God, Energy and Matter

[Peebothuhlu]

.........I'm having people in the forum telling me that God isn't real and having only scientific evidence to support their remarks.

  I'm not.

    

 

 Not at work.

[Lek]

.........I'm having people in the forum telling me that God isn't real and having only scientific evidence to support their remarks.

  I'm not.

    

 

 Not at work.

That's why I didn't say all of you.

[Rahn127]

In much the same way that a rock shows no signs of intelligence, the universe, as we know it, also shows no signs of intelligence.

You can call the universe god as much as you want, but it has the same meaning as calling a rock god.

Most people's definition of a god includes some kind of intelligence that interacts in some way within the universe. As in a separate entity.

Saying that a god became the universe is about as silly as saying that a human can become a galaxy.

If you believe one, you might as well believe the other.

[Simon Moon]

If you wish to equate God with the universe, I shan't argue it.  If it makes you happy, I'll even suppose that it is true.

But I don't see how this brand of pantheism gets you to virgin birth, genital mutilation, talking snakes, Resurrection, redemption, eternal punishments, miracles, and all the rest of it.  There doesn't seem to be any logical, reasonable method by which this sort of pantheistic deism evolves into Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion.

Boru

Pantheism is a belief in God, which puts them in the camp with other believers.  Pantheists believe that God became the universe, therefore "creating" the universe.  Therefore they believe in a supernatural existence, which is in common with most other religions.  Not created, never dying energy fits certain qualities given to God.

The pantheists that I know, including World Pantheism, do not define pantheism that way. They define it as the universe is god.

They do not believe in any supernatural realm or existence.

Of course, too, science can say that energy can't be created, but they have no idea of what the conditions were before the advent of time.

What does it even mean for there to be "before the advent of time"? That sounds pretty incoherent.

In other words, science can't make a true determination of whether or not energy can be created or destroyed outside of our closed system.

What demonstrable and falsifiable evidence do you have for the contention, that there is an "outside to our closed system"?

We can't depend on science for the ultimate truths.

If you have another method, please enlighten us what it is. And more importantly, tell us how you know it is reliable.

I'm having people in the forum telling me that God isn't real and having only scientific evidence to support their remarks.

I do not tell you that gods are not real. My position, and that of many (if not most) atheists, is that we have no reason to accept theist's claims that a god does exist, because theists have not met their burden of proof.

I do believe that no gods exist, but I do not claim to know that with absolute certainty, nor is it a dogmatic belief, it is provisional. As long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, I will continue to be unconvinced of their claims (an atheist).

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you wish to equate God with the universe, I shan't argue it.  If it makes you happy, I'll even suppose that it is true.

But I don't see how this brand of pantheism gets you to virgin birth, genital mutilation, talking snakes, Resurrection, redemption, eternal punishments, miracles, and all the rest of it.  There doesn't seem to be any logical, reasonable method by which this sort of pantheistic deism evolves into Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion.

Boru

Pantheism is a belief in God, which puts them in the camp with other believers.  Pantheists believe that God became the universe, therefore "creating" the universe.  Therefore they believe in a supernatural existence, which is in common with most other religions.  Not created, never dying energy fits certain qualities given to God.  

Of course, too, science can say that energy can't be created, but they have no idea of what the conditions were before the advent of time.  In other words, science can't make a true determination of whether or not energy can be created or destroyed outside of our closed system.  We can't depend on science for the ultimate truths.  I'm having people in the forum telling me that God isn't real and having only scientific evidence to support their remarks.

Just to make sure we understand each other, please trace for me the logical path from pantheism to Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Pantheism is a belief in God, which puts them in the camp with other believers.  Pantheists believe that God became the universe, therefore "creating" the universe.  Therefore they believe in a supernatural existence, which is in common with most other religions.  Not created, never dying energy fits certain qualities given to God.  

Of course, too, science can say that energy can't be created, but they have no idea of what the conditions were before the advent of time.  In other words, science can't make a true determination of whether or not energy can be created or destroyed outside of our closed system.  We can't depend on science for the ultimate truths.  I'm having people in the forum telling me that God isn't real and having only scientific evidence to support their remarks.

Lets grant you for the sake of the argument that all your claims about science in the second paragraph are true. How does the limitation(s) of science make any of your claims of pantheism (and god/s) true?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We can't depend on science for the ultimate truths.

Why not?

Boru

[Lek]

Pantheism is a belief in God, which puts them in the camp with other believers.  Pantheists believe that God became the universe, therefore "creating" the universe.  Therefore they believe in a supernatural existence, which is in common with most other religions.  Not created, never dying energy fits certain qualities given to God.  

Of course, too, science can say that energy can't be created, but they have no idea of what the conditions were before the advent of time.  In other words, science can't make a true determination of whether or not energy can be created or destroyed outside of our closed system.  We can't depend on science for the ultimate truths.  I'm having people in the forum telling me that God isn't real and having only scientific evidence to support their remarks.

Lets grant you for the sake of the argument that all your claims about science in the second paragraph are true. How does the limitation(s) of science make any of your claims of pantheism (and god/s) true?  

It doesn't.  It means that I think there are means other than natural one to come about the truth.  If you dismiss these out of the gate, you probably won't find the truth.

---

Just to make sure we understand each other, please trace for me the logical path from pantheism to Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

Boru

In order to belief in the story of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, you must believe in God or whatever that supernatural presence is to you. Pantheists believe in that.

[Abaddon_ire]

That means we can't rely on science for the truth, since humans made up the laws. They could be wrong.

That is a noob error. Scientific laws are not proscriptive, they are descriptive.

They don't tell you how things ought to go, they describe how things have been observed to go.

[Deesse23]

It doesn't.  It means that I think there are means other than natural one to come about the truth.  If you dismiss these out of the gate, you probably won't find the truth

What other means? Please DEMONSTRATE that they work.

Isn't it funny that you dismiss science while claiming at the same time that others are dismissing *other methods*? Almost as if you are projecting.

Ok, back to you demonstrating that your *other* methods are working.

*Hands over mic*