God as Nature, Natural Law, and Democracy

[nutronjon]

<Moderator note: The following 8 posts originally appeared in “Consensus in Politics”. They have been split into this thread because they were both off topic in their parent thread and misplaced outside the theology forum.>

 

Washington, realized the Colonial Army, could not defeat the British without the aid of a Navy and the only viable/available Navy at the time was the French. Washington a member of the 'Church of England' and was one that felt religion was a personal thing.

 

Influencing the French, King Louis XVI at the time for the assistance is somewhat disputed. Catholic/Religion, I seriously doubt an issue. IMO; Louie, was somewhat gullible, even admiring the idea of American Independence. How he got there is the question. Ben Franklin was admired by him and might add most all leaders in Europe, who certainly played a role. Jefferson another personality, also played a role and John Adams as Ambassador made several impassioned speeches. All could have been instrumental or any one. Keep in mind, long after the War and after the execution of Louis 16th, Washington as President denied assistance to French in their quest for Independence. Jefferson, when president in 1803 and after France acquired the Louisiana Territory from Spain by treaty, purchased that territory including debts.

 

Greek Culture and mythology, I think played major roles in the social structure of all todays. If for no other reason, it was well recorded and passed around.

Democracy, the word comes from their language.

 

To tie their experiment to the total would be OK, but there was no doubt many before and after that were more practical. Societies didn't begin as Nations, but small group settlements, which no doubt formed various governing systems.

 

"Our Democracy"; I have to agree with you foe on this issue. WE, as in the United States, do not have a Democracy, never have and hopefully never will.

Now you live in a State (one of 50) that could be called a Representative Democracy opposed to Representative Republic (Union) and your State has the option to become as democratic as it likes. If practical, every issue can be by referendum (many states use to degree) and you can even mandate voting (not enforceable) or any number of pure democracy rules. The Federal is totally different and you personally are not even voting for the President or VP, but a State resident (representative) to do that for you. He/she is in no way, mandated or compelled to voice their states choice. You have heard this in reference to the 'Caucus/Primary' system, which was taken from the Constitution Elector system.

 

Most everything you attribute to Democracy, are Constitutional Rights offered in our or many of the worlds nations and their policy or constitution.

You can call them god given, unalienable or whatever, but factually its the system of government that maintains these rights. Not very long ago, it would be your right to drive a car, ride a horse, w/o a license, drinking a beer, smoking a pipe, with kids in the car, with out insurance as fast as that car could go...Rights change.

 

Wow it is great to speak with someone who knows the history, and can make reasonable arguments. These forums are kind of like gold hunting. Once in awhile a real gem comes up.

 

The question in Athens, which brings us to the subject of consensus in politics is, "How do the gods resolve their differences". The anwer was, they argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning. This reasoning and the need to defend Athens from invading Persians literally changed the social organization of Athens. Before this, Athens was just as much a rule by might social organization as any. This is how they believed the gods did things too, whoever, had the most power won the conflict- but gods are immortal and conflicts with immortals can't be ended by killing them. I am talking reasoning here folks, not absolute truths, okay. If you can't drive your opponet away or kill him, how can you end the conflict? Reason, is the way of ending such conflicts.

 

At the same time the philosophers, those who love knowledge, were studying everything and exploring math, and concepts of truth, and how to determine what is true.

 

This philosophy alone would not have changed the social organization of Athens, but when the Persians invaded, the masses fled, leaving only the wealthy land owners and their little hired armies to defend Athens. The Persians easily over ran Athens and destroyed most of it, including the Patron Goddess Athena's temple. To get the people to defend Athens, they were promised a say in government. Then I guess some *** hole who resented sharing the power of government with common people, or some idealist, made it manitory for them to sit throw boring meetings and participate in the decision making of self government. As everyone knows the democracy lasted only about 200 years, about the same length of time as the democracy of the US.

 

We should all be aware of the shifts of power, from the beginning to the end.

 

Rushing along, the question that began the democracy of the US was, "To whom does God give His authority". Remember in Europe this authority rested in the hands of the church and kings. Those educated in the classics and knowing of Athen's democracy and Rome's republic, answered, God gives his authority to everyone. This is not just a civil revolution, but a holy war.

