< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Nature to Nature’s Fullest Extent

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
30 July 2019 20:36
 

These conversations remind me of two people speaking different languages trying to describe something to each other.  While I understand God somewhat differently than bb, I fully understand his position that this is his understanding of his own faith. Having just returned from a country with a language and culture very much different than mine, I realize that people see the world differently.  To expect that bb will see the world just like you is as foolish as trying to get a Russian to understand why I like Texas better than St. Petersburg.  Not going to happen.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
31 July 2019 05:16
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:38 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 05:04 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 03:54 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

No. Just because you assert that your deepity is indisputable does not mean that it is. Or that it even makes sense. Anyway, does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?

“deepity”?  At any rate, did you not ask me what I mean by nature to nature’s fullest extent?  I answered.

As you can plainly see above, I asked “does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?” You did not answer that question.

Bear in mind that we are talking about my faith, not yours.

Actually, as an atheist, I don’t have a “faith.” But yes, I want to learn more about your faith and your nature claim.

Given that you recognize that faith is proof without evidence, then why would you want to believe something that can’t be proven, and could very well be wrong?

I’ve expounded on that a number of times in other threads.  And there’s this; not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.

Not sure what that edited video clip has to do with this discussion.

“... not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.”

Besides, you do know that Dawkins is an atheist, right?

Indeed I do, and I have watched the complete, unedited version from which that clip was taken, quite some time ago.  That’s how I knew how to phrase my search for the clip.

Then you realize it’s disingenuous to post your edited clip as if it somehow reveals Dawkins to be “a man of faith”, despite him having his entire career and reputation built on criticisms of religion and faith, right?

Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?

I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, nor am I making any claim other than that I have a faith which embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, invokes no magically supernatural grantor of wishes, seeks no converts.

Being an intellectual is separate from the concept of intellectual honesty. I have to believe you’re smart enough to know what I was talking about here. So to me your response seems like a dodge.

I’m not making any claim, other than the claim that I have faith.  It is a singular, personal claim, involving no one other than me.  As I have stated many, many times, I am not proselytizing, not seeking converts.  I’m only making a personal statement.

We know that. No need to keep repeating it.

If your faith embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, then where is the scientific support for this God that is “nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

There is none.  I’m discussing my faith, belief not based on proof.

On a scale of 0 - 100 (where 100 = absolute certainty), how sure are you that “God is nature to nature’s fullest extent”? 

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
31 July 2019 05:28
 
EN - 30 July 2019 08:36 PM

These conversations remind me of two people speaking different languages trying to describe something to each other.  While I understand God somewhat differently than bb, I fully understand his position that this is his understanding of his own faith. Having just returned from a country with a language and culture very much different than mine, I realize that people see the world differently.  To expect that bb will see the world just like you is as foolish as trying to get a Russian to understand why I like Texas better than St. Petersburg.  Not going to happen.

Actually, these conversations remind me of one person engaging in semantics and equivocation in order to protect their cherished belief from further scrutiny.

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
31 July 2019 07:46
 
Ron - 31 July 2019 05:16 AM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:38 PM
Ron - 30 July 2019 05:04 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 03:54 PM
Ron - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

No. Just because you assert that your deepity is indisputable does not mean that it is. Or that it even makes sense. Anyway, does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?

“deepity”?  At any rate, did you not ask me what I mean by nature to nature’s fullest extent?  I answered.

As you can plainly see above, I asked “does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?” You did not answer that question.

Yes, I did.  Your not liking my answer does not negate the fact that I have given an answer, more than once.

bbearren - 30 July 2019 03:54 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

bbearren - 30 July 2019 04:25 PM
Garret - 30 July 2019 03:07 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:26 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

You’re just repeating it.  I’m asking you to explain it to me, because the sentence doesn’t make sense to me.  I don’t understand it.

Then you don’t understand it; you seem to be trying to squeeze “supernatural” into it somehow.  Nature to nature’s fullest extent has no unanswered questions; nothing is supernatural, nothing is magical.

bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:38 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 05:04 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 03:54 PM
MrRon - 30 July 2019 01:41 PM

You still haven’t explained how “nature to nature’s fullest extent” differs from plain old nature. What does the “fullest extent” part of nature entail that is lacking in just “nature”?

