Definitions of "god"

[Unveiled Artist]

"God," in this case, used because it's a common term people know. Not in this case does god refer to any nature or characteristic of one god/s abrahamic, eastern, pagan, and otherwise.

I found this interesting below of the different natures of what people mean when they refer to god as, let's say, the life force or energy that livens all into being. Tradition, language, Practice, oral and written dictation, etc helps one live it. Differing religions define it (using "it" to talk about something /grammar not to Be the nature of that thing) and see it in various ways.

Universal Life Force Energy: 8 Examples from Around the World

These lists are generalizations but hoping you get the context. Read at your own time. I know most faiths on RF don't like to discuss their views on this word (of single or multiple context), but hopefully there is some interaction nonetheless.

Enjoy.

45 Unique Subtle Energy Definitions & Names | Subtle Energy

Cheat sheet (ignore the list. It's not the same as the first link.)

 

[Bear Wild]

"God," in this case, used because it's a common term people know. Not in this case does god refer to any nature or characteristic of one god/s abrahamic, eastern, pagan, and otherwise.

I found this interesting below of the different natures of what people mean when they refer to god as, let's say, the life force or energy that livens all into being. Tradition, language, Practice, oral and written dictation, etc helps one live it. Differing religions define it (using "it" to talk about something /grammar not to Be the nature of that thing) and see it in various ways.

Universal Life Force Energy: 8 Examples from Around the World

These lists are generalizations but hoping you get the context. Read at your own time. I know most faiths on RF don't like to discuss their views on this word (of single or multiple context), but hopefully there is some interaction nonetheless.

Enjoy.

45 Unique Subtle Energy Definitions & Names | Subtle Energy

Cheat sheet (ignore the list. It's not the same as above.)

There is clearly creative and destructive forces in our universe and we identify with the creative force that created. In the pagan path I follow the gods and goddesses are manifestations of this creative and destructive forces that when balanced create a harmony. Nothing supernatural and nothing human like - all present in within our world.

 

[exchemist]

"God," in this case, used because it's a common term people know. Not in this case does god refer to any nature or characteristic of one god/s abrahamic, eastern, pagan, and otherwise.

I found this interesting below of the different natures of what people mean when they refer to god as, let's say, the life force or energy that livens all into being. Tradition, language, Practice, oral and written dictation, etc helps one live it. Differing religions define it (using "it" to talk about something /grammar not to Be the nature of that thing) and see it in various ways.

Universal Life Force Energy: 8 Examples from Around the World

These lists are generalizations but hoping you get the context. Read at your own time. I know most faiths on RF don't like to discuss their views on this word (of single or multiple context), but hopefully there is some interaction nonetheless.

Enjoy.

45 Unique Subtle Energy Definitions & Names | Subtle Energy

Cheat sheet (ignore the list. It's not the same as above.)

This seems to be pseudoscientific woo (which rather irritatingly misquotes Max Planck, among other things).

Anyone using "energy" ("subtle"or otherwise) in the context of "life force" is abusing science concepts. We are dangerously close to Deepak Chopra territory here, it seems to me.

 

[George-ananda]

An interesting point is that mainstream science recognizes none of these things as existing. I am a believer myself.

 

[exchemist]

An interesting point is that mainstream science recognizes none of these things as existing.

By "mainstream science" I think you mean "science".

 

[George-ananda]

This seems to be pseudoscientific woo (which rather irritatingly misquotes Max Planck, among other things).

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a conscious and intelligent non-visible living energy force. This energy force is the matrix mind of all matter.” – Max Planck, developer of Quantum Theory

So what did they misquote?




Bonus Material

Other quotes from Planck:

In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit.
Max Planck

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness.
Max Planck

And perhaps the most apropos:

Truth never triumphs-its opponents just die out.
Max Planck

 

[George-ananda]

By "mainstream science" I think you mean "science".

I meant what I said. There are other sciences like Occult Science, Vedic Science, etc..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This seems to be pseudoscientific woo (which rather irritatingly misquotes Max Planck, among other things).

Anyone using "energy" ("subtle"or otherwise) in the context of "life force" is abusing science concepts. We are dangerously close to Deepak Chopra territory here, it seems to me.

