braces_for_impact

For lack of a better word, I used the word "force" instead of "energy." The whole point is the "force" cannot be defined because of our limited knowledge of the Universe. It will always remain somewhat of a mystery but through science we are discovering more about it.

Main Entry: 1force 1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2) usually capitalized -- used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane> b : moral or mental strength c : capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>

Seems pretty self evident to me. Or are you talking about the forces that shaped the universe? Or the energy that did so? Again, it seems equivocation to me. Why call it god? If you are referring to the universe or particular forces/energies within it, why not state as much? Why the extras? Ever hear of Occams' Razor?

don't believe in a first cause. The only thing I say is that the Universe is not chaotic.

"..... the Universe is governed by a set of rational laws that we can discover and understand." - Stephen Hawking

I disagree. Though the Universe itself is governed by rational, predictable processes, the outcomes are not necessarily orderly.

I agree with a few other posters. The word god is inherently religious. Religion is defined as the worship of a supreme being. I see no reason to mystify the forces or energies that culminated into our universe.

My apologies in thinking you are a new poster, apparently I haven't been keeping on the up and up.

Uni-Universe

Biff,

Lowering the Universe to being more human, is like saying a human resembles or is equal to bacteria or some sort of microbe. It isn't a question of worth.

The Universe, God or whatever you call "it" is not human. Something that is human will have human limitations. So thinking a non-human Universe has human characteristics is like putting limitations on something that isn't "supposed" to have limitations.

How religious people think of God (having anthropomorphic attributes) is flawed. Gods can have many forms in the minds of people. As you can see by looking at the Hindu religion etc. people have been ascribing their own definition of what God means to them. If you are confused because I think of God as being the Universe then that is something you need to look into. I think it is clear. People find confusion because we live in a culture dominated by Christians. In our culture when we think of God, we think of a man in a white robe floating among the clouds.
If we lived in a Hindu dominated culture, when we think of God we would think of many Gods and a lot of them would have blue or green skin and multiple arms and legs. So I really didn't do anything new by thinking of God as the Universe and possessing Universe qualities rather than having spider qualities or a big head etc.

Uni-Universe

braces_for_impact,


Doesn't having a set of law denote a certain degree of orderliness? I think it does.

Just because I think of "God" as being the Universe doesn't mean I am mystifying it. If you feel mystified, then that is your emotion. The Universe holds a lot of exciting mysteries. It is good to be mystified every once in awhile.

I still think that when people talk about their Gods, they are really giving the Universe a human-religious make-over.

braces_for_impact

I agree that the universe can hold many mysteries and that it can bring joy to discover them. So can a drop of water.

I think the crux of the problem is this. People give 'god' certain qualities/attributes so that they can identify with their particular deity. You so far seem to be saying that giving attributes to a deity limits it; bringing "it" down to a "human level". That "it" is something we can not conceive of. Then you say "it" is the equivalent of the universe, or set the universes' existence into motion. If god is indescribable in human terms, then who cares to try? Why bother? It has no effect on us apparently, I certainly see none.

Now, if the universe is god, why not just call it the universe?

To my mind you are merely over complicating the issue.

You seem to feel that organized religion is not the answer. Then what is? Does your universe-god have any attributes at all? How do you know?

Biff the unclean

The Universe, God or whatever you call "it" is not human.
That's true. The Universe is a bunch of rocks, gas and radiation. Although humans are very much a part of it. Maybe even the nicest part.
God, on the other hand, is a fictional character, the product of imagination.

Something that is human will have human limitations.
Compared to the common everyday minerals that make up the Universe we humans have almost no limitations.
Compared to the tremendous limitations that being fictional forces on you we humans are doing just great. Thank you.

So thinking a non-human Universe has human characteristics is like putting limitations on something that isn't "supposed" to have limitations.
Anthropomorphizing the universe ascribes it with fewer limitations than it actually has. It is not "lowering" it to a human level, it is "raising" it.

If you are confused because I think of God as being the Universe then that is something you need to look into. I think it is clear.
Then it is time for you to invest in one of those "increase your vocabulary" courses that they offer on cassette.

So I really didn't do anything new by thinking of God as the Universe and possessing Universe qualities rather than having spider qualities or a big head etc.
Lower case "g" gods are a specific type of being. Upper case "G" God is a specific one of them.
You can call a marshmallow the Chrysler Building if you like--but no one is going to understand you. If you decide that you are going to call the universe God you really should let us know which definition you tossed in the old circular file. The Universe posses no supernatural qualities. So is God now not supernatural or is the universe supposed to be magic according to your human limitations?

Uni-Universe

braces_for_impact,


Attributes of the Universe-God? I no longer use the term: Universe-God. Attributes of the Universe have Universe attributes as I stated earlier to our friend, Biff. The highlight is the energetic aspect of the Universe.

We are all a part of the Universe system. We are all governed by these natural laws.

I think that the Universe is more than we think it is. But our knowledge is limited by what we currently know through science etc. So the Universe is not really limited, knowledge is limited.

We bring "down" God to a human level when we believe it has any human attributes and/or inclinations. Did I say the Universe had human attributes or inclinations? I don't think I did but please correct me if I am mistaken.

Organized religion is not my answer. But it is for many other people. I cannot tell you what the answer is. You have to figure that out for yourself. I am simply stating my ideas so it may stir discussion.

A drop of water no longer holds much mystery.

Viking

Well, how about ANY "proof" or evidence whatsoever. I have listened to christian apologists for 50 years, but have never been presented with anything that would even remotely be considered a proof of the existence of any supernatural power. If the Bible is any indication, the Supreme Being was talkng to folks, burning bushes, parting seas, etc, etc. What happened? The most "advanced" theologians seem to argue that these stories as well as god himself are really metaphorical. Not much of a basis for belief, is it? I understand belief and faith; I have plenty of both. For example, I believe there is no god. This belief is supported (if you can call it that) by the utter lack of evidence, however, it is still just a belief, and is ultimately unprovable.

diana

braces,

I've participated quite a bit on theist boards, and have been told this more times than I can count. It has always struck me as arrogant, regardless of who says it. It does not explicitly say, but it suggests that if there's any learning to be done, it's the "outsider" who needs to do it.

I think we all have learning to do. If anyone's going to let go of their preconceptions, it will be only because someone else asks a thought-provoking question.

No one ever lets go of his preconceptions because someone told him to. Being told to just tends to tick him off.

Just my thoughts. Consider this a sort of moderator preemptive strike.

d

(brighid...excellent post.)

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by JoeElliott :

"You see, I just believe. I can offer numerous pieces of evidence as to why I believe, but none would meet your criteria."

Are my criteria really much different from yours? I suspect that we share the same sorts of standards, except that belief in God is so attractive that you suspend them for such a special case.

"My belief is as tangible to me as the things you believe."

I have a hard time believing this. I've physically touched many of the things in which I believe, and it's hard to get more "tangible" than that. I suspect that it's quite easy to have a "feeling" that God exists, even if He doesn't.

"You will never find God this way."

Your explanation for that fact is that God is a magical being Who hides Himself from humanity very carefully. My explanation is that God doesn't exist.

"You demand proof, He says to have faith."

Why? Can you think of any remotely plausible reason to have a criterion as inexplicable as that?

"Sure there should be some proof, such as Christians who actually live as they should."

This "proof" is completely unconvincing.

"But God will never submit to your standards of having to absolutely prove himself beyond a shadow of a doubt."

No one is asking for anything like that. We're just asking for some good evidence, and God has consistently and utterly failed to meet that request.

"I simply make the observation that we all have to take
some things with a certain amount of faith."

To believe in some things requires some amount of faith, but to believe in God, to me, seems to require the maximum amount of faith imaginable. There are really two kinds of faith here; there's (1) the kind that lets us make a little jump in reasoning using, say, induction, and there's (2) the kind of faith that seems completely out of nowhere and based on nothing like observation. Most of us (atheists) only practice (1).

capnkirk

Uni-

I know that this post is way back along the thread, but I chose it because it is a good starting point for some questions I have for you to help me understand just where you stand.

First: Is your "god" an interventionist god? That is, does he periodically (for whatever reasons) violate the natural laws "he" (allegedly) created and produce supernatural events?

Second: Is there any "payoff" for belief in your god? i.e. reward in an afterlife, for example?

If the answer to both these questions is a resounding NO!, then you have arrived at the understanding shared by "Deists".

If you answered YES to either question (and from your posts, I suspect you did not), then you are just another flavor of theist.

In a nutshell, the theist says "god RULES"; the deist says simply "god IS".

While I personally consider theism to be utterly delusional, and the deist god to be unnecessary to understanding the universe and living an ethical life, it might help you find other like-minded people (there are a lot of deists, including several of our founding fathers). I only mention this because I hear a lot of deist concepts in your posts, and knowing that there are others who have reached the same conclusions that you have may help you along your path. Perhaps you will eventually also realize that the universe requires no other name or overarching embellishment. I welcome your input and await your response.

capn