That humans have questions is indisputable; that nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers is also indisputable.

No. Just because you assert that your deepity is indisputable does not mean that it is. Or that it even makes sense. Anyway, does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?

“deepity”?  At any rate, did you not ask me what I mean by nature to nature’s fullest extent?  I answered.  Bear in mind that we are talking about my faith, not yours.

Actually, as an atheist, I don’t have a “faith.” But yes, I want to learn more about your faith and your nature claim.

Given that you recognize that faith is proof without evidence, then why would you want to believe something that can’t be proven, and could very well be wrong?

I’ve expounded on that a number of times in other threads.  And there’s this; not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.

Not sure what that edited video clip has to do with this discussion.

“... not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.”

Besides, you do know that Dawkins is an atheist, right?

Indeed I do, and I have watched the complete, unedited version from which that clip was taken, quite some time ago.  That’s how I knew how to phrase my search for the clip.

Then you realize it’s disingenuous to post your edited clip as if it somehow reveals Dawkins to be “a man of faith”, despite him having his entire career and reputation built on criticisms of religion and faith, right?

“... not particularly germane, but amusing (at least for me), none the less.”  All the clip reveals is Dawkins to be momentarily at a loss for words.

Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?

I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, nor am I making any claim other than that I have a faith which embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, invokes no magically supernatural grantor of wishes, seeks no converts.

Being an intellectual is separate from the concept of intellectual honesty. I have to believe you’re smart enough to know what I was talking about here. So to me your response seems like a dodge.

I’m not making any claim, other than the claim that I have faith.  It is a singular, personal claim, involving no one other than me.  As I have stated many, many times, I am not proselytizing, not seeking converts.  I’m only making a personal statement.

We know that. No need to keep repeating it.

But then you do keep posing questions indicative that you don’t, in fact, know that, and are trying to conflate my statement of personal faith into something more, trying to make it into a claim beyond that of personal faith.

If your faith embraces every tidbit of scientific discovery, then where is the scientific support for this God that is “nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

There is none.  I’m discussing my faith, belief not based on proof.

On a scale of 0 - 100 (where 100 = absolute certainty), how sure are you that “God is nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

Faith is belief not based on proof.  There is no degree of certainty.  You should know that.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
31 July 2019 07:58
 
Ron - 31 July 2019 05:28 AM

Actually, these conversations remind me of one person engaging in semantics and equivocation in order to protect their cherished belief from further scrutiny.

You ask questions.  I answer your questions.  You don’t like my answers.  You slightly rephrase and ask the same questions.  I give you the same answers.  You still don’t like my answers.

I have made a personal statement of faith.  It is subjective, not objective, and it is singular, pertaining only to me.  It is belief not based on proof.  That you keep asking for proof where none can exist seems a bit inane, yet you persist.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
31 July 2019 09:17
 

Why would you believe something for which there is no evidence?

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
31 July 2019 09:43
 
Garret - 31 July 2019 09:17 AM

Why would you believe something for which there is no evidence?

Faith is personal and subjective.  I don’t need objective evidence.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 July 2019 09:55
 

There is such a thing as subjective experience that a person can have convinces him/her of something, even if others can’t access that experience. Some refer to it as revelation, or enlightenment, or insight, or just personal subjective experience.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1804
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
31 July 2019 10:08
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 04:16 PM
nonverbal - 30 July 2019 12:50 PM

Bb, are you unable to verbally express what you know or believe (take your choice) about God? Obviously, not everything is verbally explainable unless you’re a verbal savant of sorts.

Not at all.  There is a quite an extent that I can and have expressed/explained to close friends and family.  Why won’t I do that here, one might ask?  I have not always been a believer.  For the first 40 or so years of my life, I was agnostic/atheistic.  I have used every argument against belief in God as I’ve read in these forums, as well as some others that I haven’t seen here.

