Non-religious and the nature of god

[LuisDantas]

Hi @Unveiled Artist . I have a hard time understanding much of what you say, therefore I fear I can't answer to all of your post.

It's a useless word when applied to certain religions, I guess.

Very nearly all, at least when they put a lot of importance in the idea. For the Abrahamics it is actually detrimental. It brings a lot of confusion and misguidance for no discernible benefit.

In general, god could mean anything from object of worship, creator,

Or it can mean "honored ancestor", or "maker of miracles". Or something else entirely.

or just plain what sustains life in and of itself.

That meaning is proposed as well, and it is fairly popular in some circles. But it is also terribly arbitrary as well as vague. I would not describe it as plain, but rather as eccentric. It is not even clear whether or why there would be anything to sustain life.

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.

If you believe in that model, that is your privilege. Me, I don't find it very relatable to reality as it shows itself to be. It pretty much implies an Abrahamic-like deity that has learned modesty. Which is probably as close to the God of Abraham as we are likely to fail to disprove, I suppose... but what would the point be even then?

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.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you failed on that goal. This definition of energy is very much metaphysical and falls way short of being compatible with all religions, let alone all worldviews.

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/

As an attempt to understand your premises, please allow me a question or two. Hypothetically, what would happen if energy was not made go? If this factor that you describe did not exist but energy itself did?

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.

To me at least your model seems to include premises such as that energy is guided by some form of cosmic will.

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.

And quite a lot that is not supernatural as well.

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.

Personally, I have concluded that it is a self-defeating exercise, and that at their very best use deities are not supposed to exist, but rather to inspire constructive mindsets.

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

A fairly big part of the dictionary, if we are going to be rigorous about that.

The definition of energy I gave above.

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

No, that is not nearly always true. I don't think it applies at all for cargo cults or for Jainism or Shinto, for instance.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you.

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.

True. It took a bit to translate the psychological and physiological definitions of what people call god beyond cultural and typical understandings. For example, some view god as a creator. I dont believe in a creator and I understand how they came to that conclusion. In hinduism and neopaganism just using the words without implying how they use it, deal with energy of some sort.

Each define and use it differently. The latter to interact within (rather than with) god. Energy, such as auras like my brother sees and such as denseness of the air when deceased people are present are not supernatural but highly depends on the relationship between that said deceased person and the empathy level of the person experiencing it. (Personal experience) Some call it god, others do not. It can be explained.

Some neopagans do say they work with energy when they do magic. They acknowledge its not illusions like making pencils fly. Its totally psychological.

That-is what I mean by how would you describe the nature of god. Above, I did so with just basic human psychology and physiology. There are cultural definitions that define (rather than describe attributes) of the nature of the gods.

Another way to materially define the nature of the gods is looking at neurotheology.

It is a nice topic to look into if no one flips out over word gods.

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.

I used gods because god holds a lot of abrahamic issues that are not the point of the thread (explanation above). The things that move/is energy to form things from one thing and another, Id define as what people collectively call god. Whether god creates (as a person), god is a thing (in some pagan beiefs), god is a spirit for lack of better words within all (as in eastern faiths), whether its a force, consciousness, concept, etc it can be described.

I would love to go deeper in these explanations if people didnt flip out over the word god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi @Unveiled Artist . I have a hard time understanding much of what you say, therefore I fear I can't answer to all of your post.




Very nearly all, at least when they put a lot of importance in the idea. For the Abrahamics it is actually detrimental. It brings a lot of confusion and misguidance for no discernible benefit.




Or it can mean "honored ancestor", or "maker of miracles". Or something else entirely.



That meaning is proposed as well, and it is fairly popular in some circles. But it is also terribly arbitrary as well as vague. I would not describe it as plain, but rather as eccentric. It is not even clear whether or why there would be anything to sustain life.



If you believe in that model, that is your privilege. Me, I don't find it very relatable to reality as it shows itself to be. It pretty much implies an Abrahamic-like deity that has learned modesty. Which is probably as close to the God of Abraham as we are likely to fail to disprove, I suppose... but what would the point be even then?



Sorry, but it seems to me that you failed on that goal. This definition of energy is very much metaphysical and falls way short of being compatible with all religions, let alone all worldviews.



