What is your take on God?

originally posted by: Agartha
LOL you are free to call it whatever you want, I'm just saying that I disagree, I don't see God, I see nature.

I assure you we see the same thing

God is just a convenient name to remind me that despite all we (think) we know about human nature and the universe, there is even more that we don't know.

Actually many scientists and physicists have publicly expressed their concern that it seems the more we uncover about the secrets of matter, the more new questions it raises. Currently they kind of feel a bit overwhelmed and some are starting to question the finality of science.

It's good to keep in mind that we should remain humble in the face of the grandiosity and complexity and mystery of the universe and calling it god is just one way among many to do so.


I could say "I'm here on this earth today thanks to the creation of matter, the laws of causality, the gravitation, organic compounds, nucleobases, proteins, pluricellular organisms and an infinity of other conditions that allowed for the creation of my dna and for its self-replication into a colony which achieved sentience". And I sometime do.

Then other time, because I want to understand my heritage and roots with those who came here before me (or because it's the subject of the thread) I use their term and simply say: "I'm here, in god and thanks to god" because it's shorter and yet there are still plenty of people who understand what I mean perfectly.

originally posted by: Ghost147
therefore it's unreasonable to be inclined to believe supernatural over natural.

Pantheism doesn't believe in supernatural over natural.

It's really something a lot of people have a difficulty to understand.

Pantheism says "god" and nature are the same thing. I never understand why people can't accept that god can very possibly something more mundane than their image of it.

originally posted by: gggilll
Actually many scientists and physicists have publicly expressed their concern that it seems the more we uncover about the secrets of matter, the more new questions it raises.

It's no big secret that the more we discover the more questions we will have. I think your view on science is a bit more narrow than what it really is about.

originally posted by: gggilll
Currently they kind of feel a bit overwhelmed and some are starting to question the finality of science.

Link? I have my extreme doubts that even a minor population of scientists feel this way.

originally posted by: gggilll
It's good to keep in mind that we should remain humble in the face of the grandiosity and complexity and mystery of the universe and calling it god is just one way among many to do so.

No. Doing so is just laying back and remaining ignorant.

This stance may work for some people, but for many others, the more complex the more exciting. It opens doors for us to learn even more. It doesn't simply scare us to the point that we rather not discover something new out of fear for 'whatever'

originally posted by: gggilll
I could say "I'm here on this earth today thanks to the creation of matter, the laws of causality, the gravitation, organic compounds, nucleobases, proteins, pluricellular organisms and an infinity of other conditions that allowed for the creation of my dna and for its self-replication into a colony which achieved sentience". And I sometime do.

Then other time, because I want to understand my heritage and roots with those who came here before me (or because it's the subject of the thread) I use their term and simply say: "I'm here, in god and thanks to god" because it's shorter and yet there are still plenty of people who understand what I mean perfectly.

Uh... no. The two paragraphs do not mean identical things. in fact, to everyone else, they are claiming the exact opposite things.

originally posted by: Ghost147
It's a lot more humble than simple claiming that they know The Only Truth and are Absolutely Certain and no ammount of evidence can change their minds.

That's something religions and dogmatic people are doing. Most people I know versed in spirituality have no problem changing their mind.

Actually they (and I) acknowledge we learn a bit more every day, and what I believe today is different from what I believed yesterday, and will likely be different from what I will believe tomorrow.

But choosing to call nature "god" isn't even a matter of beliefs, only semantics, so I don't even see why it should be about things like "The Only Truth".

originally posted by: Ghost147
Uh... no. The two paragraphs do not mean identical things. in fact, to everyone else, they are claiming the exact opposite things.

Not true. They are meaning different things to religious fundamentalists (which are it is true the majority of Christian in the US, but not in the rest of the world), but not to other deists or pantheists.

I've met countless of other people who share my view that THEY want to CALL the universe god because they feel it's a good way to express it's mystery and complexity and beauty.

It's not because a few religious fanatics assholes don't share this view that anyone spiritual think god is a spiritual character who created the universe then sat and watched it to punish people who ate ham or watched porn.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: Ghost147
therefore it's unreasonable to be inclined to believe supernatural over natural.

Pantheism doesn't believe in supernatural over natural.

It's really something a lot of people have a difficulty to understand.

Pantheism says "god" and nature are the same thing. I never understand why people can't accept that god can very possibly something more mundane than their image of it.

Ah, I didn't realize you were referring to pantheism (I only saw the post I originally responded to).

Nevertheless, The same could be said about pantheism. After all, it too is an unfalsifiable concept.

originally posted by: gggilll
Not true. They are meaning different things to religious fundamentalists (which are it is true the majority of Christian in the US, but not in the rest of the world), but not to other deists or pantheists.

If you were to just give that first paragraph without an explanation that your concepts come from pantheism, it would mean something entirely different at it's core.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I only saw the post I originally responded to

That might be a problem if you want to discuss what I believe in.

The thing is I agree with most of what you posted. I don't see it conflicting my beliefs. So unless you have something more specific you want to discuss, I'll just keep saying that calling nature god is a matter of semantics and not metaphysics.

That people automatically assume god = supernatural being is their problem not mine.

I specifically said that FOR ME, and other pantheists or deist, nature and god are interchangeable terms meaning god isn't a supernatural being, meaning god is nature.

originally posted by: Ghost147
If you were to just give that first paragraph without an explanation that your concepts come from pantheism, it would mean something entirely different at it's core.

Yeah but like always when we discuss things (especially abstract ones like theology or spirituality) context is very important.

And the context here is me saying and repeating for the last pages that my stance was pantheism.

