Non-religious and the nature of god

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree the artist and the medium can't be separated they are symbiotic. can'T buy in say metaphysics the art takes on qualities that can separate the audience. We don't think art when We read metaphysics. Here is Michelangelos la pieta I could talk about this work a lot. It's art of extremely deep order inspired by art of an even.deeper order the new testament.

So yea, we can dialog about art, nature. Here on this site we see debates of semantics just like church. It misses much understanding.of expression.and.art. in this culture there was a movement away from art and religion but the artist is always at the forefront of religion. One could say a single person wrote the new testament with body blood and allowed others to tell it. That's art. Theatre of a deep order.
Get me going on art and nature and.I get all blabby happy. Btw no I am not a "Christian" in that I don't believe, but I don't not believe, nor am I agnostic. I am none of the big three of that singular trinity.
View attachment 21993

I agree, if Im reading you right, about the deeper meaning of art moving away from American society. Im isolated to where its hard to understand what american society is apart from the people who belittle our culture.

Why would the artist be in the forefront of religion? Im all-is-in-all thinker. The artist is her art and whoever appreciates the art appreciates on the same level, the artist. I wonder if this is how a christian sees it? Its a beautiful connection, if so, but, without the human sacrifice involved.

Oh. Every Mass Id go to the Pieta. It draws you there. Best example of how I understood the role of Mary and the intensity of feelings for her son. Like any mother to child. Not as an idol but a mirror of every other mother in the same position watching her child sacrifice himself to the sufferings in this life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

Function isn't a thing of nature, it's a value that we place on things. It is their value of usefulness (to us).

The function of nature is the purpose to which nature runs. So, the function or use of water would be to give life. The function of our legs is for us to walk. The value is inherit in what it means to our mental and physical survival. Its not spiritual or theological.

The universe just is. That's all it does. Something like a rock has usefulness to us: we can use it to build a house, or to knock down a wall, or to antagonize enemy combatants. Those are "functions."

It is of use to everything in which it interacts. Humans give meaning and labels, but the idea of the nature of god(s) (what moves energy) can be described by the functions of the universe (not metaphysical). Its useful to each other like the water and legs example above.

If I may use a metaphor: the universe is the canvas on which all things are painted. The canvas, the backdrop, is hidden, but it's what's painted on it that matters. Some may consider "just being" a "use," but I don't. It just is.

Thats one way to see it. I see the art, canvas, the paints, and artist all the same. I dont see it just-is because its an expression. Its use is from the artist.

Whats the difference between just being as a use and just is?

Im for the former but they both sound the same.

I don't know about energy, but the "motor" that makes everything go every which way is us. Everything relates to everything else in the universe, and in relating them we are at the centre of their depiction. Apart from us, the universe just is. It neither has nor doesn't have up nor down, left nor right, beginning nor ending. It neither has nor doesn't have energy, matter, motion, steady state, condensation, compression, combustion, solidity, fluidity, gaseousness, atoms, gravity, etc. It neither is nor isn't objective nor subjective. All these things (and their negations) are depictions of things that we observe about the universe. Without us, the universe is without our observations and hence its depictions.

The universe just is-ourselves included. We are just is (context). We're not seperate from the universe.

Would you call what you describe the function or what defines the god(s)?

Gods are images (depictions) that serve many functions: they are rhetorically and metaphorically descriptive of natural, cultural and social phenomena; they are comfort and ideals that bring us closer to values we, as a people, hold as superior; and for some they supply a metaphysical image, a

God(s), outside of metaphysics, by oberving god-religions snd spirit-ones I know so far together, supernatural, is/are that sustains life. I steped away from everyone elses definitions and just saw what each have in common: life (described in OP)

What you wrote is a common way of seeing it. Its not shared by all, so I didnt use that type of perspective to talk about the logistics of the gods themselves.

 

[David T]

I agree, if Im reading you right, about the deeper meaning of art moving away from American society. Im isolated to where its hard to understand what american society is apart from the people who belittle our culture.