I’ve already heard all the arguments, and they’re not going to have any effect on my faith.  Why read through them again?  A lot of folks here have a problem with “dust and ashes”; some even seem to take offense.  However, not a day goes by that I don’t fully embrace that foundational concept of who/what I am, dust and ashes and the confluence of genetics and experience.  If folks can’t get past that, the road to further explication is blocked.  If folks think that they are exchanging posts with a persona, the road is blocked.

That explains it, then. Back when I was a believer, I only rarely talked about the nuts and bolts (emphasizing nuts!) of my faith. Everyone around here sees how fluidly descriptive EN has been over the years about his personal faith, and we get spoiled, assuming that every other person of God should be so forthcoming. I respect your reticence, bb, as much as I respect EN’s willingness to describe his highly personal faith details.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
31 July 2019 10:43
 

One reason we’re comfortable around dogs, cats, hamsters, goldfish etc., is because they don’t have faith, beliefs, theories, ideas, etc. about existence.  They just manifest it.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6355
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
31 July 2019 11:20
 

There is no enigma here. I offer a simulated examination based on what I could glean from our podcast conversation. I am trying to help and not be snarky.

“God is the full extent of Nature”

“Yes, but… What makes the full extent of Nature need to mean more than the full extent of Nature?”

“Because I had spiritual experiences. Folks expect such things to come from a traditional concept of God. I’m trying to reject that notion, unsuccessfully, by saying the ‘god’ it comes from is Nature itself. Nature can express itself in our brains by releasing personal experiences that are entirely subjective. The source is embedded, possibly in a quantum fashion, in the full extent of our own physically-born nature”

“Yes, but… why are you closed to other explanations? Why are you certain enough to engage in disputing or sidetracking discussions of other explanations and thinly-related topics?”

“Because I have faith. Since I am stardust and/or quantum field interaction, I cannot be an intellectual. It is with this reasoned faith that I will judge the rationality and critical thinking of others.”

This is not a further step of reasoning and cannot qualify for a further “yes, but…”. It is, in a quirky sort of way, an appeal to an indefinable authority so the exam earns a 1 on The Malarkey Scale. Patrons pressing for a second step and expecting that there must be one hiding somewhere or offering to shepherd the way to a second step are on a hopeless quest. Faith means stop and take no further step.

Faith more typically stops folks at zero on the scale. It is conspicuous and curious why one would, and many do, bother with even one step if they’re gonna let faith say when to stop. The lowliness of our state as humans, stardust, strawberry fields or whatever, relative to Lord Full Extent of Nature is an appeal to authority.

If I had to guess what the secret subjective message was, I’d say, “It’s one small step for man”.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
31 July 2019 14:34
 

As you can plainly see above, I asked “does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?” You did not answer that question.

Yes, I did.  Your not liking my answer does not negate the fact that I have given an answer, more than once.

Well, I see where you said nature does not answer the question of what caused the Big Bang, and that’s not exactly the question I was asking. But I’ll go ahead and infer from that that your answer is only nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers. So you’ve asserted something beyond nature – something indetectable and unfalsifiable. I would ask what justifies that assertion, but I’m pretty sure you would say your faith does. To that I say that there is nothing that can’t be asserted based on faith. And the flaws with that are self-evident.

I’m not making any claim, other than the claim that I have faith.  It is a singular, personal claim, involving no one other than me.  As I have stated many, many times, I am not proselytizing, not seeking converts.  I’m only making a personal statement.

We know that. No need to keep repeating it.

But then you do keep posing questions indicative that you don’t, in fact, know that, and are trying to conflate my statement of personal faith into something more, trying to make it into a claim beyond that of personal faith.

Where have I accused you of proselytizing or of seeking converts? And trying to unpack your faith is not the same as trying to make it into a claim beyond that of personal faith. I’m just seeking more clarity. 

On a scale of 0 - 100 (where 100 = absolute certainty), how sure are you that “God is nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

Faith is belief not based on proof.  There is no degree of certainty.  You should know that.