 

It means we study Truth and God the Universal Laws like physics and human nature, by studying nature, not by studying mythology and holy books. This is saying God does not and did not ever speak to a few special people, and does not and never did have special people. Such a notion totally disrupts the glue that held European countries together. In a democracy we are as the gods, equal but not the same. By the Laws of Nature, each one of us has the human right to determine what we want in our lives and how we will get that. We are not as Martin Luther and Christianity taught, distained to be masters or servants. We have to answer to know one, but God.

 

Now we have argued a lot on this God issue and still have not come a consensus on what God is. We can be penalized, and run the risk of being banned if we dare to say what God is, unless we word ourselves very, very carefully, and make sure we are saying "what I think" of something like that, and don't appear to be asserting, what we think of God is, a fact, even when we have made it clear, God is beyond our comprehension and unknowable. However, to explain this line of reasoning I must say, this concept of God is the stuff of the universe and the forces that order it. I can not link to Cicero without being banned, but the reason we have to answer to this God, is because not even if we say our prayers, and burn candles, can we leap off a fourteen story building, swan dive to the ground and expect to live. How do I say, this God doesn't play games with folks. The rules are the rules and if we break them, bad things are going to happen, anc conversely if we do the right things, like wash our hands before eating, we can avoid bad things. I must say, this is not a statement a absolute, unquestionable truth, but a line of reasonining that began in Athens and has everything to do with the democratic republic of the US.

[Nitack]

Nitack; It bothers me, so many people have sent you PM's advising you on this thread. It would seem to me, they should join in your defense and also tells me there are others they fear would join in against them. There are of course different viewpoints on most all issues, which is as American as you can be, to argue your side of an issue. I might add, your knowledge of history and US Government is refreshing to me and am sure to readers of this thread or others and should not be discouraged, IN ANY WAY...

 

First, I thank you for the compliment. Second, they did not advise me about this thread, but certain participants. That a certain individual was not capable of participating in an intelligent debate because the individual just ignored any time that their claims were shown false. I was also warned that the individual posted with a dedicated agenda advocating some tripe about god being nature and that everything the individual had posted in the thread previously was only leading up to that argument being posted. I actually did not believe that second part, about the agenda until just now...

 

Now we have argued a lot on this God issue and still have not come a consensus on what God is. We can be penalized, and run the risk of being banned if we dare to say what God is, unless we word ourselves very, very carefully, and make sure we are saying "what I think" of something like that, and don't appear to be asserting, what we think of God is, a fact, even when we have made it clear, God is beyond our comprehension and unknowable. However, to explain this line of reasoning I must say, this concept of God is the stuff of the universe and the forces that order it.

 

I didn't believe it, but they were right. Every post was just lead up to the inevitable post about some religious theory. My question is this... are there not forums for these kind of religious views? I mean why come to a science forum to post about some fringe religious belief? It is pure trolling.

[Overdog]

I didn't believe it, but they were right. Every post was just lead up to the inevitable post about some religious theory. My question is this... are there not forums for these kind of religious views? I mean why come to a science forum to post about some fringe religious belief? It is pure trolling.

 

Seems there are fortune tellers here too. I agree, it's trolling. This is a thread about government.

[nutronjon]

Now we have argued a lot on this God issue and still have not come a consensus on what God is. We can be penalized, and run the risk of being banned if we dare to say what God is, unless we word ourselves very, very carefully, and make sure we are saying "what I think" of something like that, and don't appear to be asserting, what we think of God is, a fact, even when we have made it clear, God is beyond our comprehension and unknowable. However, to explain this line of reasoning I must say, this concept of God is the stuff of the universe and the forces that order it. I can not link to Cicero without being banned, but the reason we have to answer to this God, is because not even if we say our prayers, and burn candles, can we leap off a fourteen story building, swan dive to the ground and expect to live. How do I say, this God doesn't play games with folks. The rules are the rules and if we break them, bad things are going to happen, anc conversely if we do the right things, like wash our hands before eating, we can avoid bad things. I must say, this is not a statement a absolute, unquestionable truth, but a line of reasonining that began in Athens and has everything to do with the democratic republic of the US.

 

Amazing I have just received another 2 penality points for Preaching/Proselytizing although I am speaking of philosophy, and did so with the greatest care to clarify what I said as such. I am not preaching religion, nor proselytizing, check the definition of the terms. The philosophy is essentail to understanding the reasoning behind democracy which is the culture that was established in the US by public education which was an institution created for that purpose, before education had anything to do with vocational training, which didn't become a part of education until 1917. We can not fairly discuss democracy without discussing the philosophy behind it, and there is a difference between philosophy and religion. You all pride yourselves in being accurate, well, get accurate about the difference between religion and philosophy.

