It was a way to free myself of Religion, but retain my belief in God.

 

I held this belief for years, but gradually it became something that I never really thought about...until it disappeared completely. It doesn't make sense to believe this any more.

 

It's interesting that Science led to my abandonment of this belief. My beliefs were anchored by spiritualism in the natural world. I saw Nature as Magical. I would see signs in Nature and things would happen for a purpose. When I applied the Scientific Method to these mystical attributes of Nature, I found that they could not hold up. This caused my belief in the Mystic quality of Nature to rapidly disintegrate. Once that was gone, my belief in Nature as God was laid naked. It didn't have a leg to stand on (so to speak).

 

So here I am today, an atheist. :phones:

 

The puzzling thing for me is: What began all this (which leads to the conundrum of turtle's all the way down)? And if there was no beginning, then how could we ever comprehend that? :cup: :)

 

It's these questions that lead people to gods of all kinds, imho. These questions don't have answers, and don't necessarily rely on cause and effect, and most people don't want to accept this. It's easier and more satifying to have an answer, it's easier and more satisfying to believe in God.

 

All that said, I much prefer that if people are going to belief in God, that they view God as Nature. Just know that as satisfying as it is to hold this belief, it is even more satisfying to set it free, in my experience. :hihi:

[nutronjon]

Because there is no way to know God through science. :cup:

Explain how one would go about a scientific exploration of God? If you could provide this methodology, you'd meet less/no resistance.

 

You should also be aware that talking about a "scientific exploration of God" usually sets off people's "creationist antennas" around here. :)

 

This arguing is pathetic. Time and time again, I have said, we study nature and then infer something about God. God is an abstract concept. Why aren't you comprehending the concept of God being an abstract concept?

 

Tell you what, pick up a peice of gravity or a peice of time, and study it under a microscope and tell me what you see.

[nutronjon]

I should be able to shed some insight as I once believed in this.

 

For me, I believed that everything in Nature was part or parcel of God, including myself. I gained satisfaction from this belief because when I would commune with Nature, the feeling of being connected with the Nature I was experiencing (sitting on a mountain looking out for example) resulted in an inner and outer merger that felt holy. Coming from a Lutheran upbringing, I found the idea of Nature as God much more believable and real than a personified version of God. It was a way to free myself of Religion, but retain my belief in God.

 

I held this belief for years, but gradually it became something that I never really thought about...until it disappeared completely. It doesn't make sense to believe this any more.

 

It's interesting that Science led to my abandonment of this belief. My beliefs were anchored by spiritualism in the natural world. I saw Nature as Magical. I would see signs in Nature and things would happen for a purpose. When I applied the Scientific Method to these mystical attributes of Nature, I found that they could not hold up. This caused my belief in the Mystic quality of Nature to rapidly disintegrate. Once that was gone, my belief in Nature as God was laid naked. It didn't have a leg to stand on (so to speak).

 

So here I am today, an atheist. :)

 

The puzzling thing for me is: What began all this (which leads to the conundrum of turtle's all the way down)? And if there was no beginning, then how could we ever comprehend that? :cup: :)

 

It's these questions that lead people to gods of all kinds, imho. These questions don't have answers, and don't necessarily rely on cause and effect, and most people don't want to accept this. It's easier and more satifying to have an answer, it's easier and more satisfying to believe in God.

 

All that said, I much prefer that if people are going to belief in God, that they view God as Nature. Just know that as satisfying as it is to hold this belief, it is even more satisfying to set it free, in my experience.

 

Hum, that was pretty revealing. And how happy are you now?

[nutronjon]

Rubbish. Why exactly do you think we're building the LHC? It's because the particles DO have a measurable effect. God does not, no matter how you define it.

 

Try again.

 

 

 

Good for you. You're still wrong, regardless of what you are reminded of.

 

 

 

As is so clearly evidenced by so many of your posts here on Hypograpahy.

 

 

 

Nobody is telling you that you cannot say these things, so your calls suggesting this community has an intolerance and an inability to remember the importance of freedom of speech are unfounded.

