Nature as GOD

[modest]

And how happy are you now?

 

When I was part of a church (long ago) this was something I heard a lot. "The only true happiness comes from God" As if 'happiness' was a property of God that he handed out on an individual basis. I'm not saying this is your position nutronjon - but it is a commonly held religious idea that deserves stomping.

 

I am no more or less happy as an atheist than I was as a believer. My happiness is no more or less genuine.

 

It's a false claim.

 

-modest

[freeztar]

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

 

I'll loosely quote Ben Franklin:

 

"A person is about as happy as they make themselves out to be."

 

I'm quite happy nutron. :cup:

 

What did you think of my post? "Revealing" is a bit obscure...

[nutronjon]

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 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Oh bother, it took a lot of effort to find the post I made days ago, and here again is the source that things began with an electron and protron

 

Origin of Matter in the Universe: How Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons Formed in the Big Bang

 

After the inflationary period matter began to form in the early universe. Initially heavy particles such as protons formed. Next lighter particles such as electrons formed. After these basic particles formed, nucleosynthesis could begin to form the few elements made during the big bang. How did these particles form?

 

I don't know what nucleosynthesis is, but evidently there had to be protons and electrons before nucleosynthese could begin, according to this theory which we can not prove beyond a doubt, because we can not make it happen again and observe the happening. Like knowing God, we can only study nature today and make our best guess.

 

The OPB show last night was about the whole universe is the result of decaying neutrino. I think there are almost as many opinions about what happened as there are opinions about God, and I wouldn't bet my life on any of the opinions. On the other hand, I have no desire to prevent discussion of how the universe began, because we are not absolutely sure of the truth. :cup:

[InfiniteNow]

nutronjon,

 

You seem to have ignored my posts even before your whining about my rudeness, so I'm not exactly hurt. Your loss.

 

I read your posts, think, learn, and react.

 

If you ignore my posts, you will lose that same opportunity.

[modest]

Oh bother, it took a lot of effort to find the post I made days ago, and here again is the source that things began with an electron and protron

 

Origin of Matter in the Universe: How Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons Formed in the Big Bang

 

After the inflationary period matter began to form in the early universe. Initially heavy particles such as protons formed. Next lighter particles such as electrons formed. After these basic particles formed, nucleosynthesis could begin to form the few elements made during the big bang. How did these particles form?

 

I see where you've gone wrong then. This is an incomplete description bordering on wrong. Freeztar's link to wikipedia's big bang nucleosynthesis and particularly the bit about "Sequence of BBN" would be more illuminating. If you have questions or want to discuss it, here is a good thread:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/4091-material-creation.html

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

Excuse me Mike, but I am desparate to move the argue beyond "God doesn't exist", so I am throwing in something else to talk about.

 

Hindu Consciuosness - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

Hindu Consciousness:

 

We propose to identify in physics what the Hindu concept of consciousness is. First here is a description of the different forms of consciousness recognized in Hinhuism.

 

“There are myriad gradations of consciousness, from the simple sentience of inanimate matter to the consciousness of basic life forms, to the higher consciousness of human embodiment, to omniscient states of superconsciousness, leading to immersion in the One universal consciousness, Parashakti.”

 

Ref.: Consciousness: Hindu - Hinduism Dictionary on Consciousness

 

 

From this description, consciousness does not need to be self-aware. Even inanimate matter has consciousness.

 

Now let us assume that consciousness is that which is common to all the above types of consciousness. What possible physics of particles, that make up inanimate matter, could be the same in animal consciousness, or human consciousness in it's various forms (e.g., waking, sleeping, etc), and even the omniscient states of superconsciousness, whose different states are not know to most, except that they are called omniscient, all knowing.

 

What physical property of particles could be the same as the fundamental property of an all knowing state of superconsciousness. In physics totally entangled superfluids are said to behave like one particle, just like the two particles of EPR experiments know instantly what happens to the other.