Why would the artist be in the forefront of religion? Im all-is-in-all thinker. The artist is her art and whoever appreciates the art appreciates on the same level, the artist. I wonder if this is how a christian sees it? Its a beautiful connection, if so, but, without the human sacrifice involved.

Oh. Every Mass Id go to the Pieta. It draws you there. Best example of how I understood the role of Mary and the intensity of feelings for her son. Like any mother to child. Not as an idol but a mirror of every other mother in the same position watching her child sacrifice himself to the sufferings in this life.

Well I understand art comes in many forms and in all fields. Generally practitioners of religion don't think of it as art. That's how good of art it is!!!!

My personal thing is nature. I think I have to be that way or I get scrambled up. I would be a mess if I lived totally a urban suburban life. It's not where I grew up..I moved back to the oregon coast where I did grow up. I have a friend who lives on the coast and we walk the various trails like two kids on a grand adventure. One could say we see it all very interconnected and alive. We also can easily walk a place in Portland called the grotto. It has 60 acres of trees it's beautiful and it has all kinds of art. It is a servite order that runs it or OSM our sorrowful mother. It's Sooooo Mary its crazy its awesome.

I mentioned it to someone they said "isn't that Catholic" I said no it's awesome!!! Evangelicals are mental.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well I understand art comes in many forms and in all fields. Generally practitioners of religion don't think of it as art. That's how good of art it is!!!!

My personal thing is nature. I think I have to be that way or I get scrambled up. I would be a mess if I lived totally a urban suburban life. It's not where I grew up..I moved back to the oregon coast where I did grow up. I have a friend who lives on the coast and we walk the various trails like two kids on a grand adventure. One could say we see it all very interconnected and alive. We also can easily walk a place in Portland called the grotto. It has 60 acres of trees it's beautiful and it has all kinds of art. It is a servite order that runs it or OSM our sorrowful mother. It's Sooooo Mary its crazy its awesome.

I mentioned it to someone they said "isn't that Catholic" I said no it's awesome!!! Evangelicals are mental.

Wow. I can just eat you up and chew you alive! (Kiddin' ha.)

We have some beautiful mountains and forests in VA to die for. I live in the suburbs but will go back camping again, though. I love just siting my the river (literally) and just watching the ripples. My father and I used to go hunting back when I thought I was shootin' something. Long story short, I never liked guns after that.

But, yeah, Ive always been a nature buff. Now Im out of school and fortunate I dont need to work jobs, a family, wife, and a dog, I can just plan what Ima do. Probably every weekend I'll camp. Wanted to do it by tent instead of cabin.

Anyway. I think I liked Catholicism for all the "wrong" reasons. If you come this way, go to the National Shrine. A lot of tourist go there and sit in Mass. Ive never been pass Mississippi. Just up and down the east coast.

 

[Willamena]

The function of nature is the purpose to which nature runs. So, the function or use of water would be to give life. The function of our legs is for us to walk. The value is inherit in what it means to our mental and physical survival. Its not spiritual or theological.

Nature has functions because this is how we value those things: we value our legs for walking, we value water as life-giving. Water's value is inherent in what it means to our survival, but what it means is what it means to us.

It is of use to everything in which it interacts. Humans give meaning and labels, but the idea of the nature of god(s) (what moves energy) can be described by the functions of the universe (not metaphysical). Its useful to each other like the water and legs example above.

I see it differently. I don't believe the universe interacts with things. It just is. Things interact. Gods can be useful. They are things that can interact.

Thats one way to see it. I see the art, canvas, the paints, and artist all the same. I dont see it just-is because its an expression. Its use is from the artist.

Nice.

Whats the difference between just being as a use and just is?

Just being is another way to say just is.

The universe just is-ourselves included. We are just is (context). We're not seperate from the universe.

Would you call what you describe the function or what defines the god(s)?