 

Further, I DO NOT have to respect your point of view. I can mock it, I can challenge it as the crap that it is, and I can forgo manners depending on the context in which I am sharing my opinion.

 

I repeat. I DO NOT HAVE TO RESPECT YOUR OPINION, especially when I think that opinion is misguided, short-sighted, and ignorant.

 

I do respect your right to say whatever you want, and that is all. You have your freedom of speech, but so do I, and I have chosen to use my freedom to challenge these ridiculous and unsupportable notions of yours for the nonsense they are.

 

 

 

You might try leading by example then.

 

 

 

Uhhmmm... Nazism had a lot more involved than just a lack of god. I would welcome a debate with you on this subject, but encourage you to open a new thread if you wish to assert that atheism was the cause of the travesties which occurred circa WWII Germany.

 

I'd advise you avoid this line of reasoning, however, because it is not supportable and I will completely crush you if you try to argue in favor of such an unfounded, inaccurate, and insanely misrepresentative position.

 

 

 

God is not the source of morals because god is a figment of your imagination. The source of morals are our evolved tendencies toward group behaviors and our need to avoid ostricization from the group to maximize our survival and also reproductive potential.

 

How many examples must I give to show you how people who believe in god still do immoral things?

 

You can assert the same thing as many times as you want. You have yet to prove your premise, and simply repeating it offers no additional validity to it.

 

 

 

Nope. You want evidence to the contrary? I can provide it, even though the onus is on YOU to support YOUR assertion that "god keeps minds open."

 

 

 

 

That's all well and good, but it's still NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, CONJECTURE, and ASSERTION.

 

Let me show you what I mean. I will take the same words you used and replace the word "god" with "purple unicorn." This is how your sentence comes across to me (and you can quickly see how insanely stupid my version sounds, yet it's NO DIFFERENT than yours):

 

 

 

Purple unicorns also function as a minor of ourselves and our highest aspirations. Purple unicorns are above all, and distances us from our very personal point of view and very, very personal self interest.

 

 

Both statements rest on EXACTLY the same footing, yet for some reason you expect me to accept yours as valid? Rubbish.

 

 

 

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? You may as well have said, "Since bananas are yellow, blow jobs feel good." :)

 

 

 

 

So, basically, you suggest that the best way to deal with deluded people is to accept their delusion as true and incorporate it into your own psyche?

 

I ... uhhmmm... errr.... yeah.... I disagree.

 

If someone told me that sunshine is the result of millions of fairies farting as they play their harps, I'd not accept that. I'd instead describe how things actually happen.

 

The concept of god deserves no less, and I reject your suggestion on it's face.

 

 

 

 

I've told you repeatedly, but I'll say it again.

 

I argue against knowing god because there is ZERO evidence that there is one. You've accepted without evidence (or even necessity) that this imaginary ethereal entity exists, and have provided NO acceptable reasons why the rest of us should do the same.

 

 

 

Actually, you can. It happens all of the time. Would you like me to cite some examples of people who stopped believing in god when they learned more about the REAL way nature operates through science? I'd be glad to. It won't be hard.

 

It doesn't really matter what their version of god was. It doesn't matter if it was abrahamic or nature or otherwise. It was imaginary, and discarded like their other imaginary friends were when they reached their post toddler years.

 

 

 

You're right. If people refuse to let go of their childish imaginary friends, we really will have a difficult time getting anywhere. Couldn't agree more. :)

 

 

 

I say AGAIN...

 

Simply repeating yourself over and over again does not make what you are saying true. Further, how can you take this seriously? People's acceptance of some God is PRECISELY what has caused so many deaths and countless challenges in communications and relationships among the global populace.

 

Do you want evidence of this, too? I'll be glad to share it, despite the fact that YOU are the one making the claims and hence the onus is on YOU to support them. I'd imagine you really cannot, though, at least if your posts thus far are to serve as any guide.

 

 

 

 

Really, just one single example of an area where a belief in god coexisted with a police state proves your suggestion completely false. Do you want an example of that, too?

 

 

You're really making this too easy. :cup:

 

In case you don't realize it, saying what someone has said is "rubbish" is insulting. Until your manners improve, I am reading what you write.