Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The natural world operates on a set of principles. If God is so separate from these principles that the investigation of them will lead us no closer, then it is not "Nature's God" that you speak of. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Right now, I am interested in Nature's God Deism that says that there is a god who created the universe and we learn about this being through reason, intuition, and meditation on nature. I did this too. And then I asked questions like... Why does creation have to be in the past tense? Why can't god even now be engaged in creating nature? What if god infuses nature and is not seperate from it? Now, I think.... God is necessity given a human face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Only a balance between chaos/disorder and order can "create" anything. It's the flow and constant change and struggle between those two opposites that produce things. Now let's remove the duality. "It's the flow, constant change and struggle that produces things." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 The natural world operates on a set of principles. If God is so separate from these principles that the investigation of them will lead us no closer, then it is not "Nature's God" that you speak of. I would disagree, I think the examination of the principles of nature do show us about God. But I don't think God is limited to those laws. I put this quote in an earlier post and it expresses how I see things pretty well: "I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208) I see him as being beyond knowing, but we can see the patterns and the structure and infer there is a maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Right now, I am interested in Nature's God Deism that says that there is a god who created the universe and we learn about this being through reason, intuition, and meditation on nature. I did this too. And then I asked questions like... Why does creation have to be in the past tense? Why can't god even now be engaged in creating nature? What if god infuses nature and is not seperate from it? Now, I think.... God is necessity given a human face. Right. God is being, not "a" being. Existence, reality, all of it, including us, is all God. I went through a short phase of "deism" too. The biggest problem for me was why I need to have a super-consciousness to explain the existence of consciousness. It's circular. If we can't understand what consciousness is, then inventing some consciousness outside of consciousness to create our consciousness is just pushing the question around and giving it a mysterious name. If consciousness is already a mystery in itself, then that's enough, no need to invent another mystery to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Only a balance between chaos/disorder and order can "create" anything. It's the flow and constant change and struggle between those two opposites that produce things. Now let's remove the duality. "It's the flow, constant change and struggle that produces things." I like that. I think imbalances give rise to change. If equal forces are in direct oppostion then no motion is created. If there was no injustice, then there'd be no reasonable complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The natural world operates on a set of principles. If God is so separate from these principles that the investigation of them will lead us no closer, then it is not "Nature's God" that you speak of. I would disagree, I think the examination of the principles of nature do show us about God. But I don't think God is limited to those laws. His point is that if God is part of nature, then God is not separate from nature. Talking about a God that is separate from nature does not make God part of nature. I think the term God refers to all this. All that exists, existed, and will exist. We are part of God. God is part of us. Nature is God. God is Nature. We can learn about Nature/God/Reality by examination, but we'll never fully understand it. But there's no need to call God a "He" or a "She". God doesn't have to be a mind. The foundation for all existence is infinite force and energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I like that. I think imbalances give rise to change. Yup. And Stephen Hawkins argued that in one of his videos. The universe is actually in a slight imbalance. Without it, it wouldn't work. If equal forces are in direct oppostion then no motion is created. If there was no injustice, then there'd be no reasonable complaint. No heat without cold. No cold without heat. No joy without sadness. No sadness without joy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think the term God refers to all this. All that exists, existed, and will exist. We are part of God. God is part of us. Nature is God. God is Nature. We can learn about Nature/God/Reality by examination, but we'll never fully understand it. But there's no need to call God a "He" or a "She". God doesn't have to be a mind. The foundation for all existence is infinite force and energy. I think the foundation for all existence is... thus. I think at root, nature is an interwoven and complex web of relations. Give it a face, call it "God", and go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I believe personal spiritual journeys are good for a person, help discover who each one of us is. I don't mean a spiritual journey to discover what god's plan is in your life, I am referring to discovering a personal spiritual ritual or path that means something specific to you and is not an organized affair like VBS. You discover your own spirit and what it means to you. I had also considered myself a Deist when I first left Christianity. But I no longer hold to that belief and consider myself an atheist but an agnostic too because if someone can prove to me a god of any kind is real, I will accept that fact. So far no proof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Anyway, I digress. I'm