Non-religious and the nature of god

[Unveiled Artist]

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)

God: what moves energy

Gods: multiple things that moves energy

Consciousness: awareness of ones self/identity/nature

Universal force: link or tie between living; universal source of life

Incarnations: X made flesh (any religion appropriate)

Essense: the nature or identity of a given thing or person

Spirit: Energy of a person (the life in a person)

Soul: The persons identity

Motor: what drives a thing or person whether motivation or actual movement

Life: is the present, spontaneous and continous brain and body growth to decay, and its function thereof

Energy: The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity

Something "greater": an idea too complicated and unknown to the human intelligence so far we know

Adjective: What describes a person, place, or thing

Noun: a person, place, or thing

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?

 

[icehorse]

I think the best cosmologists would admit that they have far more questions than they do answers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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)

Nothing can be said about the existence or nature of gods except that we are clearly not living under the protection of an omnisicient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. We have no way of ruling other types of gods such as the deist god in or out. And there is no evidence for a universal consciousness

What we can say is that we have uncovered many of the laws and constants of the universe, and constructed successful scientific theories around them, none of which require a god, and that we have naturalistic hypotheses for the unexplained aspects of reality such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

No chemistry? No quantum physics? Can we assume no physics at all? If you want to understand how the universe works, such as how energy flows or is converted from form to form, or celestial mechanics (you mentioned the movements of the planets), you're going to need to learn a little science. How much simplification can be done before one is saying nothing significant?

 

[David T]

I think the best cosmologists would admit that they have far more questions than they do answers.

I liked how you put the word "best" in there. The Richard Feynmans are nearly extinct. Lots of modern cosmology today is harsh orthodoxy, and wild speculation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think the best cosmologists would admit that they have far more questions than they do answers.

I used to read a lot of philosophy years ago that talked about that. Ima go back to that study again.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nothing can be said about the existence or nature of gods except that we are clearly not living under the protection of an omnisicient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. We have no way of ruling other types of gods such as the deist god in or out. And there is no evidence for a universal consciousness

What we can say is that we have uncovered many of the laws and constants of the universe, and constructed successful scientific theories around them, none of which require a god, and that we have naturalistic hypotheses for the unexplained aspects of reality such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

No chemistry? No quantum physics? Can we assume no physics at all? If you want to understand how the universe works, such as how energy flows or is converted from form to form, or celestial mechanics (you mentioned the movements of the planets), you're going to need to learn a little science. How much simplification can be done before one is saying nothing significant?

Can you describe the functions of nature and physics god? (What moves energy?) Or some take a pan- aproach, that which is energy (etc)?

I wont understand quantum physics and chemistry language. Youd have to dumb it down if you wanted to use that point of view to discuss the nature of god(s).

Edited.

 

[David T]

Nothing can be said about the existence or nature of gods except that we are clearly not living under the protection of an omnisicient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. We have no way of ruling other types of gods such as the deist god in or out. And there is no evidence for a universal consciousness

What we can say is that we have uncovered many of the laws and constants of the universe, and constructed successful scientific theories around them, none of which require a god, and that we have naturalistic hypotheses for the unexplained aspects of reality such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

No chemistry? No quantum physics? Can we assume no physics at all? If you want to understand how the universe works, such as how energy flows or is converted from form to form, or celestial mechanics (you mentioned the movements of the planets), you're going to need to learn a little science. How much simplification can be done before one is saying nothing significant?

"laws and constants of the universe"

Like Moses? So we have the "LAWS of physics" in conflict with the "LAWS of god"

Personally I am all about WILD. I find "LAWS" to be confused and only existing in a singular locality of the cranium self labelled " higher functioning" . Is that self labelled region of the cranium a bit confused about itself? I see no "LAWS" as existing but what I do see is a ton of intellectualizing inference.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

It seems to me that energy is defined as just that.

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

Things are as they are. There is no need and no benefit in expecting some sort of "reason for being".

What is the nature of god(s)?

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

You seem to be implying that non-theists, lacking the belief in a creator god, should have some sort of substitute. Some form of creator of existence, or at least an explanation.