[nutronjon]

I see where you've gone wrong then. This is an incomplete description bordering on wrong. Freeztar's link to wikipedia's big bang nucleosynthesis and particularly the bit about "Sequence of BBN" would be more illuminating. If you have questions or want to discuss it, here is a good thread:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/4091-material-creation.html

 

-modest

 

Thanks, I am too tired for heavy thoughts right now. The source is not my thinking, and I take no credit nor blame fore it. I just wanted to throw it out there. Mike is not the only one who said things begin with a proton and electron. Like I posted the source, and Freeztar takes up an argument with me and asked me to provide a source. Nuts- the idea was never mine. The whole thing is someone else's and I posted the link. It just deomonstrates, Mike is not totally alone.

[REASON]

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

 

This is a sarchastic jab, and a condescending inference that freeztar's atheism must lead to some sort of unhappiness.

 

For someone who complains about the tone of other's posts, you sure don't have a problem dishing it out.

 

Anyway, I'd be willing to guess relative to what I know of freezy from the posts of his that I've read, that he happens to be at a particularly happy place in his life.

 

 

 

Belief in God can only provide a sense of wellbeing if there is something you expect from God, that you think, or hope, will be fulfilled. Everyone who believes in a god, expects something from him/her/it. Whenever someone like this experiences something positive in their life, something they probably wanted, they automatically attribute it as a blessing from God. As this mindset is established in an individual, it is very difficult for them to imagine how someone could ever experience happiness and fulfillment if they reject believing in God. This also carries with it the assumtion that God will not look to provide happines to those who have rejected him/her/it.

 

If you do not expect anything from a god, then there is no emotional connection to a god concept. The emotional connection is instead tied to real relationships with actual individuals, and real opportunities for expression and feedback. I believe this is what it means to genuinely experience life. Not that there's anything wrong with conceptualization, but ultimately it's important to be a participant in life.

 

With this in mind, I understand that my happiness can be directly attributed to the choices I make, and the effort I put into seeking happiness by taking responsibility for not only the way I perceive the world around me, but how I relate to those I come in contact with. I believe that a choice to exude happiness will generate happiness within, and will draw happiness to me externally from others. When I do that, I get the credit. When I don't do that, I have to take the responsibility.

 

None of that behavior requires a belief in a god, for any of us. But it does involve commitment. As such, with every effort to exude and receive happiness in our lives or place our faith in some god concept, we are destined to experience challenges, difficulty, saddness, regret, and unfulfilled expectations. And no matter what your belief or lack thereof in god, it will remain up to us as individuals to see our way through those circumstances.

 

One of the greatest benefits of a belief in God during times of sorrow is the feeling that you're not alone, when you may actually be alone. But it's only natural to want to feel that way, and therefore it's only natural to believe as such for many people.

 

But it's only a form of psychological preservation.

[nutronjon]

nutronjon,

 

You seem to have ignored my posts even before your whining about my rudeness, so I'm not exactly hurt. Your loss.

 

I read your posts, think, learn, and react.

 

If you ignore my posts, you will lose that same opportunity.

 

I enjoy reading your post, when you are not rude. You are intelligent, so I assume you know when you are being rude and have the ability to avoid that.

[freeztar]

I don't know what nucleosynthesis is, but evidently there had to be protons and electrons before nucleosynthese could begin, according to this theory which we can not prove beyond a doubt, because we can not make it happen again and observe the happening.

 

How can you not know the meaning of an idea/theory and then ascribe a qualification to it?

 

Like knowing God, we can only study nature today and make our best guess.

 

Well, at least you've admitted that God is a guess.

 

The OPB show last night was about the whole universe is the result of decaying neutrino. I think there are almost as many opinions about what happened as there are opinions about God, and I wouldn't bet my life on any of the opinions.

 

I wouldn't either. I choose to base my opinion upon scientific research.

 

On the other hand, I have no desire to prevent discussion of how the universe began, because we are not absolutely sure of the truth.

 

I'm really curious now if you even read my last post.

