Jump to content


Photo

So, You Think You Are Not Religious?


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#61 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 28 April 2017 - 10:31 AM

wait a minute, "gravity" is not a fundamental force of atoms.
atoms do not posses a force called gravity.

and you forgot one, electrostatics.

 

I said "nature", not "atom", and all atoms posses mass and therefore posses a gravitational field.

 

Electrostatics is a sub-field of the electromagnetic force; so it is included.



#62 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 May 2017 - 11:47 AM

So you think you are not religious?
....

One advantage The Christian religion has is a written standard. Alleged atheists have no witten rules save that they are opposed to the possible existance of God.
...

 

 

Atheism is the religion with the most simple theology! They only got one unifying dogma: There is no God! 

 

Islam just goes one little step further: "There is no God, but Allah". 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#63 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:26 PM

Islam just goes one little step further: "There is no God, but Allah". 

 

Implicitly Judaism and Christianity say the same thing; unless you are talking about one of several (mostly early) Christian sects that are polytheistic (or if you want to count angels or the Trinity as polytheism), or Judaism before 600 BC when the religion was of a henotheistic variety.

 

The first part of the first pillar of Islam, "There is no God but Allah", is essentially a rewording of Isaiah 45:5.


  • MarkForbes likes this

#64 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 02 May 2017 - 05:54 PM

Implicitly Judaism and Christianity say the same thing; unless you are talking about one of several (mostly early) Christian sects that are polytheistic (or if you want to count angels or the Trinity as polytheism), or Judaism before 600 BC when the religion was of a henotheistic variety....

There is some indication that at least some of the pre-Christian heathen religions were originally monotheistic in character and that the "gods" (who were actually venerated like Catholic Saints) are a reconstruction of corrupted fragments of the trinity and early biblical figures like Adam, Eve, giants before the flood, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japhet, Nimrod etc. And there is even prophesy included with Jesus-like figures and events of Revelation. 



#65 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 May 2017 - 09:04 PM

There is some indication that at least some of the pre-Christian heathen religions were originally monotheistic in character and that the "gods" (who were actually venerated like Catholic Saints) are a reconstruction of corrupted fragments of the trinity and early biblical figures like Adam, Eve, giants before the flood, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japhet, Nimrod etc. And there is even prophesy included with Jesus-like figures and events of Revelation. 

 

I am only familiar with Hinduism as an arguably older monotheistic religion than Judeo-Christianity. I know in Egypt some Pharaoh forced everyone to worship Aten around 1,300 B.C.  but it was more of a henotheistic worship than true monotheism.

 

I'm not sure how pre-Christian religions would have access to corrupt fragments on the trinity; classical Judaism views the trinity at odds with their understanding of God, so the first time you could get a trinity message is with Jesus, and although you will surely disagree my understanding is that the historical Jesus didn't preach that he was God or part of some trinity with the first doctrines of the trinity appearing around the turn of the first century, perhaps close to the time the Gospel of John was written or shortly thereafter.



#66 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 May 2017 - 04:50 AM

...

I'm not sure how pre-Christian religions would have access to corrupt fragments on the trinity; classical Judaism views the trinity at odds with their understanding of God, so the first time you could get a trinity message is with Jesus, ......

If you accept the narrative of genesis as historical, it makes all perfect sense. That would include that there was also prophesy, e.g. what did Noah teach his sons and what did they pass on. Judaism may not accept the trinity, although it is already present in the Old testament texts, just not called that word of course, but then Judaism is a false religion, corrupted like all the others. It's part of men's nature that is defiled with sin, hence prone on deviation from the truth.

 

The pagan religions, relate to their social orders meaning that the divinities represent certain functions within their respective societies e.g. priests, warriors, farmers.  Some divinities relate to creation, others to the flood, others to early age wars. As man and his existence changed over time and generations, so did his knowledge, memories and ideas about his past. 

A lot of "primitive religions" are actually just degenerated fragments of prior ones. 



#67 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 May 2017 - 07:20 AM

... my understanding is that the historical Jesus didn't preach that he was God ...

It depends on what is your understanding of who Jesus is. In Gen 17:1 the preincarnate Jesus appears before Abram to tell him "I am the Almighty God."