As an attempt to understand your premises, please allow me a question or two. Hypothetically, what would happen if energy was not made go? If this factor that you describe did not exist but energy itself did?



To me at least your model seems to include premises such as that energy is guided by some form of cosmic will.


And quite a lot that is not supernatural as well.



Personally, I have concluded that it is a self-defeating exercise, and that at their very best use deities are not supposed to exist, but rather to inspire constructive mindsets.


A fairly big part of the dictionary, if we are going to be rigorous about that.




No, that is not nearly always true. I don't think it applies at all for cargo cults or for Jainism or Shinto, for instance.

Thank you. Ima come back to this. #42 tries to explain it better. Im not good with keeping it short. As for being a god-question, its trying to study neotheology. I looked it up online but it kept going to some concept of the abrahamic god.

Its an idea from this book



It goes into detail and dumbs down why we believe in gods in a less bias (until the last few chapters) understanding of neurotheology. Its not applied well to eastern views. I think eastern views are more on the nose when working with energy to explain god. Those that fall into god-religions not specifically christianity, islam, and jews only, would fall under the study described in this book.

I mentioned this years ago. People are fickled over the word god. I never had that experience. I wished I could speak to someone about neurotheology and how we define the nature of gods (via as the book does) and go deeper without depending definitions people hear from their former god experiences and so forth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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....

God is a sort of conceptual bridge between gods and none, probably conceptually originating in a rebellion against old kings and their religions. These days it seems to have been co-opted as a god and frequently reduced to just another god that people ask for things and that gets used to explain tragedy. Sorry I know you asked for non theists but since I had a question for David t anyway I may as well comment.

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

This got my attention. I would be interested if you made some posts about it in a seperate thread. Please.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is a sort of conceptual bridge between gods and none, probably conceptually originating in a rebellion against old kings and their religions. These days it seems to have been co-opted as a god and frequently reduced to just another god that people ask for things and that gets used to explain tragedy. Sorry I know you asked for non theists but since I had a question for David t anyway I may as well comment.

This got my attention. I would be interested if you made some posts about it in a seperate thread. Please.

To tell you honestly, I think theists can explain it a bit better than nontheists. I met christians who are open to discuss versions of god in relation to other definitions outside their own. Rare but its possible. Thanks.

 

[David T]

God is a sort of conceptual bridge between gods and none, probably conceptually originating in a rebellion against old kings and their religions. These days it seems to have been co-opted as a god and frequently reduced to just another god that people ask for things and that gets used to explain tragedy. Sorry I know you asked for non theists but since I had a question for David t anyway I may as well comment.

This got my attention. I would be interested if you made some posts about it in a seperate thread. Please.

Are you asking me to drag out the bible for a bit of bible study here? Why that's like talking to a pack of squirrels about quantum mechanics!!!

The problem I have found is the text acts as a Rorschach and the text itself is aware of that. It's aware of its own camouflage. The question raised about say the resurrection is Mary Magdalene insane? Are they all insane? Is the cultural foundation book written by lunatics? If I gaged it by culture I would emphatically say yes. But I know better. But my gosh the simple liars paradox in The doubting Thomas narrative isn't understood so I have no idea how an RF post could possibly be but just a whole bunch of confusion.

I think It's a great dialog topic walking out in.The wilderness, but here it fractures along with most discussions into semantic dialects and thus debates. My degree is theology. It's completely worthless in application.to the bible but a great psych tool to observe the intellect theologically engage the text, and A great over view of the evolutionary development of the intellect over the last couple of thousand years.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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?

No matter what you believe, you pretty much have to have some understanding that at some level things "just are." Whether in your philosophy that is the level at which "God" exists, or whether that is the base level of function or the "laws" of the universe. There has to be a level you get down to at which there is no further explanation needed... it "just is." This is especially true in a universe where you position God as the creator, actually, because you're likely going to want to say that God is the "end" of deeper levels... it doesn't get any deeper. Otherwise, you have to "pass the buck" on to something else, and ask other questions - like "where does God get His energy?" or "who created God?" So, I believe that at a certain point, things are the way they are, and there is no need for an explanation.

A pretty good example (at least to our current knowledge) is gravity. We can (and should) continue to keep our eyes out for a "reason" or "source" for gravity, but it may very well be that the function of gravity in the universe simply "is." No need to explain, no need to make excuses for why it's there.