Every single post I made was explaining the pantheist point of view.

So in a way you are correct (because you ignored the context). If it's what you wanted to hear from me I agree: the god 99% of people in the world picture isn't the one I picture.

I also explained why; because literal, materialistic and exoteric reading of religious texts is the easiest path. But since these texts are symbolic, it takes time and interpretation to find their common meaning, and most people don't want to invest their time doing so.

So they stay at the literal interpretation. I can't really blame them, I'm kind of lazy myself

a reply to: gggilll

I understand what you are saying and I even agree to a point, but I still wouldn't call it God. I leave that word for those who believe in deities and believe in the supernatural and there's nothing above and beyond nature (as the original Latin word states).

I see nature and I revere nature for its power and beauty, and I try to understand it through science and not by just accepting things with faith.

originally posted by: gggilll
That might be a problem if you want to discuss what I believe in.

Actually, my original response to you was addressing some claims about science itself.

originally posted by: gggilll
That people automatically assume god = supernatural being is their problem not mine.

Just as a point of note, I'm not sure why that would be our problem when the vast majority of population per religion reside in non-pantheistic views; at least in the sense you're referring the views to be. It seems perfectly reasonable that when a person refers to god (especially in a singular form) they are referring to a being from a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion.

originally posted by: gggilll
So in a way you are correct (because you ignored the context).

Ignored, and simply not being a part of the conversation are two seperate things. I keyed in on a misinformed claim about science, which didn't really talk about your religious views at all, and that's about it.

originally posted by: Agartha
I see nature and I revere nature for its power and beauty, and I try to understand it through science and not by just accepting things with faith.

Well if it can reconcile you with spirituality a bit, know that for very long and still today among religions, the scientific study of nature was considered as a way to better understand god, since nature was considered as the divine creation.

So it wasn't really about just accepting things with faith but truly to unravel the beauty and mystery of creation.

I know that today with religious fundamentalism some people feel like it's all Science VS Spirituality but honestly it's an intellectual lie. It's actually Science VS Fundamentalism because fundamentalism deals with dogmas. Fundamentalism is only a subset of religions, but it is indeed a dangerous and backward one.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Very interesting - and no I don't mind if you copied a previous answer. It fits here. I'll add that you could argue that communication was the creative force. The Bible tells us that God said this and that - and it was done.

a reply to: gggilll

I was going to put my own take on things, but you pretty much just summed it up and saved me a bunch of time (not to mention mental power trying to figure out the words).

As far as i can tell, god is just a term people use to describe their own ego. Everyone has a different description of what god is because we are all percieving "it" from our own imaginations. God is the culmination of all of your ideals. Everything you would want a "god" to be. For some, the description from various anchient texts will suffice, and they find comfort in knowing that many others believe in that same explanation. For new agers, pseudoscientific explanations that try to incorporate "sciency" words and some form of eastern philosophy are what rings their bells.

What is undeniable though, is that everybody has a different idea. There is absolutely no consensus as to what defines a god and what properties "it" has. Even among people of the same religion, church, even in the same families that grew up together in the same space. There is no consensus. No agreed upon definition. Which leads me to believe that all of these ideas come solely from the individuals imagination and strengthened by the resolve of their own ego. Why else would people argue over something that cannot or at least has not been shown to even exist.

This thread is proper proof that a consensus cannot be reached as long as you are discussing god as what you "believe" it to be. Instead of what you "want" it to be. Perhaps then we could start a new discussion based on the similarities of what we want, instead of the differences in what we believe.


a reply to: scorpio84

a reply to: scorpio84

Interesting.

As I've stated in the past, man is nothing more than a very smart tool making monkey. Religion is just another tool that enables us to put some meaning to what happens to us after we die.

imho

I believe that god is the structured energy of the universe. It creates everything, even life. God is a frequency pattern, so technically god would be something like a word as it is mentioned in the bible.

A being of collective consciousness composed of structured energy. Our planet would have it's own sort of Demi god which is a part of god. Does god look like us? I doubt it. But our minds may interpret it so he looks human. Linking to the collective consciousness would be sort of like belief. I think that the Native Americans might have it more close to right than some other religions. Everyting is connected by a link but most people do not want to link to it, they want to be their own person and believe that their actions are not harming anything so choose a religion which allows them to do this.

I like to describe myself as, "Agnostic, hoping against hope that gnosis is a thing." :p

At the end of the day, I don't know. And it's quite possible that I can't know. However I am humble enough to recognize that I delude myself in myriad ways as a human being whether that happens to include theism or not, and as such, I do not begrudge anyone their faith or seek to change their mind.

I believe getting up in the morning matters at all, and that the love I feel for my family means something, despite all rational scientific evidence to the contrary (facts suggest strongly that this is all just a meaningless interplay of forces or, at best, dimensions, resulting in what we experience, and that we might not even have free volition as we tend to think of it at least.) Therefore I'm no more objective imho than someone who chooses religion as their particular flavor of existential terror management/coping method.

So I simply choose to live and let live, while hoping (seeking?) for something akin to gnosis if at all possible. Because I suppose on some level I need to have that faint hope at least.



Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

Gnosis is just a knowledge of spiritual things...

I believe that knowledge exists in the world in the form of simplicity

If there is a creator God they could not “exist” in any form inside of their creation.They definitely would not be the nature of the physical universe because ALL of natures matter is all doomed to die and is in a state of entropy moving from organization to disorganization.

The God that anyone believes in is completely false.It can only be a construct of the mind made in the image(imagination) of the believer.

If the creator God communicated with their creation it could only be through knowing(the core meaning of love) not belief or mysticism or religious gnosis or books.