It's fine to hold that we are not separate from the universe, but then the idea that things have "function" (use to us) or "nature" (depiction as part of the world rather than part of us) doesn't jive. We hold our thoughts distinct from the world, whether we admit it or not.

I don't understand the question. Our capacity to label things, and then invest in the apparent reality of our labels, extends to gods as well as anything.

God(s), outside of metaphysics, by oberving god-religions snd spirit-ones I know so far together, supernatural, is/are that sustains life. I steped away from everyone elses definitions and just saw what each have in common: life (described in OP)

What you wrote is a common way of seeing it. Its not shared by all, so I didnt use that type of perspective to talk about the logistics of the gods themselves.

Fair enough.

 

[David T]

Wow. I can just eat you up and chew you alive! (Kiddin' ha.)

We have some beautiful mountains and forests in VA to die for. I live in the suburbs but will go back camping again, though. I love just siting my the river (literally) and just watching the ripples. My father and I used to go hunting back when I thought I was shootin' something. Long story short, I never liked guns after that.

But, yeah, Ive always been a nature buff. Now Im out of school and fortunate I dont need to work jobs, a family, wife, and a dog, I can just plan what Ima do. Probably every weekend I'll camp. Wanted to do it by tent instead of cabin.

Anyway. I think I liked Catholicism for all the "wrong" reasons. If you come this way, go to the National Shrine. A lot of tourist go there and sit in Mass. Ive never been pass Mississippi. Just up and down the east coast.

First, contact bsm1 here on this site and ask for a link to his wife and his group. Fantastic musicians and from that region.
Tell him a west coast groupie (me) said to ask.

Second Virginia! my favourite root music group is from there at least elizabeth is. She just nails that early female voice in that music.genre. you have to be kinda nuts to enjoy that music I think I like it. I also would like to point out the lyrics are meaningless as soon as we begin to dissect it theologically intellectually. That's why I laugh at the debates here.

Last but not least the grotto. They have one of 13 bronze replicas made from.The original there. It's a marvel in even.in.bronze. I can't.even.begin to Tell you how incredible the work is. Michelangelo carved it at 24. The white one in the grotto cave is a poor copy of the original.
The Grotto - Wikipedia

A photo of a whole little hut dedicated to orthodox paintings of Mary below.

Christianity is clearly nutty. It was founded by women explained by men. How confused is that!!! Jesus is most certainly not The founder he died. He is its foundation. Like the Phoenix one phenomena life death in union... thus one. Mary Magdeline and.mother Mary understood him. Guys not So much as the story is written. And well that's how life is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nature has functions because this is how we value those things: we value our legs for walking, we value water as life-giving. Water's value is inherent in what it means to our survival, but what it means is what it means to us.

Function is more: Legs are a function for walking

Regardless the value to us, that's their function. Everything and living has a function of some sort. Life is interconnected. We can watch the function of how nature works just by looking at ants on a hill or the sun rise and fall.

I see it differently. I don't believe the universe interacts with things. It just is. Things interact. Gods can be useful. They are things that can interact.

The universe (stars/planets/etc) interacts with each other. Without interaction, no function between various entities, there'd be no universe. In the OP, god is what moves energy. Life is what sustain all living. Universe are the stars, planets, and sun (etc) that make up space. There is nothing metaphysical and supernatural in the OP. I tried to keep it from that; but, the use of the word god throws people off.

What are gods apart from what I described in my OP?

It's fine to hold that we are not separate from the universe, but then the idea that things have "function" (use to us) or "nature" (depiction as part of the world rather than part of us) doesn't jive. We hold our thoughts distinct from the world, whether we admit it or not.

I'm not understanding. The universe is the stars, planets, earth, all living, people all munched together. You're not part of the universe? (I'm thinking aliens and star trek)

That sounds kinda like how people see god (the common definition) where there is a separation between the world and humans from "everything else." In this case, only specific gods. Not all gods are like that.