I was just trying to gauge your degree of confidence that what you claim is in fact true. Are you saying that you have zero confidence whatsoever that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent? Surely you must fall somewhere on that spectrum. We all can think of the things that we believe and assign a degree of confidence to those beliefs. Whether or not there is proof should not hinder one from assessing their confidence level in a claim that they are making.

Ron

 

 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
31 July 2019 14:47
 
nonverbal - 31 July 2019 10:08 AM

Everyone around here sees how fluidly descriptive EN has been over the years about his personal faith, and we get spoiled, assuming that every other person of God should be so forthcoming.

True. And despite the past frustrations that EN and I have had with each other, I do appreciate how he engages so earnestly and freely. On the other hand, I think bb is more guarded than is necessary. Nevertheless, they are both very smart and they make for interesting conversations. At the end of the day, it’s good to see their contributions on all the threads in the forum.  grin

Ron

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
31 July 2019 15:09
 
bbearren - 31 July 2019 09:43 AM
Garret - 31 July 2019 09:17 AM

Why would you believe something for which there is no evidence?

Faith is personal and subjective.  I don’t need objective evidence.

This is a “what”.  I understand that you are claiming you have no evidence.

I am asking “why”.

Why do you believe something for which there is no evidence?

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
31 July 2019 18:13
 
Ron - 31 July 2019 02:34 PM

As you can plainly see above, I asked “does plain old “nature” contain all the answers? Or is it just “nature to nature’s fullest extent” that contains all the answers?” You did not answer that question.

Yes, I did.  Your not liking my answer does not negate the fact that I have given an answer, more than once.

Well, I see where you said nature does not answer the question of what caused the Big Bang, and that’s not exactly the question I was asking. But I’ll go ahead and infer from that that your answer is only nature to nature’s fullest extent contains all the answers. So you’ve asserted something beyond nature – something indetectable and unfalsifiable. I would ask what justifies that assertion, but I’m pretty sure you would say your faith does. To that I say that there is nothing that can’t be asserted based on faith. And the flaws with that are self-evident.

I’m not asserting anything.  Try a little astrophysics, some quantum mechanics, some physics.  There’s lot’s of stuff going on in nature for which we currently do not have an understanding; we see it happening, but we can’t explain it.  Your statement above seems to assert that nature is constrained from doing something that science doesn’t already understand.  That’s a bit foolish, wouldn’t you say?

Nature to nature’s fullest extent includes all, everything, the stuff we don’t understand and the stuff we do understand.  Instead of putting question marks around my choice of phrase, you have just set it on a very firm foundation.  Thanks.

The justification of my statement that nature to nature’s fullest extent has no unanswered questions, is self-evident.

“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”? Neil deGrasse Tyson

I’m not making any claim, other than the claim that I have faith.  It is a singular, personal claim, involving no one other than me.  As I have stated many, many times, I am not proselytizing, not seeking converts.  I’m only making a personal statement.

We know that. No need to keep repeating it.
But then you do keep posing questions indicative that you don’t, in fact, know that, and are trying to conflate my statement of personal faith into something more, trying to make it into a claim beyond that of personal faith.

Where have I accused you of proselytizing or of seeking converts?  And trying to unpack your faith is not the same as trying to make it into a claim beyond that of personal faith. I’m just seeking more clarity.

“Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to refrain from making unverifiable claims in the first place?”

A statement of personal, subjective faith has always been in the category of “unverifiable claims”.  Faith is, by definition, belief without proof.  It never has to be verifiable.

On a scale of 0 - 100 (where 100 = absolute certainty), how sure are you that “God is nature to nature’s fullest extent”?

Faith is belief not based on proof.  There is no degree of certainty.  You should know that.

I was just trying to gauge your degree of confidence that what you claim is in fact true. Are you saying that you have zero confidence whatsoever that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent? Surely you must fall somewhere on that spectrum. We all can think of the things that we believe and assign a degree of confidence to those beliefs. Whether or not there is proof should not hinder one from assessing their confidence level in a claim that they are making.

I repeat: faith is belief not based on proof.  There is no degree of certainty.  There is no degree of confidence.  I make no claim of truth.  I make a statement of personal, subjective faith; that’s all.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›