It's the context not the word. Here's the context (Qi) the "vital energy that is held to animate the body." Scientific word energy and what's being described are the same thing. The practice, traditions, language, and context are what differentiates them not the definition.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is clearly creative and destructive forces in our universe and we identify with the creative force that created. In the pagan path I follow the gods and goddesses are manifestations of this creative and destructive forces that when balanced create a harmony. Nothing supernatural and nothing human like - all present in within our world.

Would it also makes sense that there is no duality in forces but just one force (like waves) flowing in and out of each other as one sea?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

An interesting point is that mainstream science recognizes none of these things as existing. I am a believer myself.

Science calls it just energy. It breaks it down to different types of energy. Spiritualist have a lot of traditions, languages, and mystics involved in describing it. Not sure why spiritualist devalue science but it just uses everyday terms rather than mystical ones. I'd assume physical and spiritual are interrelated (if not each other, I guess one can say) not separate.

 

[George-ananda]

Science calls it just energy. It breaks it down to different types of energy. Spiritualist have a lot of traditions, languages, and mystics involved in describing it. Not sure why spiritualist devalue science but it just uses everyday terms rather than mystical ones. I'd assume physical and spiritual are interrelated (if not each other, I guess one can say) not separate.

No, there is a major difference between science and spirituality on the issue of subtle energy/life force or whatever term. Mainstream science does not accept these things at this time. It is not just that they call it something different, they accept as existing only the known energies currently in science.

From the Wikipedia entry on Energy:

Some forms of energy (that an object or system can have as a measurable property)
Type of energy Description
Mechanical the sum of macroscopic translational and rotational kinetic and potential energies
Electric potential energy due to or stored in electric fields
Magnetic potential energy due to or stored in magnetic fields
Gravitational potential energy due to or stored in gravitational fields
Chemical potential energy due to chemical bonds
Ionization potential energy that binds an electron to its atom or molecule
Nuclear potential energy that binds nucleons to form the atomic nucleus (and nuclear reactions)
Chromodynamic potential energy that binds quarks to form hadrons
Elastic potential energy due to the deformation of a material (or its container) exhibiting a restorative force
Mechanical wave kinetic and potential energy in an elastic material due to a propagated deformational wave
Sound wave kinetic and potential energy in a fluid due to a sound propagated wave (a particular form of mechanical wave)
Radiant potential energy stored in the fields of propagated by electromagnetic radiation, including light
Rest potential energy due to an object's rest mass
Thermal kinetic energy of the microscopic motion of particles, a form of disordered equivalent of mechanical energy

 

[shunyadragon]

The 'Source' of our physical existence some call God(s).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, there is a major difference between science and spirituality on the issue of subtle energy/life force or whatever term. Mainstream science does not accept these things at this time. It is not just that they call it something different, they accept as existing only the known energies currently in science.

From the Wikipedia entry on Energy:

Some forms of energy (that an object or system can have as a measurable property)
Type of energy Description
Mechanical the sum of macroscopic translational and rotational kinetic and potential energies
Electric potential energy due to or stored in electric fields
Magnetic potential energy due to or stored in magnetic fields
Gravitational potential energy due to or stored in gravitational fields
Chemical potential energy due to chemical bonds
Ionization potential energy that binds an electron to its atom or molecule
Nuclear potential energy that binds nucleons to form the atomic nucleus (and nuclear reactions)
Chromodynamic potential energy that binds quarks to form hadrons
Elastic potential energy due to the deformation of a material (or its container) exhibiting a restorative force
Mechanical wave kinetic and potential energy in an elastic material due to a propagated deformational wave
Sound wave kinetic and potential energy in a fluid due to a sound propagated wave (a particular form of mechanical wave)
Radiant potential energy stored in the fields of propagated by electromagnetic radiation, including light
Rest potential energy due to an object's rest mass
Thermal kinetic energy of the microscopic motion of particles, a form of disordered equivalent of mechanical energy

Would you agree life force in the OP context isn't referring to science?

I can see spirituality (or the use, practice, or so have you) in/as/from energy (however termed) can use scientific terms to describe it's nature expressed through physical means. If tradition, practice, etc is one with spirituality (let's say Is) then wouldn't one be an expression of the other and energy regardless if it's defined in parts (like your wiki links) or experienced in practice still constitutes the same message and result regardless the metaphysics we use (or some use) to describe it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The 'Source' of our physical existence some call God(s).

I guess that's the bare bones of it all. Science would call it energy. Religion and spiritualist tend to lean towards it being mystic, unknowable, or so have you. Why would it be inaccurate for science to able to describe this source without depreciating the religious view of it being mystic and "beyond human comprehension" (the spirit of it)?