I don't understand the question. Our capacity to label things, and then invest in the apparent reality of our labels, extends to gods as well as anything.

In your last post, everything you mentioned seems like another version of god (as defined by the OP). The workings/functioning/role of different parts of the universe with another. I'd have to go back. I changed the OP to make words like consciousness, gods, and other metaphysics words everyday, mundane concepts. The words throw people off; but, when you understand the concepts behind them, especially the psychological part, we're basically talking about nature's physical laws, interactions, and people just with cultural labels for understanding the world.

 

[blü 2]

This is only focused on people who do not believe in any version of god(s). No consciousness. No universal force. No incarnations. No essense. No spirit. No....

My problem is more basic than that. I think the idea of an imaginary god is fine, but that the idea of a real god is incoherent.

In other words, I was an atheist until I realized I didn't know what I didn't believe in.

how would you personally describe the nature of how the universe (stars. Planets. Venus. Space. Living. Nothing metaphysical) functions?

My instinct is towards a monism here. I think the universe is composed of mass-energy in its various forms, and that the dimensions, the forces, the entities and the processes are all properties of energy.

What is the motor (not a metaphysic metaphor) that makes energy go every which away?

Energy in classical physics moves from regions of higher to lower energy, a constant process tending towards leveling, averaging. It's offset by the release of stored energy and by the energy emitted by the stars as a result of the forces of gravity.

What is the nature of god(s)?

Imaginary. As I said, the notion of a real god is incoherent. As a result, we have no definition of God / a god / gods such that if we found a candidate we could tell whether it was a real god or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, no. In my opinion, energy is, quote on quote, god. However, not all atheists see it the same way. Some are stuck on the word god as nontrinitians to the word trinity.

God as a word is just a sliver away from being completely useless... and it often falls beyond that line and ends up causing unnecessary confusion.

Case in point. I have no idea of what you mean by energy there. It seems to be an insistence that there must be a creator god no matter what is being proposed.

Instead of taking an alternative aproach or finding a reaason of being, would you use the description of energy (as is) to be the What that drives life?

I doubt it, since it does not seem to help in clarifying or describing anything.

Incidentally, what do you mean by "driving life"?

Its a question about the definition of god (as defined in OP) in relation to the natural function of the planets, stars, etc aka the universe.

What is a natural function in this context? How do you know that it actually exists for each of those categories of entities that you list?

I listed the terms and definition to make it non-metaphysical. Its basically used so both atheist and theist, rather, can depart from the idea that god has to have some specific form or person to Be god(s).

Im trying to gear away from the common christian definition of god since there are more than one god, more than one incarnation, spirits, souls, etc and there, on the other hand, one force, tie some call god(s).

Edited.

I am sorry to say that it seems that you have failed, apparently because you are imposing on yourself goals that are directly denied by your own premises.

You seem to take a theistic model - and more specifically still, a creator-god model - as a truism, as a fact taken for granted. In so doing you are excluding atheistic (and even pantheistic, IMO) models from consideration entirely.

 

[dfnj]

This is only focused on people who do not believe in any version of god(s). No consciousness. No universal force. No incarnations. No essense. No spirit. No....

If you dont believe any type of god(s) exist as fact (as how you read it; dont change the OP), how would you personally describe the nature of how the universe (stars. Planets. Venus. Space. Living. Nothing metaphysical) functions?

What is the motor (not a metaphysic metaphor) that makes energy go every which away?

I wont understand quantum physics and chemistry; so, if you can dumb it down, Id highly apreciate it.

What is the nature of god(s)?

Terms (god/s referring to a things/they)


Edit: Can you guys play with the idea and definition of god(s) as if related to the natural world without reading into the OP for a hidden message of some sort?

God is just a word. What the word means is defined by every sentence that uses it. That's all God is. God is a representation of an idea. No one has ever experienced God, at least recently, so since God only exists in our mind-space many people just don't believe in God's existence.

What is the nature of Nature? Human beings attribute meaning to the swirling patterns of energy floating around in the Universe the way people see images in clouds. Abstractions about nature are really all just meaningless delusions that only exist in a very narrow context. Nature is without context. Nature is endless patterns of energy moving at different speeds. The difference between speeds gives us the illusion of matter. We only see the energy through differences. At it's lowest level all that exists is something we can't see copulating with nothingness creating form. But to experience the somethingness of nature at it's lowest level you would have to be nothingness.

Is there a God moving the electrons around the atoms? I don't think it's God. I think it's something else that is pretty much impossible for us to experience because the speeds are outside normal physical boundaries. What is the IT that decides which quantum state gets realized? The observer and the observed are connected in some strange way beyond our perception creating a swirl of what we think is order and chaos. But in the true reality of Nature is that nature is neither order nor chaos exists.

God is an imaginary friend invented by man to make him feel safe against the uncomfortable feeling of not knowing what is driving the order and the chaos. What does it all mean? What makes energy go every which way? These are unanswerable questions. Most people just can't accept not knowing what it all means. What is "right", "good", "true", and "meaningful" are purely subjective.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God as a word is just a sliver away from being completely useless... and it often falls beyond that line and ends up causing unnecessary confusion.

It's a useless word when applied to certain religions, I guess. In general, god could mean anything from object of worship, creator, or just plain what sustains life in and of itself. The idea is that god is important, has something to do with life, and for one reason or another lets the believer respect the function of it whether or not they are passively or actively involved.

Case in point. I have no idea of what you mean by energy there. It seems to be an insistence that there must be a creator god no matter what is being proposed.

Energy is just "he strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity". Nothing metaphysical about it; nothing related to a creator. It's under the terms in the OP so it won't be mixed up with a creator which not all god-religions share at all.

Another way of putting it what makes energy go every which a way and would you call it god, if you were to use a synonym for the word energy/

I don't see where a creator fits at all in the OP. The terms singled out any noun that would be used as a creator. A creator is also a being (some type of person which one uses "who") but in this case, there is no who, it is what/it/that. It's as typed nothing implied.

I just don't know quantum physics and chemistry to talk about it in those details; so, the best I can come up with is the definitions you read in the OP and taking out the word creator and any definition that would mirror a cultural view (Hindu, Christian, Pagan) but just the word itself. You can basically use the word god to mean almost anything supernatural. Each religion has their own view of god. I wonder what non believers would define its nature without appropriating words such as creator, essence, consciousness, etc as its nature.

What would be a synonym for the word god that you may use that's part of the natural world (without using scientific jargon)?

I doubt it, since it does not seem to help in clarifying or describing anything.

The definition of energy I gave above.

The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.

If I used the word god, I'd describe god as energy, the what that sustains life. It's a useless word, I guess; but, I was only curious how a non-god person would describe god's nature if not energy.

Incidentally, what do you mean by "driving life"?

What keeps you alive. I can't think of another word other than energy. That's why I'm asking. What drive/motor is behind energy or life that some call god. If you used the term god, would you describe that as its nature or do you have a different view of the nature of god that is not held by other religions (so no create, no consciousness, no essence, and no force, etc)

What is a natural function in this context? How do you know that it actually exists for each of those categories of entities that you list?

What actually exists?

Nature? I'm just asking the nature of god and would you relate the definition to a psychological or natural part of nature to which is not related to other religious definitions (no creator/essense/consciousness/being/so have you)

I am sorry to say that it seems that you have failed, apparently because you are imposing on yourself goals that are directly denied by your own premises.

Translate?

You seem to take a theistic model - and more specifically still, a creator-god model - as a truism, as a fact taken for granted. In so doing you are excluding atheistic (and even pantheistic, IMO) models from consideration entirely.

I don't see the creator model????

You're confusing the heck out of me.

There is no creator. No essence. No consciousness (metaphysics), no force, no gods. I wasn't raised christian and don't know what a god actually is.