 

Also, throughout scripture are many references to God as the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus describes himself as the Alpha and the Omega.

 

He also makes many, many references during his time on earth as the son of God, and praying and speaking of God as his father.

 

He also refers to himself as the "I Am," a reference that all Jews recognized as the historical name of God.

 

There were 800 prophecies in the Old Testament of the coming Messiah. He excoriates the pharisees for not recognizing that it is he they should have recognized as fulfilling that prophecy.

 

The divinity of Christ is not at all hard to illustrate.



#68 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 May 2017 - 08:42 PM

It depends on what is your understanding of who Jesus is. In Gen 17:1 the preincarnate Jesus appears before Abram to tell him "I am the Almighty God."

 

Also, throughout scripture are many references to God as the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus describes himself as the Alpha and the Omega.

 

He also makes many, many references during his time on earth as the son of God, and praying and speaking of God as his father.

 

He also refers to himself as the "I Am," a reference that all Jews recognized as the historical name of God.

 

There were 800 prophecies in the Old Testament of the coming Messiah. He excoriates the pharisees for not recognizing that it is he they should have recognized as fulfilling that prophecy.

 

The divinity of Christ is not at all hard to illustrate.

 

Gen 17 obviously doesn't say it is Jesus, and seeing as how Jesus lived several hundred years after Gen was written I don't find those types of arguments convincing. For me you have to shoehorn those beliefs into the text as I don't think the text nor the culture surrounding the text in any way implies it. 

 

I use the "historical" Jesus to distinguish between the Jesus of the modern Bible and the physical man running around first century Galilee that the Bible is based on. I fully agree that if we take the modern Bible and read it at face value (understanding the cultural context etc.) we can walk away saying Jesus preached that he was God as seen in the Gospel of John; the Gospel of John makes it very clear time and time again that Jesus is God - "I Am", "the Father and I are One", "those who have seen Me have seen the Father", and so on. But, I don't think the historical Jesus ever said any of those things. 

 

The earliest gospel we have is Mark. I haven't read through the gospels in years, but what I hear from NT scholars is that Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. And that that is true of Matthew and Luke. Only when you get to the last gospel to be written, which is John somewhere between 90 to 110 AD (some 60+ years after the crucifixion), do we get these explicit words from Jesus claiming to be God. I find it hard to believe that if Jesus actually went around saying "I am God" everywhere that the gospels would omit that part with the exception of the last and most poetic of the gospels. Each of the four gospels were written by different people without the idea that their writings would be merged into the same book, and I think it is a mistake to read one gospel and implant what it says into another gospel eventually combining all the gospels into one huge historical documentary of Jesus' life. 

 

To back up a little bit the writings of Paul predate any of the gospels. And while Paul certainly saw Jesus as God, I have found Philippians 2:5-11 most intriguing. According to Paul before Jesus came to Earth as a human he was "in the form of God, but did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of [man]..... [and died on the cross]. For this reason, God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name..... every knee will bow". 

What's interesting is that it appears Paul's view of Jesus is that Jesus was an angel in Heaven (in the form of God but not God; an angel), and after dying on the cross God exalted him to God, with "every knee will bow" an allusion to Isaiah where such a name is only given to God Yahweh. It doesn't make any sense for God to exalt himself to God; God is already God so there is no where left for God to be exalted to, and exalting yourself to the same position you already hold is nonsensical, and as we know Paul was highly intelligent and highly educated. So it would seem that according to Paul when Jesus walked on Earth (before the crucifixion) he was not God Yahweh incarnate. I would think if Jesus went around saying "I am God" Paul would be aware of this and not entertain this exaltation idea of Jesus to God post-crucifixion. After all Paul talked with Jesus' top disciple Peter, and Jesus' brother James. 

 

Back to the gospels. Mark does not have a birth story for Jesus as Mark starts out with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, and we don't see any mention of a virgin birth from Paul's writings. My understanding is that Matthew and Luke, being written after Mark, wanted to emphasize Jesus' divinity and so made up the virgin birth story. I think the virgin birth story is easily refuted from a historical perspective; there is simply no record whatsoever of Rome having some sort of tax or census which required people to travel to their ancestral home from a thousand years ago. Plus the whole idea is nonsensical; if you want to do some tax or census you want to know what your current demographics are, not some weird combination of today and a thousand years ago. In addition there are clear parallels between Jesus' birth story and Moses which Jewish people of the day would recognize. For example when Jesus is born the king issues a command to kill all the babies, just like Moses. Moses was in Egypt, and Jesus fled to Egypt as a baby, but only in Matthew which is odd if this is supposed to be a historical account. According to Luke Jesus doesn't go to Egypt and after his birth goes to Nazareth. Matthew, being the most Jewish of the gospels, is clearly trying to say that Jesus is the new Moses, and I think it is obvious that he made up stories and details to that end. I find this significant because it means the gospel writers were willing and did create stories to push their own agenda. The point I am trying to make about the virgin birth story as it relates to the divinity of Jesus, is that the writers of Matthew and Luke were pushing back when Jesus was divine to the point of Jesus' birth or conception. 

 

Then we get to the gospel of John, and John proclaims that Jesus was not only divine post-crucifixion, or at birth via virginity, but that Jesus was always God since the beginning. So I think there is a clear progression in the Bible, if we look at the writings by the date they were written, of in what sense Jesus was divine. The earliest being Paul seems to think Jesus was God only after the crucifixion. In a sense Mark seems to say Jesus became divine at his baptism. Then we get to the gospels of Matthew and Luke where they come up with the story that God Yahweh impregnated a virgin to give us Jesus, which implies that Jesus is God at birth. Finally in John, again written 60+ years after the crucifixion, we get the idea that Jesus was always God Yahweh. 

 

In the gospel of Mark there is a very different tone to the crucifixion than in the other gospels. In Luke for example Jesus tells one of the criminals on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise." In Luke Jesus is fully aware of what is going on, and even tells people mourning him to "not weep for me", and the iconic "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." In John Jesus proclaims "it is finished", then he dies. But in Mark, Jesus doesn't say much of anything, and finally cries out before his death "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In the earliest gospel Jesus does not appear to understand that he is being crucified for the sins of the world, or that this is all part of his/God's plan, or that he will be in paradise when it is over. I'd also like to point out that the phrase "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is translated from a phrase that appears to be in Aramaic, and not Greek or Hebrew. This is significant because Jesus is thought to have spoken Aramaic, yet the gospels are written in Greek. So I'd think that if a phrase is in Aramaic that increases the likelihood that the historical Jesus actually said it or something like it. 

 

I apologize for the long post, and I'm not sure how much of that made sense, but what I'm trying to say is that the older the writing the less divine Jesus becomes. And I think when you get to the earliest writings a picture emerges which paints the historical Jesus as never claiming to be God. I think I've spent too much time over the years listening to people like Bishop Spong and Bart Ehrman, lol, but I do find this stuff fascinating. 



#69 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 May 2017 - 01:03 PM

Goku, you've got too much here for me to want to take the time to answer each individual point. I'd like to encourage you to pick one question and ask it in the Bible Q&A section. Then we can go from there.

 

My overall impression, however, is that much of what you commented on here is either taken out of context or doesn't recognize that the Bible is an integrated message system in 69 books penned by 40+ authors over a span of thousands of years.

 

Jesus' diety is indeed spread all throughout Mark's gospel. But, you'd have to understand and accept that Mark illustrates Jesus's deity through Christ's fulfillment of Scripture from the writings of, say, Isaiah or Jeremiah or Malachi. Jews of the day would recognize the Old Testament allusions presented in New Testament writings. It's much harder for present-day man, especially for non-believers, to parse these writings from throughout God's word.

 

BTW, you're right about Gen. 17 not necessarily being one of the recognized preincarnate appearances of Jesus Christ. I was off by one chapter. It's in Gen. 18 where the "angel" who appeared before Abraham was indeed the preincarnate Christ. Angelology is an interesting study to get into. Angels are real, but nowhere other than with offshoot cult religions will you find a doctrine that says Jesus is an angel.



#70 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 May 2017 - 10:17 AM

Gen 17 obviously doesn't say it is Jesus, and seeing as how Jesus lived several hundred years after Gen was written I don't find those types of arguments convincing. For me you have to shoehorn those beliefs into the text as I don't think the text nor the culture surrounding the text in any way implies it. 
 
I use the "historical" Jesus to distinguish between the Jesus of the modern Bible and the physical man running around first century Galilee that the Bible is based on. I fully agree that if we take the modern Bible and read it at face value (understanding the cultural context etc.) we can walk away saying Jesus preached that he was God as seen in the Gospel of John; the Gospel of John makes it very clear time and time again that Jesus is God - "I Am", "the Father and I are One", "those who have seen Me have seen the Father", and so on. But, I don't think the historical Jesus ever said any of those things. 
 
The earliest gospel we have is Mark. I haven't read through the gospels in years, but what I hear from NT scholars is that Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. And that that is true of Matthew and Luke. Only when you get to the last gospel to be written, which is John somewhere between 90 to 110 AD (some 60+ years after the crucifixion), do we get these explicit words from Jesus claiming to be God. I find it hard to believe that if Jesus actually went around saying "I am God" everywhere that the gospels would omit that part with the exception of the last and most poetic of the gospels. Each of the four gospels were written by different people without the idea that their writings would be merged into the same book, and I think it is a mistake to read one gospel and implant what it says into another gospel eventually combining all the gospels into one huge historical documentary of Jesus' life. 
 
To back up a little bit the writings of Paul predate any of the gospels. And while Paul certainly saw Jesus as God, I have found Philippians 2:5-11 most intriguing. According to Paul before Jesus came to Earth as a human he was "in the form of God, but did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of [man]..... [and died on the cross]. For this reason, God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name..... every knee will bow". 
What's interesting is that it appears Paul's view of Jesus is that Jesus was an angel in Heaven (in the form of God but not God; an angel), and after dying on the cross God exalted him to God, with "every knee will bow" an allusion to Isaiah where such a name is only given to God Yahweh. It doesn't make any sense for God to exalt himself to God; God is already God so there is no where left for God to be exalted to, and exalting yourself to the same position you already hold is nonsensical, and as we know Paul was highly intelligent and highly educated. So it would seem that according to Paul when Jesus walked on Earth (before the crucifixion) he was not God Yahweh incarnate. I would think if Jesus went around saying "I am God" Paul would be aware of this and not entertain this exaltation idea of Jesus to God post-crucifixion. After all Paul talked with Jesus' top disciple Peter, and Jesus' brother James. 
 
Back to the gospels. Mark does not have a birth story for Jesus as Mark starts out with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, and we don't see any mention of a virgin birth from Paul's writings. My understanding is that Matthew and Luke, being written after Mark, wanted to emphasize Jesus' divinity and so made up the virgin birth story. I think the virgin birth story is easily refuted from a historical perspective; there is simply no record whatsoever of Rome having some sort of tax or census which required people to travel to their ancestral home from a thousand years ago. Plus the whole idea is nonsensical; if you want to do some tax or census you want to know what your current demographics are, not some weird combination of today and a thousand years ago. In addition there are clear parallels between Jesus' birth story and Moses which Jewish people of the day would recognize. For example when Jesus is born the king issues a command to kill all the babies, just like Moses. Moses was in Egypt, and Jesus fled to Egypt as a baby, but only in Matthew which is odd if this is supposed to be a historical account. According to Luke Jesus doesn't go to Egypt and after his birth goes to Nazareth. Matthew, being the most Jewish of the gospels, is clearly trying to say that Jesus is the new Moses, and I think it is obvious that he made up stories and details to that end. I find this significant because it means the gospel writers were willing and did create stories to push their own agenda. The point I am trying to make about the virgin birth story as it relates to the divinity of Jesus, is that the writers of Matthew and Luke were pushing back when Jesus was divine to the point of Jesus' birth or conception. 
 