In the end... in order for there to be a "universe" at all to be perceived, there have to be attributes of its existence that are immutable. If you can just continue to delve further in, finding more and more facets and reasons, more and more drivers and purposes, infinitely, then you are truly looking at a situation that provides you nothing but more questions, infinitely, and if everything were open to change or modification at any time, I would think our experience would be a lot less stable than what we see now.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No matter what you believe, you pretty much have to have some understanding that at some level things "just are." Whether in your philosophy that is the level at which "God" exists, or whether that is the base level of function or the "laws" of the universe. There has to be a level you get down to at which there is no further explanation needed... it "just is." This is especially true in a universe where you position God as the creator, actually, because you're likely going to want to say that God is the "end" of deeper levels... it doesn't get any deeper. Otherwise, you have to "pass the buck" on to something else, and ask other questions - like "where does God get His energy?" or "who created God?" So, I believe that at a certain point, things are the way they are, and there is no need for an explanation.

A pretty good example (at least to our current knowledge) is gravity. We can (and should) continue to keep our eyes out for a "reason" or "source" for gravity, but it may very well be that the function of gravity in the universe simply "is." No need to explain, no need to make excuses for why it's there.

In the end... in order for there to be a "universe" at all to be perceived, there have to be attributes of its existence that are immutable. If you can just continue to delve further in, finding more and more facets and reasons, more and more drivers and purposes, infinitely, then you are truly looking at a situation that provides you nothing but more questions, infinitely, and if everything were open to change or modification at any time, I would think our experience would be a lot less stable than what we see now.

Its not a question for personal understanding. There is energy that makes up the universe. Given the many def. I feel energy sums it especially in eastern and neopagan religions. Inner meaning is irrelevant.

Ill come back to this

 

[david-david]

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?

Definition of physics
: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions
: the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system: the physical properties and composition of something

Definition of PHYSICS

of course with creation there has to be a process.. with every created thing, even societies and buildings, there needs to be a process.

hunting and gathering 'tribes/clans/families/groups, etc' had a process to their daily living.

trade and barter has a process. capitalism has a process. Central banking has a process. Plumbing has a process. Electricity has a process. Refrigeration has a process.

Pregnancy has a process. Child bearing has a process.. Child rearing has a process...

How is child rearing a 'created' thing? The child would not be able to survive if not daily, newly, 'created' by being given food and shelter and protection by his or her parents. And each new day the child receives 'things' in which he or she is using in creating for themselves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Definition of physics
: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions
: the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system: the physical properties and composition of something

Definition of PHYSICS

of course with creation there has to be a process.. with every created thing, even societies and buildings, there needs to be a process.

hunting and gathering 'tribes/clans/families/groups, etc' had a process to their daily living.

trade and barter has a process. capitalism has a process. Central banking has a process. Plumbing has a process. Electricity has a process. Refrigeration has a process.

Pregnancy has a process. Child bearing has a process.. Child rearing has a process...

How is child rearing a 'created' thing? The child would not be able to survive if not daily, newly, 'created' by being given food and shelter and protection by his or her parents. And each new day the child receives 'things' in which he or she is using in creating for themselves.

Im not famaliar with physics. To me, I'd say the nature of the gods is energy. The vital characteristics that help grow and sustain life in all living plants and beings. The gods are defined in some consciousness (awareness). When we direct our energy through meditation we can be one in god. Some see the gods as creators. Energy helps form life and sustain it until decay. Some believe the gods are forces. So, the heart and auras you get from living, and some inanimate objects are distance ones body and heat

Thats how I define the gods in simple explanation in science.

Im not familar with physics. If you are an atheist, how would you describe the nature of the gods?

 

[Willamena]

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.

Indeed. I am a monotheist atheist ("God" is the "only god" that I deny). Gods that are symbolic of part of the world are fine. The world exists.

People like to think of their "mind" as something that exists independently (not dissimilarly to how some think "God" exists), and we identify our "self" (everything that makes us "us") with the mind. Our whole civilization is practically built around the idea. The imagined "self" is built into, and emerges out of, our language, our society, our politics, our familial relations--practically everything we think of as "human" and "us" ("me") is in place to support the idea of an autonomous "mind" capable of interacting with (rather than being) the world.