 

[Deeje]

"God," in this case, used because it's a common term people know. Not in this case does god refer to any nature or characteristic of one god/s abrahamic, eastern, pagan, and otherwise.

So not a Creator God to whom creation is bound or has some obligation to?

I found this interesting below of the different natures of what people mean when they refer to god as, let's say, the life force or energy that livens all into being. Tradition, language, Practice, oral and written dictation, etc helps one live it. Differing religions define it (using "it" to talk about something /grammar not to Be the nature of that thing) and see it in various ways.

Since "god" is such a universal term, it must then have a universal origin. There must have been a time when early human beings did not consider the term "god" as anything other than what it originally meant as applying to the one element that they considered or understood to be "God". It appears to me that as humans spread out in the earth, that their ideas about "God" ("The Great Spirit" for some) became slanted towards what they wanted to believe of him, yet still holding to a core belief of 'him/it' as the source of all energy...to be revered and respected.

Humans are imaginative creatures and as we can see from the common spiritual bond they all hold down through time, their beliefs have been fragmented into all manner of religions and religious practices.....but none can claim to be the one universal truth of it.

How far can we go back to find out where it all started? Bible believers have such a point of reference.....what do other religions have? They acknowledge the existence of this pervasive spiritual energy force...but where does it come from?

 

[George-ananda]

Would you agree life force in the OP context isn't referring to science?

I can see spirituality (or the use, practice, or so have you) in/as/from energy (however termed) can use scientific terms to describe it's nature expressed through physical means. If tradition, practice, etc is one with spirituality (let's say Is) then wouldn't one be an expression of the other and energy regardless if it's defined in parts (like your wiki links) or experienced in practice still constitutes the same message and result regardless the metaphysics we use (or some use) to describe it?

Let me try to explain myself better then.

But let me start from the basics. Mainstream science is materialistic. It does not accept prana, life forces, etc.. Those things are speculative to science and for the hard-science types like exchemist above it is called 'woo' and denigrated because it is not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

From Rational Wiki (one of the Skeptic scriptures):

Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific).

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess that's the bare bones of it all. Science would call it energy. Religion and spiritualist tend to lean towards it being mystic, unknowable, or so have you. Why would it be inaccurate for science to able to describe this source without depreciating the religious view of it being mystic and "beyond human comprehension" (the spirit of it)?

Simply, to avoid the conflicting contradictory beliefs of different religions, churches, and other belief systems, the nature of our physical existence simply reflects God's attributes as Created, and as science describes it based on objective verifiable evidemce. God's Creation could not be in conflict with the objective verifiable evidence, which science is based on.

God's physical Creation is not in any way mystical, but naturally consistent in a practical way, and nonetheless God in the ultimate sense is unknowable, but we may know many attributes of God in Creation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me try to explain myself better then.

But let me start from the basics. Mainstream science is materialistic. It does not accept prana, life forces, etc.. Those things are speculative to science and for the hard-science types like exchemist above it is called 'woo' and denigrated because it is not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

From Rational Wiki (one of the Skeptic scriptures):

Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific).

Do you mean scientists are materialistic due to your reference to exchemist or can science in itself a way to deecribe spirituality outside the commonly (and only) accepted way to accept the latter?

It's is somewhat like the more spiritually us explained, the less spiritual it is. Why is that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Simply, to avoid the conflicting contradictory beliefs of different religions, churches, and other belief systems, the nature of our physical existence simply reflects God's attributes as Created, and as science describes it based on objective verifiable evidemce. God's Creation could not be in conflict with the objective verifiable evidence, which science is based on.

God's physical Creation is not in any way mystical, but naturally consistent in a practical way, and nonetheless God in the ultimate sense is unknowable, but we may know many attributes of God in Creation.

Can science explain the nature of god rather than referencing god by creation?

Energy would be god rather than a creation or reflection of what a god may have created.

 

[epronovost]

Let me try to explain myself better then.

But let me start from the basics. Mainstream science is materialistic. It does not accept prana, life forces, etc.. Those things are speculative to science and for the hard-science types like exchemist above it is called 'woo' and denigrated because it is not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

From Rational Wiki (one of the Skeptic scriptures):

Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific).

Small correction, science is naturalistic not materialistic though it's easy to confuse the two schools since they are closely related. They differ when it comes to subject like emergence.