PureX
Veteran Member
Be sure to belittle my position BEFORE you know what it. That will give you lots of credibility.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
I see reading the last few pages, here, that you all agreed that "nature exists", and that if we define God as the spirit of nature, then you agree that god exists.
So wouldn't you all also agree that nature presents us with a great mystery, and that mystery "exists" as well? So when I repeatedly defined "God" in part as that great mystery, why couldn't any of you accept that as "God" as well?
So wouldn't you all also agree that nature presents us with a great mystery, and that mystery "exists" as well? So when I repeatedly defined "God" in part as that great mystery, why couldn't any of you accept that as "God" as well?
PureX
Veteran Member
I could a swore this was my second example of evidence for the existence of God.
PureX said:
Alceste said:
I guess the problem is that I used the term "existence" instead of "nature". Who would have guessed?
PureX
Veteran Member
Comments originally Posted by PureX:
post #1
2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".
post #5
The order I was referring to is inherent to existence. As I understand it, all that exists is energy. We don't know where all this energy comes from, and we don't know why it's limited in it's behavior, but it came from somewhere and it's behavior is limited. And because energy can express itself in some ways, but not in others, our universe is what it is. So those limitations are the "orders" from which all that exists, exists as it does.
That this order exists, inextricably leads us to contemplate it's origin, and it's possible purpose. It is not logical that a pointless existence would express such order.
post #7
Energy expresses itself as matter, as motion, as space and time (the physical universe, or "nature"). The combination of these expresses consciousness. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Leading us to suspect that they and consciousness might be as well (nature might be considered "conscious").
post #102
That's not the order I'm referring to. The order I'm referring to didn't "arise from chaos" after eons of time. It was inherent at the first moment of the big bang. It is the limitations built into the nature and character of energy itself.
Keep in mind that we have no idea what energy is. Maybe it's oscillating loops, or strings. Maybe it's something else. But made of what? We can't say because it's not "substance", yet how can it exist if it's not substance? It's phenomena, but it's not random phenomena. It has "rules" in the form of limitations that dictate how that energy can and can't express itself. These limitations are the "first cause" in that they become the blueprint through which the big bang goes bang. What explodes into being is not random and chaotic, anymore, because of these inherent limitation built into the nature of energy itself.
But where did all this energy come from? Where did the limitations that govern it come from?
A lot of people use the idea of "God" as a conceptual overlay, to help them grasp and live with this profound mystery. The "energy" becomes "God's will", and the limitations that govern that energy becomes "God's plan". And the universe that results becomes "God's creation" expressing itself. We HAD to view it this way until fairly recently, because we didn't have science. But there are still plenty of people who prefer to view this mystery through religious images and terminology, rather than science because they feel it works better for them. It gives them some answers, and some sense of control, and even though these are likely illusions, for a lot of people they're better than nothing. Which is what they see science offering them.
post #33
As we study the nature of energy, trying to figure out what it is and why it behaves as it does, one thing is apparent. That is that something is governing the behavior of energy, causing it to express itself in some ways, but not in other ways. And this control, whatever it is, is responsible for the character and nature of all that exists. The ancient Greeks would surely call this mysterious control, the "logos". The divine ideal that's being expressed throughout all material existence.
post #148
post #149
It sure seems to me that the "God" you all are agreeing to, now, is the same idea of "God" that I have been posing all along in this thread.
post #1
2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".
post #5
The order I was referring to is inherent to existence. As I understand it, all that exists is energy. We don't know where all this energy comes from, and we don't know why it's limited in it's behavior, but it came from somewhere and it's behavior is limited. And because energy can express itself in some ways, but not in others, our universe is what it is. So those limitations are the "orders" from which all that exists, exists as it does.
That this order exists, inextricably leads us to contemplate it's origin, and it's possible purpose. It is not logical that a pointless existence would express such order.
post #7
Energy expresses itself as matter, as motion, as space and time (the physical universe, or "nature"). The combination of these expresses consciousness. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Leading us to suspect that they and consciousness might be as well (nature might be considered "conscious").
post #102
That's not the order I'm referring to. The order I'm referring to didn't "arise from chaos" after eons of time. It was inherent at the first moment of the big bang. It is the limitations built into the nature and character of energy itself.
