Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does align with observations.
The God I perceive...ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe)...has all the attributes definitive of a God Entity...and thus IS GOD.
We KNOW:
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, is capable of all the seeing that has ever occured. ---ALL SEEING 100%
I could go on...but these are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity.
Religions use metaphorical and allegorical characters and stories to describe all of this.
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment.
We DO KNOW that the ENERGY/MATTER that DOES IN FACT EXIST...rearranges itself so as to create all Reality, and can do this through indigenous power, without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created by and through "laws" and "processes", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains or eliminates that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a "God".
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN, EXISTING ENERGY/MATTER...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining, and eliminating happened out of what some believe to be "chaos", and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this ENERGY/MATTER was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it DOES EXIST...AND...by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by refusing to acknowledge the merited title, and insisting that the only reference is by name only ("Nature", "The Universe", etc) to identify that which has been shown to be, by known attributes and definition, a "God" entity....some then turn around and deny the existence of GOD.
No matter..."GOD" by any name is still "GOD".
to deny what you are saying because of the letters g, o, and d is deceitful and dishonest. I may not go as far as you do, but your god and my universe have the same traits. The universe is probably life.
Is more valid to say that the universe is probably life than it is to say "I don't know" at this point. Its certainly far more valid than deny everything because three letters (g, o, and d) freak some adolescent brain or adult child of abuse brains out.
I hope grey takes me up the challenge to calculate complexity vs volume ratio of the biosphere. If we measure in vacuoles, fat, teeth or in lungs the ration will be way to far off. just like if we measure it in the atmosphere.
...is more valid to say that the universe is probably life ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
...: my view that we are in a living biosphere and that's what people are misrepresenting as this literal religious god thing....
So it sounds like you are a pantheist Arach
pantheism
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe. It involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God as nature.
Trans has already stated the most elegant eloquent powerful truth. It is an outstanding example of both rational discourse AND critical thinking.
Atheists are a diverse group.
Religious people are a diverse group.
Holy books contain diverse content.
And religions are very diverse.
That's not my point... my point was stated clearly.
Here is a good example of the point I was making about the behaviors of "religious" folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Nothing makes a person look more like a zealot than phrases like "atheists do this" or "the problem with religion" or "the trouble with holy books" or "religious people do this." When those types of phrases are used the speaker is seen as irrational, fanatic, and there is no rational discourse on offer.
There is nothing rational or civil about making such a judgmental statement.
There are problems with religion, the "holy" books and the behaviors of "religious" folks.
I could pen a list that would take up pages.
yeah, lets start with the worst of the worst .... poh pot, stalin, An Lushan, hilter, and mao. the major abusers first.
oh wait, they are atheists. my bad. lets get back to the real reason we are here. screw the truth, bash religion, screw the truth, bash religion. bash bash bash away.
yeah, lets start with the worst of the worst .... poh pot, stalin, An Lushan, hilter, and mao. the major abusers first.
oh wait, they are atheists. my bad.
Or we could start with the non-religious truth tellers such as Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson who have offered a lot of great insight to humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
lets get back to the real reason we are here. screw the truth,
pantheism
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe. It involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God as nature.
not really. I am not sure the whole universe is alive. I can say with more certainty than not, the biosphere appears to be life.
I dont align how I think the universe works to three letters of g, o, and d. I align those letters to how the universe works.
I am not afraid of religion, not even a little bit.
...If some call the properties we list of the biosphere, their god; I don't care. If somebody calls the properties of biosphere that we list the biosphere, i don't care. what is clearly wrong is calling the biosphere "bible god"....
Thats what mystic does. Mystic calls the universe and everything in it God. Which is ok by you because its just another name for the biosphere or universe.
On the other hand you are also saying mystic is wrong.
Because his God IS bible God. Did you miss that part?
He heavily quotes from the bible and relies heavily on a religious figure he found in the bible. He claims his religious figure is God. Because it says so in the Bible he quotes = bible god.
Or are you saying "his" bible god is ok but "other" bible gods are not ok?
Or are you saying "biosphere science universe god" is ok but "bible God" is not?
What's the difference? Maybe you need to define bible god. Because as it stands your post contradicts itself.
It sounds like in your mind there is a "biosphere science god" since you say it is "clearly wrong" to call the biosphere "bible god" and you say "omni bible god has no observational support." If observational support is your criteria then "biosphere science god" is an equivalent quaint term as a counterpart to the also quaint term "bible god."
And you do realize you are firmly planting yourself in the territory of claiming to know what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to religious beliefs. You sound like a preacher and evangelist, just giving you a heads up on that, when you make these sorts of bold statements what is clearly wrong is calling the biosphere "bible god"
...There is nothing rational or civil about making such a judgmental statement.
If someone makes these kinds of statements....
"atheists do this" or "the problem with religion" or "the trouble with holy books" or "religious people do this"
....they are seen as irrational, as zealots or fanatics, because those statements are not rational. Nor are they accurate. They demonstrate a lack of critical thinking and are not part of rational discourse.
Why are the statements irrational? Because they ignore the simple obvious rational truth that Trans pointed out.
Atheists are diverse. So are religious people. And holy books and religions. To lump them all together is overly simplistic. Not accurate. Not rational.
If someone makes no distinction between Jim Jones and the Dalai Lama yes they are a fanatic. If someone makes no distinction between the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and L. Ron Hubbard then they are not rational.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-03-2018 at 08:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
