Asimov Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Just a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatepirate Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 How the heck can someone be a theist and not believe in the supernatural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 How the heck can someone be a theist and not believe in the supernatural? God is the universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Is that really considered a Theism? I thought a Theist believed in a God that transcends the Universe. And the belief that the Universe equate God is more of a Naturalism. But then again, Pantheism make the same claim and it's a Theism... hmm... I just found a new term on Wikipedia: Pandeism. Never heard of before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Is that really considered a Theism? I thought a Theist believed in a God that transcends the Universe. And the belief that the Universe equate God is more of a Naturalism. But then again, Pantheism make the same claim and it's a Theism... hmm... I just found a new term on Wikipedia: Pandeism. Never heard of before. If there's a God involved...it's theism. Even deism is theism. The universe equates to God isn't naturalism, because some people believe that the universe is conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What if you're agnostic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I voted "Atheist - no" because even if anything that is considered "supernatural" is found to be real, then it's a part of the universe, and hence "natural." At least as I see it. I am inclined to believe in magic (ie, ritually focusing and directing one's will to influence change) but still sit on the fence ultimately in regards to it. But if magic, according to my definition, is proven to be possible, that makes it just one more part of our natural world. Perhaps a good question would be "is the supernatural even possible?" Asimov - nice avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I thought one needed a definition of God to be a theist? I am A-theist in this sense. So, if consciousness is to be found a fundamental part of nature, that would make me a theist? Naaahhh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I voted "Atheist - no" because even if anything that is considered "supernatural" is found to be real, then it's a part of the universe, and hence "natural." At least as I see it. Amen to that. That's how I see it too. Dimension 5-11 are supernatural when you look at the context of only 3+1 dimensions. But the dimensions 5-11 are in this world, and exists with us and everything, so they are as a result ... natural. If it's discovered that there is a multiverse and higher dimensions beyond 11, then for us right now we'd call it supernatural, but when science can explain it and prove it, it's natural. So when it comes to the end of the day, everything that exists is natural and supernatural can never exist. I am inclined to believe in magic (ie, ritually focusing and directing one's will to influence change) but still sit on the fence ultimately in regards to it. But if magic, according to my definition, is proven to be possible, that makes it just one more part of our natural world. Amen again. Just like the experiments they're doing to control computers with the brain. They're experimenting with a helmet that you put on your head and you can control the mouse and keyboard. Isn't that a rudimentary telepathy? (But through techonology, science and natural laws.) Perhaps a good question would be "is the supernatural even possible?" My answer is No. Of the reasons above, that we seem to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 If there's a God involved...it's theism. Even deism is theism. The universe equates to God isn't naturalism, because some people believe that the universe is conscious. Okay. You're definition of God is a conscious entity, and when the Universe is equated with a conscious and powerful entity, with purpose, will and intent, we end up with a form of Theism. What about if someone makes a different definition of what a God is? An unconscious, non intentful, only powerful to the extent of the universe's powers etc? Basically The Universe is God, not God is the Universe? (Did that even make sense? ) Here's a question: the universe, seen as a natural force and existence, gave "birth" to the human and the consciousness the humans have. Now, does consciousness exist in the universe, or is consciousness just a natural force like nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Here's a question: the universe, seen as a natural force and existence, gave "birth" to the human and the consciousness the humans have. Now, does consciousness exist in the universe, or is consciousness just a natural force like nature? Both... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 What if you're agnostic? Then you're either an atheist or a theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 What about if someone makes a different definition of what a God is? An unconscious, non intentful, only powerful to the extent of the universe's powers etc? Basically The Universe is God, not God is the Universe? (Did that even make sense? ) Then they'd be committing an equivocation fallacy. Here's a question: the universe, seen as a natural force and existence, gave "birth" to the human and the consciousness the humans have. Now, does consciousness exist in the universe, or is consciousness just a natural force like nature? Yea, I'd say both. I voted "Atheist - no" because even if anything that is considered "supernatural" is found to be real, then it's a part of the universe, and hence "natural." At least as I see it. Possibly, although natural usually means that it's a product of the laws of physics and the forces of nature. Supernatural would mean that it violates or is transcendent to these laws and forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What about if someone makes a different definition of what a God is? An unconscious, non intentful, only powerful to the extent of the universe's powers etc? Basically The Universe is God, not God is the Universe? (Did that even make sense? ) Then they'd be committing an equivocation fallacy. Okay. Yeah, we talked about that before. ... forgot. God has to be a being or person, and with "God is the Universe" the Universe is to be considered a living being. I voted "Atheist - no" because even if anything that is considered "supernatural" is found to be real, then it's a part of the universe, and hence "natural." At least as I see it. Possibly, although natural usually means that it's a product of the laws of physics and the forces of nature. Supernatural would mean that it violates or is transcendent to these laws and forces. Right. But if it violates the laws and forces of nature, by what forces does it work? If it is supernatural forces that can be predicted, explained and understood, are they still supernatural or just natural, i.e. would it make us redefine what we consider natural? For it to maintain a status of supernatural it has to be unexplainable, unpredictable and impossible to fully understand. (Kind of like the string theory.