I don't think there is such a need. It seems to me that human brains have a strong tendency to perceive things in ways that easily suit themselves to the expectation of an ultimate creator. There is really no alternate explanation for the popularity of that expectation. Existence itself sure does not betray any such creator.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It seems to me that energy is defined as just that.



Things are as they are. There is no need and no benefit in expecting some sort of "reason for being".


You seem to be implying that non-theists, lacking the belief in a creator god, should have some sort of substitute. Some form of creator of existence, or at least an explanation.

I don't think there is such a need. It seems to me that human brains have a strong tendency to perceive things in ways that easily suit themselves to the expectation of an ultimate creator. There is really no alternate explanation for the popularity of that expectation. Existence itself sure does not betray any such creator.

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.

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? 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.

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.

 

[YmirGF]

Stuff happens.

Need anything more?

 

[Willamena]

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?

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

What is the nature of god(s)?

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

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 backdrop, on which we can practice our painting.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

I think a lot of it has to do with a person's interpretation and perception.

 

[David T]

I used to read a lot of philosophy years ago that talked about that. Ima go back to that study again.

DON'T DO IT!!!! It's like studying grays anatomy (not the tv show ) the science, to understand sexual attraction. Although the TV show might actually be more accurate oddly enough.

 

[David T]

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.

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? 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.

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.

That's a proper understanding. Nature, God cosmos means the same thing really just semantically argued over. It's A fractured perspective and ultimately its a reductive view that only sees causality. This-observer-that.

It's naturally trinitarianism. It's where to intellect interjects itself between this and that as an independent observer. It tends to inflate itself larger than what is observed which is nonsense. It has no real sense of morphology or symbiosis. Symbiosis wasn't even seen in nature till 1870's. Ironically what exactly is male female ? two literal separates this and that, or maybe a symbiotic singular? Culture is absurd at about that point for me and trees make more sense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think a lot of it has to do with a person's interpretation and perception.

I tried to list the terms so they wont be metaphysical. So, the perception wouldnt be trying to figure out the definitions but whether the terms as define can be used to describe the nature of god(s). If non religious have their own view of god(s) nature, Im curious what idea of it would be.

I am among a lot of christians; but, I noticed when I break apart the experiences of god, the usage is similar with other gods supernatural religions because we are all human. Regardless the language and culture, Im sure there is an idea of god(s) natures would be in relationship with the natural world. It doesnt need to be supernatural.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's a proper understanding. Nature, God cosmos means the same thing really just semantically argued over. It's A fractured perspective and ultimately its a reductive view that only sees causality. This-observer-that.

It's naturally trinitarianism. It's where to intellect interjects itself between this and that as an independent observer. It tends to inflate itself larger than what is observed which is nonsense. It has no real sense of morphology or symbiosis. Symbiosis wasn't even seen in nature till 1870's. Ironically what exactly is male female ? two literal separates this and that, or maybe a symbiotic singular? Culture is absurd at about that point for me and trees make more sense.

I dont understand the last part.

I had a conversation with a hindu and bahai a while back. We tried to tell then bahai that culture, language, and definitions of god(s) are inherit within those three things if not defines god(s) nature. If you take away the culture, god(s) disappears. They cant exist apart from it.

So you feel if we took culture out and use everyday words, could we describe the nature or god, or does an atheist need religious definitions to describe a word not inherited to one religion?

 

[David T]

I dont understand the last part.

I had a conversation with a hindu and bahai a while back. We tried to tell then bahai that culture, language, and definitions of god(s) are inherit within those three things if not defines god(s) nature. If you take away the culture, god(s) disappears. They cant exist apart from it.

So you feel if we took culture out and use everyday words, could we describe the nature or god, or does an atheist need religious definitions to describe a word not inherited to one religion?

Well in pre literate culture god and nature were singular so right now we are using and discussing a single region of the brain self labelled higher functioning. Modern religion expresses disconnection from nature. Here in the United states the spiritual voice of the landscape is Al Gore.

I dont understand the last part.

I had a conversation with a hindu and bahai a while back. We tried to tell then bahai that culture, language, and definitions of god(s) are inherit within those three things if not defines god(s) nature. If you take away the culture, god(s) disappears. They cant exist apart from it.

