Missed this one . . .
Very, very unlikely from the fallible human perspective since literally hundreds of different belief systems make the claim of only One Truth theirs, and they are very variable, conflicting and contradictory.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the universal God or no God?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Missed this one . . .
Very, very unlikely from the fallible human perspective since literally hundreds of different belief systems make the claim of only One Truth theirs, and they are very variable, conflicting and contradictory.
To remind you this is a comparative religion thread and not a debate who is right. I am basically contrasting the Theist versus the Atheist position and did not intend to debate all possible belief systems of many variations of the belief in God(s). I did not limit the thread to only my two opinions in a comparative manner.
In summary though, despite the flowery words that believers describe the natural world they consider God, or a hidden God, they see not interaction of this God and our world as with Theism. I also believe you overstated Einstein's beliefs with one citation. If you compare all his references and citation of his views is he uses metaphorical language, but it has no meaning other than simply Einstein's view of nature, not a Theist, Deist nor Pantheist God. At best Einstein was agnostic, and unconcerned about God(s). The description in Deism is that God Created and walked away with no interaction with Creation. Pantheism is not much different with our physical existence described simply as a natural God that is not God. I call these views atheism in fancy dresses, because despite all these flowery descriptive verbiage of physical existence that has no particular difference than no God.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes you did - this is what you actually said in the OP...
...and you then went on to point out that this (Baha'i Faith view) consists of explaining religious diversity over the ages as the combined product of progressive revelation and advancing human understanding...which apparently leads you to the conclusion that there is just theism (of the Baha'i variety of course) and atheism and anything that does fall neatly into either category is therefore...
I know this is not a debate, but from a comparative religion point of view I completely disagree with your analysis of deism and pantheism - they are, as far as I can tell, if we compare them honestly, neither atheism nor theism. They are, despite your continued insistence, third and fourth (at least) rational and logical ways of "explaining the evidence" that we observe in the evolving nature of human religions - Deism which agrees with your cultural development part but not the revelation part and pantheism which also denies the divine revelation part because there is no personal deity to do the revealing. There may be lots more that I haven't thought of. And for sure there are many more theistic religions who do not subscribe to the same idea of progressive revelation. There are a couple of smaller religions that seem to believe that their scriptures have not been divinely updated for a very long time - you may have heard of them: they are called Christianity and Islam. Together they account for about half of the world's population.
I disagree that Deism and Pantheism make any attempt to "explain the evidence," because there is no evidence used to explain these optional world views.
Pantheism offers no "explanation of the evidence" other than Methodological Naturalism itself.
The God of Deism is not remotely involved with the reality of our physical existence nor the evolving nature of human religions. with no explanation of any relationship no matter how our physical existence is described as a God(?). Remember the Deist God is not involved beyond Creation, The default here is for an explanation remains Methodological Naturalism as with Pantheism. This is also true of the Gaia model except that our physical existence becomes a Goddess, or possibly the involvement of a Deist Goddess. .
siti
Well-Known Member
Wow! Really! OK that's that then!
You did not respond to the complete post. What other physical objective evidence other than Methodological Naturalism would Deism and Pantheism appeal to?
siti
Well-Known Member
What physical objective evidence does any religious worldview appeal to?
But that wasn't the question you were attempting to answer anyway, the question you were attempting to answer in the OP is essentially why do religious worldviews change and evolve over time.
Deism certainly has an answer for that - it is because humans invent religious ideas to explain what they don't understand clearly and these are adopted and adapted by priests and prophets as a means of controlling the societies in which they are held in high esteem. In the Deist view, religions - especially of the revealed variety - change all the time because they are wrong - either mistaken or made up. God did indeed create the universe and any evidence we want to find of God is to be found through a scientific examination of His Creation. God does not reveal himself selectively or partially to one person/group or another and does not intervene in the natural function of the universe.
I suppose individual pantheists differ on the subject, but I guess some hold that the various religions are (at least partly) in touch with the greater reality of "the whole" each in their own different ways, whilst others would probably say that any religion is mistaken if it claims that god in any way transcends the universe.
Both have quite logical and rational explanations for the diversity of religious beliefs. In any case, both also have quite logical and rational explanations for the existence of the universe and deism has a very logical and rational explanation for the apparent lack of evidence of God within the universe - as far as the Deist is concerned, he simply isn't within the universe - in any manner - except to the extent that His "intelligent design" can be discerned from the manner in which we observe the universe to function. As far as the pantheist is concerned, God simply is the universe and has been in existence exactly as long as the universe - there is no question of one being the explanation for the other. There is no less objective scientific evidence for that idea any more than there is for the idea of a transcendent theistic deity - i.e. none for either.
If you are insisting on only objective scientific evidence then the only credible options are deism and atheism. Theism doesn't get anywhere.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
How many models for the universe have we fallible humans come up with so far? Does this mean there is no truth? Most of us in the 21st C conclude an intelligent agent of some sort, & like modern cosmological models, there is bound to be some disagreement on details- that's okay
Science makes no claim for Truth as the religions like your belief in particular. There have been models for the universe and our physical existence in the past that have been found wanting discarded and sometimes modified and tested again, and new models are proposed and tested over time. Unfortunately you have failed to understand the high school level understanding of how Methodological Naturalism and the progress of the knowledge changes over time, since you are living in an ancient paradigm of Newtonian physics, and Biblical mythology hoping beyond hope that Intelligent Design has a basis in science..
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
We agree entirely Dragon, but unfortunately not all scientists agree with us.
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...Dawkins
Like most faithful, I acknowledge my faith in my beliefs as such, I make no claim of fact
How about you?
Once again, if you have any substantive points you can try to make without the ad hominem, I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
The universe is set up so that each person's truth is Truth. No, this is not moral relativism.
Each person's reality is absolute, and at least partially wrong to another person, meaning to adopt a wishy-washy "all beliefs are equal" stance is nonsense. An atheist should accept their truth as absolute truth and be fully prepared to back up their worldview. Same for any other religion.
Reality is subjective absolutist, not objective, and not relative.
Each person's reality is absolute, and at least partially wrong to another person, meaning to adopt a wishy-washy "all beliefs are equal" stance is nonsense. An atheist should accept their truth as absolute truth and be fully prepared to back up their worldview. Same for any other religion.
Reality is subjective absolutist, not objective, and not relative.
I am not sure we agree to the extent you claim.
Science is not based on the editorial commentary of one scientist. The only significant disagreement here I have with Dawkins is the questionable use of 'fact.' The science of Dawkins is sound, but I do not agree with his philosophy and opinions.
You need to differentiate the science of evolution and the models and theories involved with the origins of the universe and the ultimate nature of our physical existence.. The cosmology of origins has many many more unanswered questions than the science of evolution. The science of evolution is more directly dependent on physical evidence, and will unlikely significantly change, and the present direction is the discovery of more and more species, and the genetics of evolution. The science of origins in cosmology is at present heavily dependent math models, and indirect evidence.
'Facts' are best understood as individual pieces of objective verifiable evidence and not a general description of science nor religious claims, The problem arises from claims of 'Truth.' Science makes not such claims. It is religious belief systems that make claims of 'Truth.'
My beliefs center around two concepts: (1) The reliability of the evolving changing nature of scientific knowledge based on Methodological Naturalism. (2) The relative nature of evolving spiritual knowledge religious belief subject to the fallible nature of human belief, and the subjective nature of human belief. Though different I believe there is a consistent evolving spirit in religions over time. Claims of 'Truth' are an over statement of the limits of fallible humans.
Last edited:
ChanaR
Member
I agree that God exists, but our human perception is limited.
There are animals who have a less developed sense of vision than we have. Some animals only have primitive cells that sense light/dark. I believe our sense of the divine is highly primitive like that. We get a "blurry picture" so to speak. What happens then? A lot of it becomes as much inkblot interpretation as it is real and valid sensing. This is why we have differing, even contradicting, views of the Divine.
It would be a big mistake to throw away our attempts to perceive simply because we understand our perceptions are primitive and blurry. And God is, after, an infinite being. No matter how evolved our senses of the Divine became, how could finite beings ever fathom him?
There are animals who have a less developed sense of vision than we have. Some animals only have primitive cells that sense light/dark. I believe our sense of the divine is highly primitive like that. We get a "blurry picture" so to speak. What happens then? A lot of it becomes as much inkblot interpretation as it is real and valid sensing. This is why we have differing, even contradicting, views of the Divine.
It would be a big mistake to throw away our attempts to perceive simply because we understand our perceptions are primitive and blurry. And God is, after, an infinite being. No matter how evolved our senses of the Divine became, how could finite beings ever fathom him?
Finite beings could not fathom, define, nor comprehend God to the degree some ancient religions claim like many churches in Christianity. At best we can perceive the attributes of God through the nature of our natural existence, and Revelation.