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What about if someone makes a different definition of what a God is? An unconscious, non intentful, only powerful to the extent of the universe's powers etc? Basically The Universe is God, not God is the Universe? (Did that even make sense? ) Then they'd be committing an equivocation fallacy. Okay. Yeah, we talked about that before. ... forgot. God has to be a being or person, and with "God is the Universe" the Universe is to be considered a living being. Why? Is it because the term God has come to actually denote something? Then change the term. I really don't get that. It is in this very sense that I am an atheist. But, I'm not an atheist. So, if the universe is dead, then it just spontaneously generated life from non-life? I think life came from life...a rudimentary form of life, but life none-the-less. I think the problem here lies in separating our existence from the universe. That duality of us being in a foreign place the Christians like so well. We always say we are born into this world, when we actually come out of it. We are part of the universe and we are alive. If we can't separate ourselves from the universe, then the universe must be alive too. That doesn't mean that it is a separate being (enter some type of fallacy) but one in the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I have a hard time with it too, but I guess it's because it is the commonly accepted definition of God, hence it can't be used to label something outside its definition. Either life is natural and non metaphysical, which means life and matter is all one. Was it inevitable that the Universe would eventually produce life? Is it part of it's structure to eventually make life to exist? Is life just a result of life-less matter, then isn't life also life-less? Or is it that matter is also life? It is at least the components of life, and life doesn't exist outside or without matter. Does it make us to be life-less-matter that believe we're alive, or is it that all is alive to one degree more or less and we happen to be of a higher degree of this life or consciousness? If the latter is true, then where does life or consciousness end in the universe? How big of a brain can the universe produce? And now I stop before I kill myself of questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I have a hard time with it too, but I guess it's because it is the commonly accepted definition of God, hence it can't be used to label something outside its definition. Either life is natural and non metaphysical, which means life and matter is all one. Was it inevitable that the Universe would eventually produce life? Is it part of it's structure to eventually make life to exist? Is life just a result of life-less matter, then isn't life also life-less? Or is it that matter is also life? It is at least the components of life, and life doesn't exist outside or without matter. Does it make us to be life-less-matter that believe we're alive, or is it that all is alive to one degree more or less and we happen to be of a higher degree of this life or consciousness? If the latter is true, then where does life or consciousness end in the universe? How big of a brain can the universe produce? And now I stop before I kill myself of questions... I still think it's time to change the term. I think if we could go back in time, the term God would refer to the ultimate mystery. That is all. Changing the meaning of a word to suit common usuage is how the dictionary is made. If the common usage becomes something that it was never intended, then a new term is needed, IMO. The last part of you post, well, hell if I know! (Really, I could comment on all of your questions, but the end-of-the-day work bell is ringing!) I do happen to think that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature. I loved the consciousness thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I do happen to think that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature. I loved the consciousness thread. Well, the way I'm starting to see it is that it is regardless what view you take. Either you say consciousness is supernatural and created etc, and part of nature the way god made it. Or consciousness is a result of nature and exists by and because of nature, and is then a property of nature. Consciousness then isn't more mysterious than a star or light or gravity. Or if one wants to, just as mysterious as ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What if you're agnostic? You forget, Asimov is a fundy atheist. According to him, there are no agnostics, we're all atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 ... Perhaps a good question would be "is the supernatural even possible?" That's a good question. Once something happens in the natural world, even if that something is a resurrection from the dead or walking on water, it is by means of occuring in the natural world an innately natural event. -CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 That's a good question. Once something happens in the natural world, even if that something is a resurrection from the dead or walking on water, it is by means of occuring in the natural world an innately natural event. Precisely... you better run CC before you become an apostate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 What about if someone makes a different definition of what a God is? An unconscious, non intentful, only powerful to the extent of the universe's powers etc? Basically The Universe is God, not God is the Universe? (Did that even make sense? ) Then they'd be committing an equivocation fallacy. Okay. Yeah, we talked about that before. ... forgot. God has to be a being or person, and with "God is the Universe" the Universe is to be considered a living being. For the purposes of this discussion, yes. Anyone can define God anyway they want to, except when it's my thread and I'm talking about God . God implies a maximal being as far as I'm concerned. Right. But if it violates the laws and forces of nature, by what forces does it work? If it is supernatural forces that can be predicted, explained and understood, are they still supernatural or just natural, i.e. would it make us redefine what we consider natural? Which is entirely true, except that if those violations are mere observances of different aspects of reality that are transcendent or apart from the universe (ghosts being spirits from the afterlife attempting to communicate with us) then they would be considered supernatural. If it was just a phenomenon of the universe (temporal lobe seizures) then it would be natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 What if you're agnostic? You forget, Asimov is a fundy atheist. According to him, there are no agnostics, we're all atheists. Sure, I operate on fundamental principles. According to me, everyone is an agnostic since no one knows if God exists, we're all atheists or theists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 No belief in the supernatural per se, just a notion that there may be a lot about the natural world that we don't fully understand yet. But the journey continues.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 That's a good question. Once something happens in the natural world, even if that something is a resurrection from the dead or walking on water, it is by means of occuring in the natural world an innately natural event. You are absolutely correct there, CC. And, once a cow jumps over the moon, that too becomes a natural event. But, until I see any of these things, they remain literary events in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts