• 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!

What's the term to describe this?

U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Don't be silly.


It may be fallacious (i.e., false) but it is not a fallacy. There are many insightful and intelligent pantheists.
Click to expand...

But pantheist believe everything is god not separate as in god and creation. So, when a pantheist see a tree, they see god. When a christian (and whomever) sees a tree, they see it comes from god.

How does the latter come to that conclusion?
 
Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Unveiled Artist said:
But pantheist believe everything is god not separate as in god and creation. So, when a pantheist see a tree, they see god. When a christian (and whomever) sees a tree, they see it comes from god.

How does the latter come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
You may actually be trying describing panentheism, which can be a mainstream Abrahamic view and it is mine,

panentheism.jpg
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Unveiled Artist said:
But pantheist believe everything is god not separate as in god and creation. So, when a pantheist see a tree, they see god. When a christian (and whomever) sees a tree, they see it comes from god.

How does the latter come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
Ask them.

In the meantime, please explain to me what that has to do with the OP.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
When someone says "look. proof of god is in nature... see!"

What is the name for the attribution they are putting to what they see and what they believe?

Since there is no direct connection between nature and creator (me and someone across the world should believe come to the same conclusion when looking at the same thing), it's based on the person who determines that connection not a obvious means of conclusion.

Maybe it's a fallacy, I don't know.

(From an abrahamic view)
Click to expand...

Everything in nature has a design and a purpose. Without the trees we couldn't survive, and vice versa. There are no intermediate organs in the fossil record. Everything came together at once, and only the existence of God can explain that.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Ask them.

In the meantime, please explain to me what that has to do with the OP.
Click to expand...

It's a conversation that sometimes go off track. Usually conversations go every which away as long as it's relevant as a whole.

That's just the nature of discussion. You don't have to participate if you're not interested just keep it in the same field of discussion and nicely, and you're fine.
 
Last edited:
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Skywalker said:
Everything in nature has a design and a purpose. Without the trees we couldn't survive, and vice versa. There are no intermediate organs in the fossil record. Everything came together at once, and only the existence of God can explain that.
Click to expand...

I got everything but the god part. For example, we know the process of having a child from conception in stages to an actual child. We see how the process comes together and don't question how they are interconnected. When we see a seed that grows into a bud and into a flower, we can usually see how that process or growth takes place. So we know the flower came from the seed or the child was conceived by egg and sperm.

But how do these things progress to god being the origin?

This exist so that "must" be true without showing a correlation between the two makes it more of an opinion or claim.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Unveiled Artist said:
When someone says "look. proof of god is in nature... see!"

What is the name for the attribution they are putting to what they see and what they believe?

Since there is no direct connection between nature and creator (me and someone across the world should believe come to the same conclusion when looking at the same thing), it's based on the person who determines that connection not a obvious means of conclusion.

Maybe it's a fallacy, I don't know.

(From an abrahamic view)
Click to expand...
Argument from personal incredulity. -- It's so complex I can't believe someone didn't design/create it.
Apophenia -- I'm seeing patterns or relationships that must be meaningful. [but aren't]
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
I got everything but the god part. For example, we know the process of having a child from conception in stages to an actual child. We see how the process comes together and don't question how they are interconnected. When we see a seed that grows into a bud and into a flower, we can usually see how that process or growth takes place. So we know the flower came from the seed or the child was conceived by egg and sperm.

But how do these things progress to god being the origin?

This exist so that "must" be true without showing a correlation between the two makes it more of an opinion or claim.
Click to expand...

The process from conception to an actual child is programmed by the DNA-that doesn't explain how it got there. That process that is programmed by DNA has an order and a purpose and couldn't have just existed. Conception to being a child doesn't explain what existed before the organs existed-it doesn't explain if there was half a heart. The process or growth that takes place from a seed budding into a flower doesn't reveal the existence of that plant having any intermediates. The flower coming from the seed doesn't mean the seed evolved, and the child was conceived by egg and sperm doesn't mean the egg and sperm evolved. The egg and sperm had to exist in that state of irreducible complexity.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
dybmh said:
Maybe the word you're looking for is "awe"?
Click to expand...

No. Not what they experience when they see nature but how they conclude how nature came from god/creator.

I love nature and at awe of everything when I'm out on the trails. But I don't experience a creator-feeling from it. When I see a tree, I see a tree. I don't see/feel god from it because nothing about that tree signifies (like a signature) a god created it.

But other people say it does. Since it's not obvious, is there a term of how they got to that conclusion? (I know fallacy terms have already been listed in this thread)
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Skywalker said:
The process from conception to an actual child is programmed by the DNA-that doesn't explain how it got there. That process that is programmed by DNA has an order and a purpose and couldn't have just existed. Conception to being a child doesn't explain what existed before the organs existed-it doesn't explain if there was half a heart. The process or growth that takes place from a seed budding into a flower doesn't reveal the existence of that plant having any intermediates. The flower coming from the seed doesn't mean the seed evolved, and the child was conceived by egg and sperm doesn't mean the egg and sperm evolved. The egg and sperm had to exist in that state of irreducible complexity.
Click to expand...

I read. Do you get the point I was making?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top