[Overdog]

Amazing I have just received another 2 penality points for Preaching/Proselytizing although I am speaking of philosophy, and did so with the greatest care to clarify what I said as such. I am not preaching religion, nor proselytizing, check the definition of the terms. The philosophy is essentail to understanding the reasoning behind democracy which is the culture that was established in the US by public education which was an institution created for that purpose, before education had anything to do with vocational training, which didn't become a part of education until 1917. We can not fairly discuss democracy without discussing the philosophy behind it, and there is a difference between philosophy and religion. You all pride yourselves in being accurate, well, get accurate about the difference between religion and philosophy.

 

You're not fooling anybody nutron. And you're not dealing with immature children. An hypothesis that you were a troll actually predicted you were heading towards your tired old mantra of "god is nature".

 

The hypothesis was confirmed.

 

That's science.;)

[nutronjon]

You're not fooling anybody nutron. And you're not dealing with immature children. An hypothesis that you were a troll actually predicted you were heading towards your tired old mantra of "god is nature".

 

The hypothesis was confirmed.

 

That's science.:eek2:

 

What is wrong with the claim that God is nature? Is it too pagan for you? Unless a person has a whole more to say about God, and turns this into a system or worship, it is not preaching and it is not prosetyling. I did not create the theology forum and if you are unwilling to tolerate different ideas about God, then this forum should not exist. Calling people who have different ideas of from your own, "trolls", is insulting. You may not be immature children, but I do not see the maturity in insulting people.

[REASON]

What is wrong with the claim that God is nature? Is it too pagan for you?

 

It's indefensible, and has nothing to do with Consensus in Politics.

 

 

Edit: Not to mention, this is not the Theology Forum.

[Overdog]

What is wrong with the claim that God is nature?...

 

What's wrong with it is that you have been asked repeatedly in numerous threads to back it up and you have provided no evidence or proof that this concept is anything other than your personal belief.

 

What is wrong is that early in this thread, a prediction was made well in advance that you inexorably would weave your way to yet another posting of your personal belief. The prediction was made to someone who did not believe it, and the prediction was confirmed by that same person when it happened.

 

Originally Posted by Nitack

I didn't believe it, but they were right. Every post was just lead up to the inevitable post about some religious theory. My question is this... are there not forums for these kind of religious views? I mean why come to a science forum to post about some fringe religious belief?

 

:shrug:

 

Unless a person has a whole more to say about God, and turns this into a system or worship, it is not preaching and it is not prosetyling.

 

Out of 598 posts, the words "god is nature" appear in all of them, if for no other reason than it is in your signature.

 

Calling people who have different ideas of from your own, "trolls", is insulting.

 

I didn't call you that, merely hypothesized it, and made a prediction which was independently confirmed. I would not have hypothesized it at all if it were merely the case that your ideas differ from mine. The reason for the hypothesis was because after many weeks of observing your participation in multiple threads it became apparent that such a prediction could be made.

 

I'm not sure the word "troll" is accurate, though. What word would you suggest?

[C1ay]

What is wrong with the claim that God is nature? Is it too pagan for you? Unless a person has a whole more to say about God, and turns this into a system or worship, it is not preaching and it is not prosetyling. I did not create the theology forum and if you are unwilling to tolerate different ideas about God, then this forum should not exist. Calling people who have different ideas of from your own, "trolls", is insulting. You may not be immature children, but I do not see the maturity in insulting people.

 

What's wrong with you that you keep bringing it up? Again:

 

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to). It is a forum for rational discussion of religious thought, and varieties thereof. How does science and religion interact? How does religion impact society? What is the role of religion in education? Why are wars fought over religious ideas? These are examples of topics we hope to see here.

 

Further more:

 

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

 

Again and again you've been reminded that THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT YOUR GOD! Your continued and repeated posts about the same thing over and over and over are troll bait. Discussions about God are an intentional disruption to the intended function of this forum that has pointed out to you repeatedly. If you do not like our rules then get out.

[nutronjon]

What's wrong with it is that you have been asked repeatedly in numerous threads to back it up and you have provided no evidence or proof that this concept is anything other than your personal belief.

 

What is wrong is that early in this thread, a prediction was made well in advance that you inexorably would weave your way to yet another posting of your personal belief. The prediction was made to someone who did not believe it, and the prediction was confirmed by that same person when it happened.