So... given that, if I were to define the word god, I would say energy (that's what I'm asking. If you were to). This is just going off different definitions. If I never found RF, I would never knew what any god is. I just have internet-knowledge.

There is nothing behind the OP than what's written. I know many of you have christian backgrounds. I can't figure how to converse any way other than abstracting the words you all have trigger fingers for and making it plain and simple english.

 

[dfnj]

Well I understand art comes in many forms and in all fields. Generally practitioners of religion don't think of it as art. That's how good of art it is!!!!

My personal thing is nature. I think I have to be that way or I get scrambled up. I would be a mess if I lived totally a urban suburban life. It's not where I grew up..I moved back to the oregon coast where I did grow up. I have a friend who lives on the coast and we walk the various trails like two kids on a grand adventure. One could say we see it all very interconnected and alive. We also can easily walk a place in Portland called the grotto. It has 60 acres of trees it's beautiful and it has all kinds of art. It is a servite order that runs it or OSM our sorrowful mother. It's Sooooo Mary its crazy its awesome.

I mentioned it to someone they said "isn't that Catholic" I said no it's awesome!!! Evangelicals are mental.

I live in New Jersey. I got nothing else say.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is just a word. What the word means is defined by every sentence that uses it. That's all God is. God is a representation of an idea. No one has ever experienced God, at least recently, so since God only exists in our mind-space many people just don't believe in God's existence.

What is the nature of Nature? Human beings attribute meaning to the swirling patterns of energy floating around in the Universe the way people see images in clouds. Abstractions about nature are really all just meaningless delusions that only exist in a very narrow context. Nature is without context. Nature is endless patterns of energy moving at different speeds. The difference between speeds gives us the illusion of matter. We only see the energy through differences. At it's lowest level all that exists is something we can't see copulating with nothingness creating form. But to experience the somethingness of nature at it's lowest level you would have to be nothingness.

Is there a God moving the electrons around the atoms? I don't think it's God. I think it's something else that is pretty much impossible for us to experience because the speeds are outside normal physical boundaries. What is the IT that decides which quantum state gets realized? The observer and the observed are connected in some strange way beyond our perception creating a swirl of what we think is order and chaos. But in the true reality of Nature neither order nor chaos exists.

God is an imaginary friend invented by man to make him feel safe against the uncomfortable feeling of not knowing what is driving the order and the chaos. What does it all mean? What makes energy go every which way? These are unanswerable questions. Most people just can't accept not knowing what it all means. What is "right", "good", "true", and "meaningful" are purely subjective.

Thank you!

Okay. Ima get back to this in a bit.

I know the word god is kinda useless but, yeah, that's what I'm asking "what is the nature of nature?" If you took the terminology off.

To be continued

 

[dfnj]

Thank you!

Okay. Ima get back to this in a bit.

I know the word god is kinda useless but, yeah, that's what I'm asking "what is the nature of nature?" If you took the terminology off.

To be continued

Understanding the nature of nature is like thinking about what your brain is doing between thoughts. The closer you get the more difficult it is to experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Understanding the nature of nature is like thinking about what your brain is doing between thoughts. The closer you get the more difficult it is to experience.

I can see that. I think I pin point what Im asking. Does nonbelievers have a definition or concept of god not shared by other religions. I say energy relating it to the natural world.

To take off the trigger word, god, I guess, would be another word for nature (in my opinion); so, figuring out the nature of nature is figuring out the nature of god. I wish I knew something about quantum physics to talk about the nature of energy. I was wondering if a nonbeliever has their own concept of god and would they define it by the natural world and not supernatural as the terms Ive listed.

Anyway, when I practiced Buddhism, thats basically what we do is to have clarity of the nature between our thoughts. Watching them from the "background". Its challenging because the programed awareness interupts and tries to define experiences that have no name making it more difficult to experience.