rather passionate about this, if you can't tell. Wow, that's beautiful! I think it is cool you are passionate about this! You've convinced me to start meditating. I have considered trying it many times. I see the logic in what you are saying and the benefits of the practice sound very appealing and interesting. Thanks. That's awesome, but be prepared, you will need to learn about yourself in how to be able to move into those spaces. That's part of the discovery. Be gentle with yourself above all else, patiently just working with yourself. You're not trying to achieve a goal really, and that you should keep in mind. The key is learning to set yourself aside. That's your work. The rest is what just comes once you do. A metaphor for me I use is I have learned how to get to the school-house (how to work with myself to quite the mind to become receptive), but once in the school-house, then you let the teacher take over. That's when the real learning happens! You'll see what I mean once you get there. Something else you brought up made me realize that I have a hard time imagining God as matter. I see him as more of a spirit/energy being. Although I guess they say when you keep going smaller and smaller in matter you end up with "nothing", no matter seems to make up matter (if I understood what I read correctly). Is this how you see things? Part of God makes up the matter that everything is made of? Thoughts about the physical or material universe in this context are really more metaphysical. I can really think about it many ways, but they come more from a place of taking what you experience in your entire being and trying to talk about it with language to yourself or others. You find it's really more a layer you choose to look at thing through, than some theoretical reality. How I'll put it as is "I like to envision it as..." when I speak of "God" and the material world. Lot's of metaphors usually work best. No words can actually define it. How I see "God" is more as you say Spirit. A way I like to put it is "God is the Face we put upon the Infinite", in other words a mental object for our minds to symbolically represent what is inherently non-dual in nature. By non-dual that means the distinction of subject and object do not exist. All. We see ourselves in this subject/object duality, but in the depths of that realization of our true nature, these distinctions begin to break down. God is All, and we are That. Sayings like "I and my Father are One", take on a whole new meaning. We ourselves can say I AM. It is that identification of our selves beyond the artificial identity of mind objects, such as our egos, "me versus you". So the material world itself then becomes that All, and we are That. You see all objects arise from and return to that within itself. There is nothing outside that, and it is outside all objects. Again, no words can convey this. Our language and how we think and reason with them are incapable of expressing it. I wish I had more time to read others comments right now but I'm short of time with work. This is a great thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 "If there is a universal mind, why must it be sane?" ~usually attributed to Charles Fort Why is it that when we conceive of a god, that god is usually wise, benevolent and orderly? Has anyone else pondered a god that is madness? That's funny you bring that up. I was just reading out of Jung's Red Book, and he exposed just this in his inner journey. His conclusion was that the world is madness, God is madness, but in the balance between them we find sanity. (I'm paraphrasing this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 It is that identification of our selves beyond the artificial identity of mind objects, such as our egos, "me versus you". So the material world itself then becomes that All, and we are That. You see all objects arise from and return to that within itself. There is nothing outside that, and it is outside all objects. Again, no words can convey this. Our language and how we think and reason with them are incapable of expressing it. I'm willing to accept this as something I may come to understand through meditation. I'm having some cognitive dissonance right now trying to wrap my brain around this idea. I like what you have said here and am willing to consider that you have come to some understandings I have not reached yet. I'm very glad you all have contributed to this thread. I have learned a lot! As a person searching for truth, this is very exciting and rewarding. Many thanks. I have to take a break, but will check back later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think the foundation for all existence is... thus. I think at root, nature is an interwoven and complex web of relations. Give it a face, call it "God", and go home. yup. It took me a little time to get the "thus" part, but I get it now, and yes, I do agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The natural world operates on a set of principles. If God is so separate from these principles that the investigation of them will lead us no closer, then it is not "Nature's God" that you speak of. I would disagree, I think the examination of the principles of nature do show us about God. But I don't think God is limited to those laws. I put this quote in an earlier post and it expresses how I see things pretty well: "I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208) I see him as being beyond knowing, but we can see the patterns and the structure and infer there is a maker. Sounds to me that, even in Einstein's case, God's existence is presupposed and predefined rather than revealed through investigation. Under the right eye, a watch can tell us much more than just it was made by a watchmaker. We can tell where it was made, when it was made and the relative skill level of the maker. So if the examination of reality yielded the result that there was a creator, the examination would also yield data as to this creator's attributes. What patterns lead