What Happens When God is Nature?

[fr0d0]

Which of course fails to take into account the theistic view, which supposes that God is not just nature, but as creator of it - it coming from himself, and part of him. Not God is only nature : God is in nature.

The Christian viewpoint is well established and fixed for consideration. You present an elegant attack, if logically lacking.

[Purple Rabbit]

Which of course fails to take into account the theistic view, which supposes that God is not just nature, but as creator of it - it coming from himself, and part of him. Not God is only nature : God is in nature.

The Christian viewpoint is well established and fixed for consideration. You present an elegant attack, if logically lacking.

Firstoff, if it's any attack, it's not mine but Spinoza's.

Second, you're right, the theistic view supposes that god is not just nature. It still has nothing as evidence for this wild speculation. The logic that is lacking is the logic that there are properties of nature that are beyond nature.

Third, if you have read Spinoza, you should have to acknowledge that the guy did an awful good job of using his reasoning faculty and wasn't into any circular job of taking a dogmatic theistic view as a starting point. At the time an activity with all too well known capital consequences. So you can be sure that there were good reasons of bodily health to insert theistic dogma in the things he wrote, yet Spinoza did not. And guess what? The universe did not even flinch.

[fr0d0]

1. I wasn't referring to Spinoza, but to your usual spin.

2. a. It would be illogical if it could be evidenced & b. No one is suggesting that there are elements of nature beyond nature

[Purple Rabbit]

1. I wasn't referring to Spinoza, but to your usual spin.

Exactly, so I pointed out that the spin you seem to perceive isn't there since I stated historical fact. Just read Spinoza.

2. a. It would be illogical if it could be evidenced

That's an illogic statement in itself and a rather hilarious one. There is no rule of logic that prohibits evidence for a framework of truth statements within that logic, it's a rule invented by religion, more specifically your personal take on religion. There are clear examples of evidential frameworks that are not illogic, science being the most obvious one and a rather succesfull one. Contrary to religion, science does have explanantory and predictive power. Religion as the body of illogic that is so clearly demonstrated by this assertion of you, cannot even begin to make meaning of it's own ass.

& b. No one is suggesting that there are elements of nature beyond nature

One clearly does so when one states that on the one hand "god is nature" and on the other hand that god is a personal god and a sentient agent ruling the universe, since observation of nature does not involve these alleged phenomena.

[fr0d0]

1. I wasn't referring to Spinoza

2. The invention of religion is a logically coherent one. That it baffles you is illustrative of your misunderstanding. Nothing else. "Evidential framework" LMAO You idiot!

3. find me this person who says God is only nature and I'll come beat them with my keystrokes with you. Maybe they're just in your mind.

[Purple Rabbit]

1. I wasn't referring to Spinoza

Ah, you missed it again. No problem:

Exactly, so I pointed out that the spin you seem to perceive isn't there since I stated historical fact. Just read Spinoza.

Or you could try a spinning excercise. If that ain't a logical idea to you, just have faith.

2. The invention of religion is a logically coherent one.

The invention of religion?! Now we're talking. Sounds like something a spin doctor should try to get himself through the day.

You seem out of control of the things you are implying here. It implies that religion is a manmade contraption for a manmade purpose. I totally agree dude.

That it baffles you is illustrative of your misunderstanding. Nothing else. "Evidential framework" LMAO You idiot!

Is that your logical faculty speaking? Reckon so.
In general the kind of emotional reaction you display is not a sign of thorough thinking. Check the causal realation you imply between bafflement and misunderstanding. Could anything else than misunderstanding cause it? Good luck.

3. find me this person who says God is only nature and I'll come beat them with my keystrokes with you. Maybe they're just in your mind.

I just introduced him to you as he goes by the name of Spinoza. There are plenty others though, so be aware. You may beat up the corpse of Spinoza if you can find it, but to ever come close to his mental quality while he was alive is just beyond your league, I'm afraid. But cheer up, I think you can have Sarah Palin in a head on combat.

[fr0d0]

I'd wait until you catch up but I know that may never happen

[Purple Rabbit]

I sure as hell ain't gonna wait for your once in a lifetime light switch moment though.

[Ramsin.Kh]

Read below, (Note: by "Nature" I mean everything real that exists):

If God is Nature...
a) then God loses its theological indefinite definition.
b) it's meaningless to use the word "God" since it reminds the majority of a supernatural personal being.
c) then the after-life beliefs and the prayer-answer beliefs should be immediately removed/discarded because there is no evidence for them in Nature.

Nature is something which exists and is real. If God is Nature, then studying God means observing/studying Nature, and this leads to Science.
Science rejects an evidence-lacking hypothesis and therefore discards the theological God.

[fr0d0]

Are you a Christian Ramsin.Kh?