 

 

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

Out of 598 posts, the words "god is nature" appear in all of them, if for no other reason than it is in your signature.

 

 

 

I didn't call you that, merely hypothesized it, and made a prediction which was independently confirmed. I would not have hypothesized it at all if it were merely the case that your ideas differ from mine. The reason for the hypothesis was because after many weeks of observing your participation in multiple threads it became apparent that such a prediction could be made.

 

I'm not sure the word "troll" is accurate, though. What word would you suggest?

 

 

I am running late and unfortunately don't have time to address all the arguments, but only time to say, prove to me a cup of coffee is a cup of coffee, or that a tree is a tree. Then I will have an idea of how to prove god is the stuff of the universe, and not a supernatural being.

[REASON]

I am running late and unfortunately don't have time to address all the arguments, but only time to say, prove to me a cup of coffee is a cup of coffee, or that a tree is a tree. Then I will have an idea of how to prove god is the stuff of the universe, and not a supernatural being.

 

You still do not understand, nutronjon. It is impossible to prove that God is the stuff of the universe.

 

As it has been stated over, and over, and over again, it is nothing more than a meaningless label from the perspective of science.

 

It obviously has tremendous meaning for you personally, but science cannot and will not simply adopt your views.

[Overdog]

...prove to me a cup of coffee is a cup of coffee, or that a tree is a tree...

 

Oh, such fine words for an epitaph these would make!

[Overdog]

....prove to me a cup of coffee is a cup of coffee, or that a tree is a tree...

 

Yes I can see it now...right at the foot of a roadside tree...

 

"Here lies Nutronjon,

a member of Hypography,

who could not see,

the tree was not a fantasy..."

[Nitack]

Yes I can see it now...right at the foot of a roadside tree...

 

"Here lies Nutronjon,

a member of Hypography,

who could not see,

the tree was not a fantasy..."

 

Overdog have you ever considered a career in writing epitaphs on spec?

 

Just the right blend of truth, creativity, and smart assishness to be a raving success.

 

hmmmmm.....

[nutronjon]

This is the point of view I have speaking of, I will do my best to find other examples. Of course if you all want to spot talking this, just stop replying and there will be nothing for me to respond to, after I complete all the responses I already have to respond to, to avoid another penalty for not defending what I say.

 

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[1]

In the "Declaration of Independence," the founding document of what would become the United States, Thomas Jefferson mentions "nature's God." Unfortunately, this phrase is unclear. The religious beliefs of Jefferson were much debated in his time and still are over two centuries later. Through the letters and other writings of Jefferson, it is possible to construct an outline of his beliefs. Although he supported the moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson believed in a creator similar to the God of deism. In the tradition of deism, Jefferson based his God on reason and rejected revealed religion....

 

Jefferson felt that religion was a deeply private matter. People did not need to proclaim their beliefs: "I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to change another's creed."[6] Jefferson saw religion as private and therefore found priests unnecessary. He wrote in the same letter "I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests."[7] He only spoke about his own religious beliefs when he was asked to, and only in his private letters did he speak clearly of his beliefs.

 

Without supporting revealed religion, Jefferson subscribed to the moral teachings of Jesus. He stated this belief explicitly in a letter to John Adams in which he wrote that the moral code of Jesus was "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."[8] Jefferson even made a collection of Jesus' moral teachings from the Bible which seemed to be in their original simplicity. He used this collection as an ethical guide to his own life.

 

Jefferson's God was the source of moral values. In a letter to his nephew Peter Carr, he wrote that "He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science."[9] Rather, God made man "with a sense of right and wrong."[10] People were responsible for their actions on earth and would be rewarded or punished in some kind of afterlife.

 

More important than beliefs to Jefferson was the way people lived their lives. "I have ever judged the religion of others by their lives . . . for it is in our lives and not from our words, that our religion must be read."[11] In a letter to Adams, Jefferson concluded about religion: "the result of your 50 or 60 years of religious reading, in four words 'be just and good' is that in which all our inquiries must end."[12] This emphasis on behavior over belief was at the core of Jefferson's creed, although he did think that morality was connected to belief in God.

 

Jefferson based his belief in God on reason. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote that he believed in God because of the argument from design:

 

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's [sic] parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's [sic] composition. . . it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is . . . a fabricator of all things.[13]

 

 

Who is Nature's God?