to such an inference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Ex-Christian just means someone doesn't accept Christianity, not that they become atheist. I haven't read the rest of the thread, because honestly, I have little interest in Deism. But this illustrates one of the things that gives me mind-cramps. That THIS must be REPEATED in the section for ex-c SPIRITUALITY. Come on, guys. And asking how long she's been out? Don't pull a Scotsman, mcdaddy. You should know better. All roads out of Christianity DO NOT lead to atheism. That's why this section exists. I'm not asking for no discussion or challenge, when invited. Just a little sane respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Luna, Deism by its nature concerns itself with finding evidence of a Creator's existence and nature through rational investigation. Much of this discussion, while on the "con" side of the argument, is perfectly valid. Deism is one of few spiritual paths where these discussions can happen and, dare I say, need to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Luna, Deism by its nature concerns itself with finding evidence of a Creator's existence and nature through rational investigation. Much of this discussion, while on the "con" side of the argument, is perfectly valid. Deism is one of few spiritual paths where these discussions can happen and, dare I say, need to happen. I realize this. I still think the query on how long she "had been out" was unwarranted, and the assumption that, given time, every thinking person arrives at atheism, is short-sighted and biased. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 The natural world operates on a set of principles. If God is so separate from these principles that the investigation of them will lead us no closer, then it is not "Nature's God" that you speak of. I would disagree, I think the examination of the principles of nature do show us about God. But I don't think God is limited to those laws. I put this quote in an earlier post and it expresses how I see things pretty well: "I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208) I see him as being beyond knowing, but we can see the patterns and the structure and infer there is a maker. Sounds to me that, even in Einstein's case, God's existence is presupposed and predefined rather than revealed through investigation. Under the right eye, a watch can tell us much more than just it was made by a watchmaker. We can tell where it was made, when it was made and the relative skill level of the maker. So if the examination of reality yielded the result that there was a creator, the examination would also yield data as to this creator's attributes. What patterns lead to such an inference? I don't know for sure about the patterns Einstein is speaking of, but it sounds to me like he might have been speaking in general terms, patterns=pattern maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I don't know for sure about the patterns Einstein is speaking of, but it sounds to me like he might have been speaking in general terms, patterns=pattern maker. Einstein's dead so I can't ask him. I was asking you, my friend. What patterns do you see that leads you to the inference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I realize this. I still think the query on how long she "had been out" was unwarranted, and the assumption that, given time, every thinking person arrives at atheism, is short-sighted and biased. It was a bad argument and a poor line of questioning. I ignored it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 I have leanings toward pantheism as well. Some eastern mysticism appeals to me. I don't see it as supernatural, just natural phenomena which require training in order to detect and consciously participate with. I have been trying to find where I read about this and can't seem to locate it, but there is a group of pantheists who have leanings toward Tao. Just thought you might want to know that. By training, do you mean meditation? Or is there other training involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 I have similar views. I hold on to the idea of some higher power. When i see the beauty in nature i think there has to be something. You could say i am clinging to some theism as im 6 months out. But i dont see the harm in it, as long as i stay out of christianity. I am so glad to hear this, Adam5! I remember the first time I saw a picture poster of the development of a child in the womb, it just struck me what a miracle it is. To my way of thinking, just because we know how it happens doesn't make it any less of a miracle! I think you are wise to stay away from Christianity! It provides a convenient place to worship God, but there are too many trappings that are detrimental to a person. All my best to you! I hope you are able to find a new way to connect to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I realize this. I still think the query on how long she "had been out" was unwarranted, and the assumption that, given time, every thinking person arrives at atheism, is short-sighted and biased. It was a bad argument and a poor line of questioning. I ignored it. You're a better (at least more patient) person than I. The "you just haven't grown up and become an atheist yet" stance continues to drive me bugshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 I have similar views. I hold on to the idea of some higher power. When i see the beauty in nature i think there has to be something. You could say i am clinging to some theism as im 6 months out. But i dont see the harm in it, as long as i stay out of christianity. DITTO!!! You have a way of expressing things that are going around in my mind. I think I'll just let you speak for me from now on okay? (G) This really tickles me, Raoul. I am glad to know others on this site who have similar leanings. Thanks for sharing. I'd be interested in knowing more of your thoughts if you care to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts