1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Nature to Nature’s Fullest Extent

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
28 July 2019 13:53
 

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe.  I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.  We are in agreement on that level of disbelief.  But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1804
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
28 July 2019 14:31
 
bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe.  I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.  We are in agreement on that level of disbelief.  But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

So if I’m an atheist, my requests will be granted? Please—a flying carpet will be more interesting.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
28 July 2019 15:34
 
nonverbal - 28 July 2019 02:31 PM
bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe.  I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.  We are in agreement on that level of disbelief.  But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

So if I’m an atheist, my requests will be granted? Please—a flying carpet will be more interesting.

Surely you’ve heard of The Big Bang?  Causality in physics?  There are a few unanswered “Why?“‘s out there that have nothing to do with a supernatural grantor of wishes.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7106
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
28 July 2019 15:57
 
bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe.  I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.  We are in agreement on that level of disbelief.  But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

Just saw this thread.  Thanks for making it.

I have questions.  But I’m not trying to tear your idea down.  I’m just interested and curious.

bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe. 
...
But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Why?  I mean it sounds neat, but I don’t understand how nature is not already nature to nature’s fullest extent.

I suspect your belief is something like deism or pantheism, but I can’t suss it out just from that phrase, and your reluctance to discuss it (while frequently referring to it) doesn’t help me understand it any better.

bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.

That is a concept most atheists would call ‘the god of the believers’, because they (atheists) don’t actually own the concept or make any claim towards it.  It is derived from observations of, and statements made by believers.  So when atheists discuss god (in a general sense) they usually have to refer to this agglomeration of ideas derived from various believers’ books, claims, beliefs and statements.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

Great video.  I like einstein and his ideas too. 
Doesn’t really clear up my questions or curiosity though.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
28 July 2019 17:15
 
Jefe - 28 July 2019 03:57 PM
bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe.  I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.  We are in agreement on that level of disbelief.  But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

Just saw this thread.  Thanks for making it.

I have questions.  But I’m not trying to tear your idea down.  I’m just interested and curious.

bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe. 
...
But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Why?  I mean it sounds neat, but I don’t understand how nature is not already nature to nature’s fullest extent.

We have a universe without a cause.  We could probably get by with calling The Big Bang an initiating event, but what caused The Big Bang?  Does “nature” answer that question?  For me, it does not.  The Big Bang is often described as an infinitely dense, infinitely hot singularity.  On the other hand, Stephen Hawking’s final theory on the Big Bang tells a slightly different story.

I suspect your belief is something like deism or pantheism, but I can’t suss it out just from that phrase, and your reluctance to discuss it (while frequently referring to it) doesn’t help me understand it any better.

No, neither deism nor pantheism.

bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.

That is a concept most atheists would call ‘the god of the believers’, because they (atheists) don’t actually own the concept or make any claim towards it.  It is derived from observations of, and statements made by believers.  So when atheists discuss god (in a general sense) they usually have to refer to this agglomeration of ideas derived from various believers’ books, claims, beliefs and statements.

I beg to differ; atheists do “own the concept”.  That is the god I have been asked to defend time after time, along with the “agglomeration of ideas derived from various believers’ books, claims, beliefs and statements.”  That is not the god in whom I believe, those are not the claims, beliefs or doctrines to which I adhere.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

Great video.  I like einstein and his ideas too. 
Doesn’t really clear up my questions or curiosity though.

At the end of the video, the narrator says, “50 years later, at the end of his life, Einstein himself felt no closer to answering the vexing question, “What are light quanta?”  It’s still a work in progress.”  Understanding nature is still a work in progress.  Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7106
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
28 July 2019 17:29
 
bbearren - 28 July 2019 05:15 PM
Jefe - 28 July 2019 03:57 PM
bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe.  I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.  We are in agreement on that level of disbelief.  But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

Just saw this thread.  Thanks for making it.

I have questions.  But I’m not trying to tear your idea down.  I’m just interested and curious.

bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

The OP title is a phrase I choose to describe the god in whom I believe. 
...
But the phrase stands on its own as the phrase I choose to use; there is no further clarification.

Why?  I mean it sounds neat, but I don’t understand how nature is not already nature to nature’s fullest extent.

We have a universe without a cause.  We could probably get by with calling The Big Bang an initiating event, but what caused The Big Bang?  Does “nature” answer that question?  For me, it does not.  The Big Bang is often described as an infinitely dense, infinitely hot singularity.  On the other hand, Stephen Hawking’s final theory on the Big Bang tells a slightly different story.

I personally enjoy the multiverse theory…

bbearren - 28 July 2019 05:15 PM

I suspect your belief is something like deism or pantheism, but I can’t suss it out just from that phrase, and your reluctance to discuss it (while frequently referring to it) doesn’t help me understand it any better.

No, neither deism nor pantheism.

Copy that.

bbearren - 28 July 2019 01:53 PM

I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes; that is the concept I call The God of the Atheists.

That is a concept most atheists would call ‘the god of the believers’, because they (atheists) don’t actually own the concept or make any claim towards it.  It is derived from observations of, and statements made by believers.  So when atheists discuss god (in a general sense) they usually have to refer to this agglomeration of ideas derived from various believers’ books, claims, beliefs and statements.

I beg to differ; atheists do “own the concept”.  That is the god I have been asked to defend time after time, along with the “agglomeration of ideas derived from various believers’ books, claims, beliefs and statements.”  That is not the god in whom I believe, those are not the claims, beliefs or doctrines to which I adhere.

If I have asked you to answer to those beliefs in the past, I apologize.
I don’t believe I have done so recently, if I have.

When I think about believers and how they come to the conclusions they come to, all I can really work with is what they are willing to share with me of their stories and their faith.  In a vacuum I may have to guess, interpolate or extrapolate - but that can sometimes be its own trap - as you are aware from people imposing their interpretations onto your beliefs… wink

Einstein’s Astonishing Idea

Great video.  I like einstein and his ideas too. 
Doesn’t really clear up my questions or curiosity though.

At the end of the video, the narrator says, “50 years later, at the end of his life, Einstein himself felt no closer to answering the vexing question, “What are light quanta?”  It’s still a work in progress.”  Understanding nature is still a work in progress.  Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions in need of answers.

Ah, but I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions… (I may be projecting here…)
That being said, I think I understand your position better now.  Having questions unanswered, and the uncertainty this brings to understanding - or rather, knowing that there are some questions that we don’t have answers to, and may not have answers to soon, is a problem for many authoritarians.  I think uncertainty (or unanswered questions, if you will) are opportunities to learn more - even if the tools and mechanisms to help us answer those questions have not yet been obtained.

However, to revisit the NASA thread here, it only took us 58 years to go from ‘leaving the ground’ to ‘leaving the earth’.  Predicting what we might know in the future is a bit of a fool’s game, IMHO.  We may surprise ourselves, if we don’t wreck ourselves first…

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
28 July 2019 18:25
 
Jefe - 28 July 2019 05:29 PM

Ah, but I don’t think humanity will ever run out of questions… (I may be projecting here…)

But I’m not referring to the questions of humanity; nature to nature’s fullest extent has no questions.  It simply is.

That being said, I think I understand your position better now.  Having questions unanswered, and the uncertainty this brings to understanding - or rather, knowing that there are some questions that we don’t have answers to, and may not have answers to soon, is a problem for many authoritarians.  I think uncertainty (or unanswered questions, if you will) are opportunities to learn more - even if the tools and mechanisms to help us answer those questions have not yet been obtained.

I have no quarrel whatsoever with this position.  But I have no cerebral certainty about anything, so uncertainty is my usual state of mind.  All my working life I have dealt with the here and now, how stuff works, and in that realm I have some experience.

However, to revisit the NASA thread here, it only took us 58 years to go from ‘leaving the ground’ to ‘leaving the earth’.  Predicting what we might know in the future is a bit of a fool’s game, IMHO.  We may surprise ourselves, if we don’t wreck ourselves first…

Again, no quarrel here.  On the other hand, Einstein came up with the foundation of quantum mechanics in 1905, those uncertainties persist, and the equations hold that probabilities are as close as can be achieved for the most part.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  490
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
29 July 2019 10:12
 

Why do you call nature to nature’s fullest extent god?
Why not just call it nature?

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
29 July 2019 11:13
 
Garret - 29 July 2019 10:12 AM

Why do you call nature to nature’s fullest extent god?

I don’t.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  Dismiss it as semantics, but it is my preference.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2754
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
29 July 2019 11:30
 

I don’t think nature is nature to its full extend yet.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  177
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
29 July 2019 12:13
 
Twissel - 29 July 2019 11:30 AM

I don’t think nature is nature to its full extend yet.

I don’t think you understand nature AT ALL

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8625
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
29 July 2019 12:35
 

https://condenaststore.com/featured/do-it-yourself-television-repair-edward-steed.html

We’re not a woodpecker trying to fix a TV, but we are using words for a task they aren’t designed for. 

What if existence, reality, and consciousness were rolled into one concept and used instead of ‘nature’?  Zen masters sometimes refer to ‘the empty eon’, or ‘before anything existed’ or your own state ‘before the embryo was formed’.  Here we say, ‘before the Big Bang’.

Using our beaks to repair the TV, dare we say that ‘before the big bang . . .  existence, reality, and consciousness’ were latent?

latent - adjective : - present and capable of emerging or developing but not now visible, obvious, active, or symptomatic

(i.e. - nature existed before there was anything . . . this is how I interpret the title of the OP)

[ Edited: 29 July 2019 12:37 by unsmoked]
 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  490
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
29 July 2019 16:51
 
bbearren - 29 July 2019 11:13 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 10:12 AM

Why do you call nature to nature’s fullest extent god?

I don’t.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  Dismiss it as semantics, but it is my preference.

Okay, you say “I don’t,” but then in the next sentence you are literally putting the word god and describing it as nature to nature’s fullest extent.

“god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.”

I am asking why you say this.  What information are you attempting to convey to me with these words?

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
29 July 2019 18:31
 
Garret - 29 July 2019 04:51 PM
bbearren - 29 July 2019 11:13 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 10:12 AM

Why do you call nature to nature’s fullest extent god?

I don’t.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  Dismiss it as semantics, but it is my preference.

Okay, you say “I don’t,” but then in the next sentence you are literally putting the word god and describing it as nature to nature’s fullest extent.

“god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.”

I am asking why you say this.  What information are you attempting to convey to me with these words?

My understanding of god.  I’m not seeking converts, nor proselytizing.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  490
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
29 July 2019 21:53
 
bbearren - 29 July 2019 06:31 PM
Garret - 29 July 2019 04:51 PM
bbearren - 29 July 2019 11:13 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 10:12 AM

Why do you call nature to nature’s fullest extent god?

I don’t.  It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.  Dismiss it as semantics, but it is my preference.

Okay, you say “I don’t,” but then in the next sentence you are literally putting the word god and describing it as nature to nature’s fullest extent.

“god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.”

I am asking why you say this.  What information are you attempting to convey to me with these words?

My understanding of god.  I’m not seeking converts, nor proselytizing.

“My understanding of god.”

I don’t know what this means.

[ Edited: 29 July 2019 21:57 by Garret]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2754
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
30 July 2019 00:12
 
DEGENERATEON - 29 July 2019 12:13 PM
Twissel - 29 July 2019 11:30 AM

I don’t think nature is nature to its full extend yet.

I don’t think you understand nature AT ALL

I think I do, actually.


do you think that the first protozoa is as much “nature to its full extend” as the current (nearly) global ecosystem is?

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›