So you feel if we took culture out and use everyday words, could we describe the nature or god, or does an atheist need religious definitions to describe a word not inherited to one religion?

Well first we are communicating with a particular region of neurology self labelled "higher functioning". So how do we address that region directly? It splits reality out.

We have words with gaps as I write. This medium is fundamental to all metaphysics today. But the problem with writing and.what happens in metaphysics is the medium becomes The message and it no longer is just the messenger.

I have shifted into music because of That phenomena. The medium as the message creates believers, non believers, agnostics. I am not any of those. Each has some.truth and some fallacies, but if we are indoctrinated from childhood the medium is the message then breaking from That is rather difficult.

It's very easy for me to talk to musicians, and artists who are attuned to the landscape. In regards to this medium as an example we discuss the white background so to speak.

In.The ancient.world before this.medium we were only communicating verbally to each other and directly with nature. All very personal familial. Today say christianity or science.It's all dead inert random accidental or magically controlled by a reality outside reality. Both are deeply dehumanized views of nature manifesting up through this medium writing.

I am not saying anything New here. sometimes feel is primary and what we think is secondary. Not unlike learning music. As an artist that makes sense, but to everyone else it makes no sense. So I probably make no sense here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well in pre literate culture god and nature were singular so right now we are using and discussing a single region of the brain self labelled higher functioning. Modern religion expresses disconnection from nature. Here in the United states the spiritual voice of the landscape is Al Gore.



Well first we are communicating with a particular region of neurology self labelled "higher functioning". So how do we address that region directly? It splits reality out.

We have words with gaps as I write. This medium is fundamental to all metaphysics today. But the problem with writing and.what happens in metaphysics is the medium becomes The message and it no longer is just the messenger.

I have shifted into music because of That phenomena. The medium as the message creates believers, non believers, agnostics. I am not any of those. Each has some.truth and some fallacies, but if we are indoctrinated from childhood the medium is the message then breaking from That is rather difficult.

It's very easy for me to talk to musicians, and artists who are attuned to the landscape. In regards to this medium as an example we discuss the white background so to speak.

In.The ancient.world before this.medium we were only communicating verbally to each other and directly with nature. All very personal familial. Today say christianity or science.It's all dead inert random accidental or magically controlled by a reality outside reality. Both are deeply dehumanized views of nature manifesting up through this medium writing.

I am not saying anything New here. sometimes feel is primary and what we think is secondary. Not unlike learning music. As an artist that makes sense, but to everyone else it makes no sense. So I probably make no sense here.

I like this post. Ima come back with a good response at work later. Lets talk about art...thats my thang. I cant figure which I have passion since I have a passion for visual and musical arts.

Anyway, I'd say, if I kept the source and messenger/medium together, as original thought of life in the pre- days, the author would be the poem. A musician to his song. A painter to his finished canvas.

If I kept with the pre- days, I cant seperate the artist from his medium. A believer to his god(s) are like myself and the visual medium I use. Are you saying we should seperate the medium from the artist (whichever medium he chooses)?

You can use music if you like.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

Cosmologists have more questions than answers. If you have a blind spot for QM then many answers they have cannot be be explained, dumbing down is not an option.

How it all functions? Can't go into the quantum so the early universe is out. Once you get past the quantum into the classical im not sure it does function in any coherent fashion or if function is even relevant.

Gravity makes the working chaotic. Nasa had a serious head ache with the 3 body problem when planning for Voyager's flight.

Three-body problem - Wikipedia

Imagine trillions of bodies interacting with each other over billions of years with the added factor of whatever (dark energy) is interacting with the universe to cause accelerating expansion.

 

[David T]

I like this post. Ima come back with a good response at work later. Lets talk about art...thats my thang. I cant figure which I have passion since I have a passion for visual and musical arts.

Anyway, I'd say, if I kept the source and messenger/medium together, as original thought of life in the pre- days, the author would be the poem. A musician to his song. A painter to his finished canvas.

If I kept with the pre- days, I cant seperate the artist from his medium. A believer to his god(s) are like myself and the visual medium I use. Are you saying we should seperate the medium from the artist (whichever medium he chooses)?

You can use music if you like.

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.