[nutronjon]

When I was part of a church (long ago) this was something I heard a lot. "The only true happiness comes from God" As if 'happiness' was a property of God that he handed out on an individual basis. I'm not saying this is your position nutronjon - but it is a commonly held religious idea that deserves stomping.

 

I am no more or less happy as an atheist than I was as a believer. My happiness is no more or less genuine.

 

It's a false claim.

 

-modest

 

Okay, I agree with you, happiness does not come from God like a gift. But to not feel connected with nature and have a delighted, child like, sense of awe, sounds like depression to me.

 

To be excited about what we can discover and enjoying that discovery with others, is one experience we can have. To be technologically correct and concerned that everyone else is technologically correct is, another experience. Through all these God discussions I have gotten the impression the argument is not so much about what people think, but what they feel.

[nutronjon]

This is a sarchastic jab, and a condescending inference that freeztar's atheism must lead to some sort of unhappiness. :)

 

For someone who complains about the tone of other's posts, you sure don't have a problem dishing it out.

 

Anyway, I'd be willing to guess relative to what I know of freezy from the posts of his that I've read, that he happens to be at a particularly happy place in his life.

 

 

 

Belief in God can only provide a sense of wellbeing if there is something you expect from God, that you think, or hope, will be fulfilled. Everyone who believes in a god, expects something from him/her/it. Whenever someone like this experiences something positive in their life, something they probably wanted, they automatically attribute it as a blessing from God. As this mindset is established in an individual, it is very difficult for them to imagine how someone could ever experience happiness and fulfillment if they reject believing in God. This also carries with it the assumtion that God will not look to provide happines to those who have rejected him/her/it.

 

If you do not expect anything from a god, then there is no emotional connection to a god concept. The emotional connection is instead tied to real relationships with actual individuals, and real opportunities for expression and feedback. I believe this is what it means to genuinely experience life. Not that there's anything wrong with conceptualization, but ultimately it's important to be a participant in life.

 

With this in mind, I understand that my happiness can be directly attributed to the choices I make, and the effort I put into seeking happiness by taking responsibility for not only the way I perceive the world around me, but how I relate to those I come in contact with. I believe that a choice to exude happiness will generate happiness within, and will draw happiness to me externally from others. When I do that, I get the credit. When I don't do that, I have to take the responsibility.

 

None of that behavior requires a belief in a god, for any of us. But it does involve commitment. As such, with every effort to exude and receive happiness in our lives or place our faith in some god concept, we are destined to experience challenges, difficulty, saddness, regret, and unfulfilled expectations. And no matter what your belief or lack thereof in god, it will remain up to us as individuals to see our way through those circumstances.

 

One of the greatest benefits of a belief in God during times of sorrow is the feeling that you're not alone, when you may actually be alone. But it's only natural to want to feel that way, and therefore it's only natural to believe as such for many people.

 

But it's only a form of psycological preservation.

 

 

Wow, something is really wrong with your attitude to interpret what I said as

sarchastic jab! I did not say his atheism caused a feeling, and didn't even mean to imply that. Just about every argument everyone has made, to what I am saying, is coming out of their own understanding of God, and their own understanding of what accepting a God is all about. These arguements are a failure to grasp what I am saying.

 

Being okay with loosing one's identity, letting go of one's ego and everything attached to that ego, is psychological preservation, how?

[nutronjon]

How can you not know the meaning of an idea/theory and then ascribe a qualification to it?

 

 

 

Well, at least you've admitted that God is a guess.

 

 

 

I wouldn't either. I choose to base my opinion upon scientific research.

 

 

 

I'm really curious now if you even read my last post.

 

I would say everything humans think is a guess. Our thoughts are human thoughts, and we should not be too sure of what we think is so.

 

Did I ascribe a qualification to it; a qualification to God? If I did, it was for the sake of discussion, and not something to take too literally. This is why I have no problem discussing God with Mike, from the point of view God is Nature. To me this is just a discussion, a way of exploring our ideas. It is not a technological definition of what is so. Unfortunately, Mike's thread is no longer his thread, and the discussion he attempted to have, never happened, so we can not know where those thoughts would have taken us.

