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.
I will accept your term as meaningful when you can articulate WHAT Nature refers to other than the ineffable Reality that is responsible for everything that exists (you know, God ). Describing how various manifestations occur within the unified field does not tell us what the underlying source (substrate) IS. God's consciousness field is as reasonable an answer as your nebulous non-answer term. You and your ilk need to stop pretending you can demand proof of God's existence when a perfectly viable candidate already exists.
I am simply noting or distinguishing the difference between the thinking that went on once upon a time as compared to today. Now with the sort of help from science we didn't have before, when all such things were attributed to God rather than the natural causes we now know about and understand. Know and understand in ways that we didn't back when all such things were directly attributed to God instead (for very similar reason).
I am simply noting or distinguishing the difference between the thinking that went on once upon a time as compared to today. Now with the sort of help from science we didn't have before, when all such things were attributed to God rather than the natural causes we now know about and understand. Know and understand in ways that we didn't back when all such things were directly attributed to God instead (for a very similar reason).
Describing HOW something manifests in the unified field does NOT tell us WHAT it should be attributed to - i.e. we still do not know what those natural causes ARE. You use the term as if it is obvious and somehow given in the inner consciousness without the need for explanation or elaboration.
Describing HOW something manifests in the unified field does NOT tell us WHAT it should be attributed to - i.e. we still do not know what those natural causes ARE. You use the term as if it is obvious and somehow given in the inner consciousness without the need for explanation or elaboration.
I suppose some are satisfied to attribute Earthquakes, mountain ranges, volcanoes and such to the natural cause AKA the grinding of tectonic plates, and leave it at that. Others need to insist the grinding of tectonic plates is the result of more than what science tells us about this, and/or more than what science has proven to be the case in these respects. I'm the former type and not the latter type. Again it's pretty well simple as that and I've got to sign off now for awhile, so for whatever that's worth. For me it will have to do...
I suppose some are satisfied to attribute Earthquakes, mountain ranges, volcanoes and such to the natural cause AKA the grinding of tectonic plates, and leave it at that. Others need to insist the grinding of tectonic plates is the result of more than what science tells us about this, and/or more than what science has proven to be the case in these respects. I'm the former type and not the latter type. Again it's pretty well simple as that and I've got to sign off now for awhile, so for whatever that's worth. For me it will have to do...
It is NOT a question about ANY of the specific manifestations, the issue is WHAT the whole of our Reality IS or IS NOT. This is the level of consideration you shallow thinkers refuse even to consider because it eliminates any possibility of your default preference because as we repeatedly say - We do not know! That allows for NO default preference. Your atheism is NOT science-based, it is a preferred BELIEF about what our Reality is NOT.
I suppose some are satisfied to attribute Earthquakes, mountain ranges, volcanoes and such to the natural cause AKA the grinding of tectonic plates, and leave it at that. Others need to insist the grinding of tectonic plates is the result of more than what science tells us about this, and/or more than what science has proven to be the case in these respects. I'm the former type and not the latter type. Again it's pretty well simple as that and I've got to sign off now for awhile, so for whatever that's worth. For me it will have to do...
Tweak you anology to fit the topic just a tad. Its a little more like before we knew about plates.
we see earthquakes and volcanoes. And we see how land masses "look" relative to each other.
We say there seems to be something more causing these observations. Maybe the plates are moving.
Which IS WHAT??? You really need to take a philosophy course to increase the depth of your considerations.
just the definition might help.
or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
Greek gods of love and war
3: a person or thing of supreme value
had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
But this aint about whats the truth is. This is about there statement of belief about god being the only acceptable answer.
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.
). Describing how various manifestations occur within the unified field does not tell us what the underlying source (substrate) IS. God's consciousness field is as reasonable an answer as your nebulous non-answer term. You and your ilk need to stop pretending you can demand proof of God's existence when a perfectly viable candidate already exists.