Then we get to the gospel of John, and John proclaims that Jesus was not only divine post-crucifixion, or at birth via virginity, but that Jesus was always God since the beginning. So I think there is a clear progression in the Bible, if we look at the writings by the date they were written, of in what sense Jesus was divine. The earliest being Paul seems to think Jesus was God only after the crucifixion. In a sense Mark seems to say Jesus became divine at his baptism. Then we get to the gospels of Matthew and Luke where they come up with the story that God Yahweh impregnated a virgin to give us Jesus, which implies that Jesus is God at birth. Finally in John, again written 60+ years after the crucifixion, we get the idea that Jesus was always God Yahweh. 
 
In the gospel of Mark there is a very different tone to the crucifixion than in the other gospels. In Luke for example Jesus tells one of the criminals on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise." In Luke Jesus is fully aware of what is going on, and even tells people mourning him to "not weep for me", and the iconic "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." In John Jesus proclaims "it is finished", then he dies. But in Mark, Jesus doesn't say much of anything, and finally cries out before his death "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In the earliest gospel Jesus does not appear to understand that he is being crucified for the sins of the world, or that this is all part of his/God's plan, or that he will be in paradise when it is over. I'd also like to point out that the phrase "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is translated from a phrase that appears to be in Aramaic, and not Greek or Hebrew. This is significant because Jesus is thought to have spoken Aramaic, yet the gospels are written in Greek. So I'd think that if a phrase is in Aramaic that increases the likelihood that the historical Jesus actually said it or something like it. 
 
I apologize for the long post, and I'm not sure how much of that made sense, but what I'm trying to say is that the older the writing the less divine Jesus becomes. And I think when you get to the earliest writings a picture emerges which paints the historical Jesus as never claiming to be God. I think I've spent too much time over the years listening to people like Bishop Spong and Bart Ehrman, lol, but I do find this stuff fascinating.



57Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM!”

And they immediately tried to kill him as they knew he just claimed to be God.. No ambivalence about it..

END OF STORY


All you have left now is the Atheist attempt to say Jesus was "Misquoted" I've heard it all before.. Pure desperation..

Read Lee Strobels Book... Highly recommended

#71 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 May 2017 - 02:51 PM

Blizking said:

I just like to randomly include Hitler's philosophy from time to time in order to remind people that Darwinism was the ideology behind Hitler's evil deeds.. A complete justification for Hitler's actions of "cleansing the gene pool" by way of "survival of the fittest" Indeed, if Abiodarwinism were to be true, Not only did Hitler do nothing wrong, he should be lauded by us Homo Sapien Sapiens for helping improve our genetics with concrete steps toward establishing a "Master Race" I know.. The ugly truth hurts when we take a hard look at it doesn't it..

Amen Blitz! I couldn 't have said it better. Because of conflcts in their belief system they don't seem to "honor" Hitler for his work of "cleansing" and thus contributing to the on going process of evolution. Goku Driewerf and Fjuri seem to balk at Hitler contributing to evo by his antics. Their position does not make sense to me. They make the claim evolution is the only gasme in town. Thus, all roads lead to evolution except when they don't. LOL Can intellegence (Hitle et al) thwart the "mighty" evolution? My argument too was that Hitler aided Evo. I thought they would agree that evo was above it all? I thought they wood agree nothing can flaut or daunt their mighty evo?



#72 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 07 May 2017 - 03:44 PM

57Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM!”

And they immediately tried to kill him as they knew he just claimed to be God.. No ambivalence about it..

END OF STORY


All you have left now is the Atheist attempt to say Jesus was "Misquoted" I've heard it all before.. Pure desperation..

Read Lee Strobels Book... Highly recommended

 

So you give me a quote written down no earlier than 60 years after Jesus died which does not appear in any earlier source like the other 3 gospels or the works of Paul. I think my skepticism is warranted. 



#73 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 May 2017 - 08:47 PM

Goku said something in one of his posts that piqued my interest. He said that he does not tell some of his social contacts that he thinks of himself as an atheist. Essentially he feels he will be discriminated against. The thing is the door he opened by claiming atheism swings both ways.