 

I want people to understand, the witch hunts were also based on science. Just because science makes a claim, that does not guarantee it is so. It is very important we understand these claims as the best reasoning at the moment, and that new evidence can change the belief.

[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.

 

As far as the biblical faction are concerned, they place much credibility to the 'WORD '.

 

Nature presents pictures! The Latin educational system uses Nature as a means for study.

So scientists study some aspects of Nature as its reference.

 

The biblical religions are for dummies because the animals do NOT need the bible. They know what to do.

 

Of course, since we evolved so much, we do need laws to govern ourselves since people are the most savage and diabolical creatures in existence today.

This does not include all the people. Just the biblical chauvinist faction.

 

Mike C

[nutronjon]

As far as the biblical faction are concerned, they place much credibility to the 'WORD '.

 

Nature presents pictures! The Latin educational system uses Nature as a means for study.

So scientists study some aspects of Nature as its reference.

 

The biblical religions are for dummies because the animals do NOT need the bible. They know what to do.

 

Of course, since we evolved so much, we do need laws to govern ourselves since people are the most savage and diabolical creatures in existence today.

This does not include all the people. Just the biblical chauvinist faction.

 

Mike C

 

 

Oh dear, Mike, your knowledge has some holes in it. The purpose of studying nature is to know the laws. Our laws are supposed to be based on the laws of nature. If you can, google "Cicero and God" for a better understanding of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God". If at least two of us understand this line of of reasoning, reasonable discussion might follow.

[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.

 

Well, since I look to Nature as my teacher, then that means I accept 'Evolution'.

So I believe we are EA's. Than I learned from them that they are Vegans

I am aware of the abberation of the Chimps as eating monkeys but I attribute that to the human spirits infuencing them.

 

So being a Vegan, enables me to stay healthy at my present age of 90.

Also, my excelent circulation keeps my brain functioning at top capacity.

Need I say more?

 

Of course, Nature teaches the 'multiple' God system, so you have to be choosey.

So I respect the females as 'Creator' Gods and the Apes as our anscestral ancient relalives and 'muscle' GODS.

 

However, all our material goodies are copies from Natures creatures (species) as inventors(?)

 

Besides, the animals are 10x more civilized in comparison to our species derived from the bible.

And the animals are not governed by the 10 commandments. Ha ha.

 

Mike C

[Moontanman]

Well, since I look to Nature as my teacher, then that means I accept 'Evolution'.

So I believe we are EA's. Than I learned from them that they are Vegans

I am aware of the abberation of the Chimps as eating monkeys but I attribute that to the human spirits infuencing them.

 

More "monkeys" than just chimps eat meat, baboons eat meat as do many tree dwelling monkeys of both the new and old world. Many primates will eat meat when they can catch another small animal.

 

So being a Vegan, enables me to stay healthy at my present age of 90.

Also, my excelent circulation keeps my brain functioning at top capacity.

Need I say more?

 

Yes you need to get off your ego more, your eating habits may be very commendable but then again you see people who live past one hundred that eat read meat routinely and smoke cigars and drink liquor. You have good genes. Just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean that is what is keeping you alive or what keeps your brain functioning.

 

 

Of course, Nature teaches the 'multiple' God system, so you have to be choosey.

So I respect the females as 'Creator' Gods and the Apes as our anscestral ancient relalives and 'muscle' GODS.

 

What ever floats your boat

 

However, all our material goodies are copies from Natures creatures (species) as inventors(?)

 

That does not make sense, can you be specific?

 

Besides, the animals are 10x more civilized in comparison to our species derived from the bible.

And the animals are not governed by the 10 commandments. Ha ha.

 

Mike C

 

How is this true? Animals are far more violent than humans, even carnivores that are very social do things like kill all the young after they kill the leaders so they don't have to raise the babies of the last leader. Nature is full of violence. Humans have cut back on the violence by a considerable margin compared to most social mammals.