Keep in mind that we have no idea what energy is. Maybe it's oscillating loops, or strings. Maybe it's something else. But made of what? We can't say because it's not "substance", yet how can it exist if it's not substance? It's phenomena, but it's not random phenomena. It has "rules" in the form of limitations that dictate how that energy can and can't express itself. These limitations are the "first cause" in that they become the blueprint through which the big bang goes bang. What explodes into being is not random and chaotic, anymore, because of these inherent limitation built into the nature of energy itself.
But where did all this energy come from? Where did the limitations that govern it come from?
A lot of people use the idea of "God" as a conceptual overlay, to help them grasp and live with this profound mystery. The "energy" becomes "God's will", and the limitations that govern that energy becomes "God's plan". And the universe that results becomes "God's creation" expressing itself. We HAD to view it this way until fairly recently, because we didn't have science. But there are still plenty of people who prefer to view this mystery through religious images and terminology, rather than science because they feel it works better for them. It gives them some answers, and some sense of control, and even though these are likely illusions, for a lot of people they're better than nothing. Which is what they see science offering them.
post #33
As we study the nature of energy, trying to figure out what it is and why it behaves as it does, one thing is apparent. That is that something is governing the behavior of energy, causing it to express itself in some ways, but not in other ways. And this control, whatever it is, is responsible for the character and nature of all that exists. The ancient Greeks would surely call this mysterious control, the "logos". The divine ideal that's being expressed throughout all material existence.
post #148
Alceste said:
post #149
ContentiusMaximus said:
It sure seems to me that the "God" you all are agreeing to, now, is the same idea of "God" that I have been posing all along in this thread.
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
You misread and horribly misinterpreted. Go back and re-read.
No, I don not agree with any of that, no actual "mystery" floating around anywhere, sorry. Just a concept in your brain.
The quotes and misinterpretations you made in your further posts completely misrepresent the original posters' intent. Re-read them.
PureX
Veteran Member
As you can clearly see from the post above yours, I was not referring to you.
Also, telling me to "re-read" something is rude. If you think I misunderstood something, then explain the misunderstanding. There's no need to be rude.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
I think this quote says it here. That the nature of existence forces us to consider that there is the reality of a God. I don't personally believe there is any such thing as God. Spirit is just a term that I use to define everything that exists. I don't however imply without fact that that Spirit is any more than what exists in nature as natural forces. It to me is nature and existence, there is no "reality of A God". But that's my opinion. There may be other forces out there, I certainly do believe there is, BUT THAT cannot be proven, nor can I provide any evidence for it, it is simply a belief.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Because "mystery" means "unknown". If you call "mystery" (the name we have for the intriguing but as yet unknown) "God", it can't be "mystery" any more.
You can call nature "God", because nature is either known or knowable. It has character, in a manner of speaking, and the proposed "God" hypothetically has character too, so it's not such a stretch to consider them synonymous.
Alceste
Vagabond
The part you quote is simply the definition of the word "dynamic", and part of an effort to understand RuneWolf's position, not a declaration of mine. I think it's reasonable and effective to desire to interact with a dynamic personality, but I don't personally believe nature has or even suggests a personality.
Anyway, the problem is that you called your belief "evidence", when it is simply an opinion. As an opinion, it's perfectly reasonable, although I disagree with it. As "evidence", it simply doesn't fly. Evidence must be empirically demonstrable, or it isn't evidence. All you can actually show me is nature - life, the universe and everything. I go "yep, there it is". Then you say "this means a supernatural intelligence must be ordering everything" - that part is just your opinion, and I disagree, because my opinions are based directly on evidence, and require no great leaps of faith or imagination.
Alceste
Vagabond
I thought this thread was about evidence. Perhaps if you had presented your thoughts on God as your belief, or your opinion, and acknowledged, like RuneWolf, that it can not be either proven or disproven, you wouldn't have run into any trouble.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If he had any evidence for god that didn't match this description, he'd be the first one in the history of man.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Well I guess we're just not even going to try to present evidence for your claims at this point are we, PureX?