As a rule people do not trust people that have major core beliefs differ to their own. Trust is a delicate creature. It Is easy to destroy but much more difficult to build.
The creating of trust requires the participation of another individual. I guess the reasoning goes something like this: if Goku can not accept the existence of my God how can I trust he could ever be a loyal friend? For not only does Goku not belire in God in his mind he seems to believe
that God does not exist anywhere. That would include my mind. I know lots of beings that Goku does not know. I know they exist but he does not know that. Ditto for beingd he knows and I don't know. It seems to me a bit control freakish to try to tell another who they can believe in.



#74 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:14 AM

 

What is the supernatural in pantheism if not you and me? If the universe is god, and we are connected to the universe in such a way that we cannot be seperated from it, then are we not god too? If we are god too, then why don't we feel like it, right? Why do we feel so insignificant in the grand scheme of things? It's because people forgot they are the universe and don't know how to connect to their Absolute Being.The Infinite Love. The Supreme Awareness/Creator. I Am.

 

The supernatural, as the name suggests, means "above the natural". The problem I have is that "natural" is poorly defined. People have debated things like monism and dualism (i.e. physical and spiritual), and we might be tempted to say that if some form of cosmic dualism exists this represents the divide between natural and supernatural. But, going back to the ground of all being from which all things manifest from, would it be appropriate to distinguish between natural and supernatural if they both emanate from the same source and are merely different manifestations of the same phenomena? As an analogy water can be both liquid and solid, sure they are different and have different properties, but they are the same substance manifest differently - in this case due to the surrounding temperature and pressure of the water. For the more scientifically inclined I like the analogy of the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong nuclear forces, and how each of them are thought to be a single force, the same phenomena, only manifested differently due to the properties of the current universe. In the early universe for example it is thought that originally all four fundamental forces were united into one and then were broken apart as the universe changed from a near-singularity to what we see today. All that to say even if there are two 'worlds' with different properties, that doesn't necessarily mean they are under different 'laws of nature', but perhaps they are different manifestations of the same underlying reality, and in such a case I'm not sure it is appropriate to say one is "above" the other by denoting it as supernatural.

 

I don't see humans as supernatural; I don't see anything that really suggests that we are anything more than what the laws of nature allow.

 

In pantheism everything from the trees to the Sun to us are manifestations of the divine. I agree people often feel insignificant to the grandeur of reality, and in a very real sense we are insignificant, but I also agree most people are unaware of how connected and interconnected they are to the universe, and that we are a part of the universe just as the universe is part of us.

 

 

Supernatural may be defined as 'above the natural' from a scientific point of view, but science is only concerned about defining what is natural through direct sensory experience in the outer world. Here's the thing, what is natural is entirely dependant on perspective. The nature of a supernatural being or realm is not supernatural to itself. It's state of being is natural if that's what it is. Only from a lower perspective, if you will, does the supernatural appear above the natural order of things because of a lack of awareness and understanding.

 

To answer your question, no it would not be appropriate to make that distinction. Either everything is natural or everything is supernatural―or everything is both at the same time. What becomes obvious is it is silly to divide things up into natural and supernatural when everything is One to begin with. Distinction are a mental practice and hold no foundation in true reality. What we are, what the true nature of the Universe is, can only be described in negative terms―because distinctions serve only to divide the Indivisible and therefore blurr the truth. Language, being rooted in distinctions, cannot grasp the Universe's true nature for it is above all ideas, concepts, and knowledge―beyond dualism and the subjective experience. It is that which nothing can contain, and contains everything. It is the source from which our world manifests in all it's variety and it is the Absolute Witness which we all are deep down beyond our ego-minds. The universe is―I Am. The Absolute Awareness witnessing the Absolute Creation through the mask of ego-minds. All in order to rediscover our true Self and reflect reality as it is instead of how we think we see it, so we can return to the vibration of love and gratitude and project divinity. Just like Jesus, Buddha, and all the enlightened masters.


  • Goku likes this

#75 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 May 2017 - 06:25 PM

Supernatural may be defined as 'above the natural' from a scientific point of view, but science is only concerned about defining what is natural through direct sensory experience in the outer world. Here's the thing, what is natural is entirely dependant on perspective. The nature of a supernatural being or realm is not supernatural to itself. It's state of being is natural if that's what it is. Only from a lower perspective, if you will, does the supernatural appear above the natural order of things because of a lack of awareness and understanding.

