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.
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
I have to say that discussions about 'nature is god' is not encouraged here since it ...well, goes nowhere and has reached spamming levels. But your question is fair so I'll take a punt. Nature isn't too hard to define. It is everything (earth, the universe, everything), made through and running on the unthinking and unplanned laws of physics, innate or (chemically) evolved as increased complex material forms weeded out the unsustainable.
It is a contention of theism that this is not unplanned but there was an intent to create, and that intent or will we have the theists (in the West at least) call "God". That is a good enough definition of a natural universe or one with a 'cosmic mind', or god.
That is in fact the difference between theism and atheism per se. One is either convinced of this cosmic mind (theist) or one is not (atheist) (1). The rest (such as whether one is apathetic atheist or activist, or whether one believes in this or that god or a non -religious god (which I may say makes these 'agnostics or irreligious theists kissin' cousins to atheists) is all knock -on stuff about what theists or atheists do with or about their theism or atheism.
Hope that answers your question, but anything else, I'll try to clarify.
(1) there is the side issue of non-theist religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Scientology and Raelians, the religions arguably not being based on a god or gods.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-16-2020 at 02:06 AM..
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
Smashwords is a site for self published books, so one must question how rational this book is. There is also the question about your motive here, as this is your first post promoting some unknown book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi123
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless.
A non sequitur. We know enough about consciousness to raise questions about how this creator could be conscious. We know how we think, and how we store our knowledge, with our brains. We also know natural forces can create complexity (such as galaxies) without intent, so no god is required. All these are problems for every conscious god hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi123
Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
This is a GIGO argument for the above reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi123
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
I have to say that discussions about 'nature is god' is not encouraged here since it ...well, goes nowhere and has reached spamming levels. But your question is fair so I'll take a punt. Nature isn't too hard to define. It is everything (earth, the universe, everything), made through and running on the unthinking and unplanned laws of physics, innate or (chemically) evolved as increased complex material forms weeded out the unsustainable.
Nature isn't too hard to define. It is everything (earth, the universe, everything), made through and running on the unthinking and unplanned laws of physics, innate or (chemically) evolved as increased complex material forms weeded out the unsustainable AND then MAGICALLY becomes conscious of itself and thinking and planning about everything.
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
meaningless to a person looks religious to me. They are basing reality on what that individual wants. Most atheist like facts. Is it factual or not is more of a concern that what one might find meaningless or not. I know people that the bouble O ort cloud is meaningless.
Besides, calling nature "god" is not encouraged here. They think its hurt the war on religion and doesn't get us anywhere in that war. I think people that think like are more religious then they realize in that they are pushing personal meaning over facts. and that what many theist do.
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
This really doesn't work.
The undefined aspect here rests on the disagreement in definitions. But this is a function of the fact that God is merely a conjecture without any substantive evidence. The same is true of leprechauns, Bigfoot, Zeus and the aliens who purportedly routinely kidnap people and take them on faster-than-light travels of the galaxy while performing bizarre sexual experiments on them.
When you have something you can describe, a type specimen or a bit you can put under a microscope, reasonably precise definition is possible. When you have 'I know God because I feel God' - or any other claims absent any objective evidence - you really have nothing.
The undefined aspect here rests on the disagreement in definitions. But this is a function of the fact that God is merely a conjecture without any substantive evidence. The same is true of leprechauns, Bigfoot, Zeus and the aliens who purportedly routinely kidnap people and take them on faster-than-light travels of the galaxy while performing bizarre sexual experiments on them.
When you have something you can describe, a type specimen or a bit you can put under a microscope, reasonably precise definition is possible. When you have 'I know God because I feel God' - or any other claims absent any objective evidence - you really have nothing.
This isn't really true. God comes in many flavors and the god beliefs that line up to what science studies have some merit.
The lumping up of all and any god into one little package then dismissing then all is really just a limited mind trying to comprehend a big world. Its fine, just lest not pretend it isn't what it is.
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
As an agnostic I seriously doubt there is a God. However, if there was a God Or if I was God I would have created the Earth and the universe as it is.
As an agnostic I used to go to mass to make my wife happy. Catholicism is not hard if one pretends it is an enjoyable fantasy. It is a bit like watching a good movie or reading a book. If you have a yearning to believe then God does not have to be real.
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
No.
Even if a god was proven, especially this undefined nature god, I would still challenge religion.
Even if a god was proven, especially this undefined nature god, I would still challenge religion.
yup ... we need to challenge most ideologies. Basing truths on "holy books" and place of birth can lead us to needless suffering.
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.