PureX
Veteran Member
I don't really disagree. What we're really talking about here are different ways of conceptualizing the same perception.
To say that nature is being animated by some sort of force, spirit, intelligence, or personality is to say more or less the same thing. Those different words we use at the end are just describing the way we've chosen to conceptualize it. The "box" we've put it in, in our heads. And then we're sent further apart by the concept of this animating force being either inherent in nature as you believe, or an external "creator" of nature, as some other believe. Again, I think this is more a matter of differences of personal conception than different perceptions. But it does further fuel the disagreement.
And then lastly this is all rather mysterious to us. We don't really know or understand what is animating nature. And not knowing that leads to lots of conjecturing. And then further arguments still.
PureX
Veteran Member
That doesn't make any sense. How does labeling the unknown, 'unknown' (or a mystery), make it not unknown, anymore?
If we don't know the totality of "nature" (and clearly we do not), how can we know that it's ultimately knowable?
PureX
Veteran Member
No, the problem is that a lot of atheists want absolute proof of the existence of god, so that they can dismiss any and all evidence that falls short of that. I can't offer anyone proof. But I can offer evidence. They don't want any such evidence to exist, because they have based their belief on there being "no evidence whatever". So when presented with evidence, they must mislabel it as something else ... opinion, ... irrational, ... whatever, ... anything but actual evidence.
I haven't proposed anything about the supernatural. All I said was that existence is ordered. And that fact leads us to have to ask ourselves what is the origin of that order, and does it mean something. The nature of our own being forces us to consider the existence of "God".
This is not proof, but it IS evidence.
So is the fact that the idea of God works for most people in the way it promises to work. Usually, when an idea of something works, it means that idea is an accurate conceptualization of reality.
Again, this is not proof, but it IS evidence.
And lastly, the fact that natural processes produce consciousness leads many of us to suspect that nature itself has some sort of consciousness. I realize this is supposition, But a huge number of people believe it in one form or another. And have from the dawn of mankind. I'm not sure this can stand as evidence, yet, but so far I haven't seen anyone clearly state why it's not.
Last edited:
Bware
I'm the Jugganaut!!
This is just like your saying that Bob slipped away and killed his wife. It's not proof, it's a supposition. You are assessing that energy is expressing itself. In order for something to express it's self, it has to have consciousness. Therefore you are saying engery expresses itself so that means it has consciousness;hence God. This is not evidence of anything, it's another suppostion made by you, who keeps telling people not to make suppositions.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
PureX
Veteran Member
I want people to make suppositions. I love human imagination. It's one of our greatest tools. But I don't like people making pronouncements as though they were fact, and then not backing them up. But I'm not making any pronouncements, here. And I'm trying to share why I think this is significant.
Supposition is a big part of evidence-gathering.
PureX
Veteran Member
And I want to thank you for inspiring this thread. It's an energetic one, if nothing else! hahaFair enough.
Alceste
Vagabond
I've just told you what the problem is, and I doubt you'll find any atheist anywhere on RF who disagrees with what I said. You're doing that thing again: "No, your own thoughts and opinions aren't what you say they are, they're what I say they are", and if you disagree with me on that, you are simply ignorant as to what "atheism" really means.
The problem is that a all Christian Taoists redefine words (such as "evidence" and "atheism") to mean whatever is necessary to make them "right", in their own minds, regardless of what the dictionary says, and then refuse to relent, question or reconsider this strategy, ever. If you don't do that, then you're not really a Christian Taoist.
It is only evidence that belief in God has some psychological effects. It is NOT evidence of the existence of God. The "idea of God" can't violate the laws of nature (eg. grow you a new arm or bring a deceased loved one back to life). The effectiveness of belief is limited to phenomena that can be adequately explained as the consequence of natural neurological / chemical / hormonal processes. These processes are empirically accessible and well understood by scientists in the fields of neurology and psychology. This is actually very convincing evidence that there is no supernatural God who exists independently of the human mind.
Because a standard logic fallacy (appeal to popularity) is not evidence. It's just a very badly constructed argument.