 

 

Science is first and foremost concerned with how it can know anything about the natural world. So it's actually also concerned with things that are "above nature". Other questions they need to answer is why the believe in universality of physical laws for example. The irony is that science can't exist without the supernatural can already be seen from this. 



#76 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:53 PM

Science is first and foremost concerned with how it can know anything about the natural world. So it's actually also concerned with things that are "above nature". Other questions they need to answer is why the believe in universality of physical laws for example. The irony is that science can't exist without the supernatural can already be seen from this. 

Those are more philosophical arguments than scientific ones.

 

The universality of physical laws is, IIRC, the Newtonian synthesis.

 

The philosophical/theological rationale is that God is a rational being whose creation must also be rational and understandable to rational beings.  (Or something like that.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#77 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 03 June 2017 - 02:32 AM

 

Supernatural may be defined as 'above the natural' from a scientific point of view, but science is only concerned about defining what is natural through direct sensory experience in the outer world. Here's the thing, what is natural is entirely dependant on perspective. The nature of a supernatural being or realm is not supernatural to itself. It's state of being is natural if that's what it is. Only from a lower perspective, if you will, does the supernatural appear above the natural order of things because of a lack of awareness and understanding.

 

 

Science is first and foremost concerned with how it can know anything about the natural world. So it's actually also concerned with things that are "above nature". Other questions they need to answer is why the believe in universality of physical laws for example. The irony is that science can't exist without the supernatural can already be seen from this. 

 

 But what can be considered 'above nature' and how is it determined?

 

I can tell you why they believe in the universality of physical laws, because it is the best answer at the moment based on memory and our expectations born from our experience. With new discoveries perspectives change. When perspectives change new truths emerge, most of the time shattering the old paradigm with the light of new insight.

 

Science can't exist without the supernatural only when the supernatural is imagined as something seperate and as the foundation of being, but the supernatural has no meaning without the ignorance and curiosity of the scientific mind as a foundation to imagine things. Both presuppose the other yet neither clearly defines truth, for truth lies in the ability to see the false as false. Since the supernatural necessitates ignorance to be imagined as something real seperate from the natural, it cannot be real. Since science is a perpetual state of rediscovering ones ignorance by becoming aware that there is so much you still don't know, that too can't be the path to truth. For truth lies in the changeless, timeless, reality that is all prevading yet nothing in particular--the awareness of pure being is the only truth that can't be denied.



#78 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 June 2017 - 01:38 PM

Philosophik said:
 

But what can be considered 'above nature' and how is it determined?

Being human (supernatural) we have to think to do science. Practicing science is to thimk--to answer the question given a cause what it's most likely effect will be and given an effect what it's most likely cause was?

It is useless to define science as an entity when it is actually something that all of us do-reason. Nor, am I aware of any limitation on our reasoning process. To say anything is above science (our ability to reason) is patently ridiculous and absurd--not to mention self defeating!

I can tell you why they believe in the universality of physical laws, because it is the best answer at the moment based on memory and our expectations born from our experience. With new discoveries perspectives change. When perspectives change new truths emerge, most of the time shattering the old paradigm with the light of new insight.
 
Science can't exist without the supernatural only when the supernatural is imagined as something seperate and as the foundation of being, but the supernatural has no meaning without the ignorance and curiosity of the scientific mind as a foundation to imagine things. Both presuppose the other yet neither clearly defines truth, for truth lies in the ability to see the false as false. Since the supernatural necessitates ignorance to be imagined as something real seperate from the natural, it cannot be real. Since science is a perpetual state of rediscovering ones ignorance by becoming aware that there is so much you still don't know, that too can't be the path to truth. For truth lies in the changeless, timeless, reality that is all prevading yet nothing in particular--the awareness of pure being is the only truth that can't be denied.

All that to say we are finite sources of information and don't often know what we don't know. :) Nevertheless, I don't think the answer to deliberately stay ignorant by not thinking about certain thing by claiming they are not scientific (unreasonable). If we can think about it, it has to be reasonable!



#79 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 04:05 AM

Mike S., fyi, I quoted an excerpt of your OP here.
.

... With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). ...






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users