Whatever the nature is between our thoughts people call it god, consciousness, to jehosaphat. If atheist had this experience, what would they call it. And why would it need to be supernatural for it to be experienced and defined in some way. (Thank you. I think thats as clear as I can get it without overly repeating myself again and again)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My problem is more basic than that. I think the idea of an imaginary god is fine, but that the idea of a real god is incoherent.

In other words, I was an atheist until I realized I didn't know what I didn't believe in.
My instinct is towards a monism here. I think the universe is composed of mass-energy in its various forms, and that the dimensions, the forces, the entities and the processes are all properties of energy.
Energy in classical physics moves from regions of higher to lower energy, a constant process tending towards leveling, averaging. It's offset by the release of stored energy and by the energy emitted by the stars as a result of the forces of gravity.
Imaginary. As I said, the notion of a real god is incoherent. As a result, we have no definition of God / a god / gods such that if we found a candidate we could tell whether it was a real god or not.

What did you find out that made you not an atheist anymore?

I looked up monism. Is there a difference between that and pantheism without usint the word god to discribe the nature of nature?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Is there a God moving the electrons around the atoms? I don't think it's God. I think it's something else that is pretty much impossible for us to experience because the speeds are outside normal physical boundaries.

Im trying to follow you. Do you believe there is something moving elections? Given god has many meanings, I wouldnt call it imaginary just a placeholder for an unexplained experience.

 

[David T]

I live in New Jersey. I got nothing else say.

Lol I am sorry. I drove through new jersey once. I live in a county that the population is 24 per square mile and I think that's crowded.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you describe the functions of nature and physics god?

I don't know what physics god means. Gods don't figure into my understanding of reality or how it functions.

If you want to understand what is known about nature and natural phenomena, you're going to need to study the subject systematically. That takes years. You were asking about the planets earlier. Do you know what an ellipse is? You were asking about how the sun works. Do you know what hydrogen and helium are, how they relate to one another, and what nuclear fusion is? You were asking about life. Do you know what a protein or an amino acid are, and how they relate to one another?

If you don't know the fundamentals, you can't go any further acquiring a scientific understanding of nature.

would you call it god, if you were to use a synonym for the word energy

No. The word god has baggage associated with it such as consciousness.

To my knowledge, energy in the scientific sense has no synonym and needs none.

I tried to list the terms so they wont be metaphysical.

Perhaps that is why you are trying to equate energy (physical) with God (metaphysical). Energy is detectable and quantifiable. They're still looking for their first god.

"laws and constants of the universe" Like Moses?

No. Man-made laws are unrelated to natural laws.

I see no "LAWS" as existing but what I do see is a ton of intellectualizing inference.

That's fine, but those who do see laws as existing have been able to use them to design computers, build skyscrapers and launch space probes.

 

[David T]

I don't know what physics god means. Gods don't figure into my understanding of reality or how it functions.

If you want to understand what is known about nature and natural phenomena, you're going to need to study the subject systematically. That takes years. You were asking about the planets earlier. Do you know what an ellipse is? You were asking about how the sun works. Do you know what hydrogen and helium are, how they relate to one another, and what nuclear fusion is? You were asking about life. Do you know what a protein or an amino acid are, and how they relate to one another?

If you don't know the fundamentals, you can't go any further acquiring a scientific understanding of nature.



No. The word god has baggage associated with it such as consciousness.

To my knowledge, energy in the scientific sense has no synonym and needs none.



Perhaps that is why you are trying to equate energy (physical) with God (metaphysical). Energy is detectable and quantifiable. They're still looking for their first god.



No. Man-made laws are unrelated to natural laws.



That's fine, but those who do see laws as existing have been able to use them to design computers, build skyscrapers and launch space probes.

What gives you the "belief" that the term God and nature were literally separate thousands of years ago? Christian theology is the major intellectual academic culprit I know of for that fantasy. Since I actually have a degree.in that fantasy generator must we talk fantasy or fiction as its a fact! Laws nature is co equal to modern "laws of god". It's totally Christian or western culture. A reality outside reality.