Are God and Nature Equal

[nutronjon]

Moderation note: these posts first appeared in the thread 15497. They were moved to a separate thread because they were not related to the original threads main topic.

 

It would be a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal.

CC

 

Sincerely, why is it a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal? By what authority do we separate God from nature? Is my mind separate from my body, or do both die when I die? I have been penalized for saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing force, but can not understand why this is an objectionable hypothesis, nor why someone would make a hypthesis something to penalize? There is a growing movement to accept God and nature as the same thing.

 

Admittedly I don't understand what scientist do with math, but I do know no one sees atomic particles or quarks. All this is done with math, and if this can be done with math, why not a hypthosis of God? What folks are doing with atomic particles, naming a new one with every new discovery, seems exactly what people did in the past, naming a new god with each new discovery. As in the past, people sort a unifying explanation, and came to one God, in the present, people are seeking a unifying explanation. I think that might happen if we stop thinking of God and nature as being separate things. For sure, if we prevent discussion of such a hythopethsis, we close to door to possible truth.

[CraigD]

MySiddhi, either your post is nonsensical, or I don’t understand your notation. …

This is an objective response to the orginal post and I wish all responses were so objective. Then discussion could actually happen, and we could correct or develop our ideas. I very much appreciate your approach to the subject.

Thanks, but please note that my request for clarification shouldn’t be construed as an endorsement of MySiddhi’s post. I have strong suspicions that it is nonsensical, but think it wise to be clear about what is actually being claimed before reaching that conclusion.

 

It would be a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal.

CC

Sincerely, why is it a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal?

In the absence of a precise definition of “God” and “nature”, I don’t believe the truth of the statement “God and nature are equal” can be established. Such limitations due to the lack of precise definitions are endemic in philosophy discussion, and a large reason, IMHO, for the “fundamental maxims of philosophy”:

Seldom affirm

Never deny

Always distinguish

In an everyday, informal context, as discussed in the post and the posts preceeding “Pantheism”, the statement is a plain expression of pantheism (from the wikipedia article):

Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Pantheism is a venerable and historied idea that one’s unwise, I think, to dismiss as simply “false”.

 

I have been penalized for saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing force, but can not understand why this is an objectionable hypothesis, nor why someone would make a hypthesis something to penalize?

This is, I think, a very important question, not just as it pertains to nutronjon, but to many members who have received warning and infractions, and been puzzled as to why.

 

In principle, every claim made at hypography (other than widely accepted ones, eg: 2+2=4) should be backed up. A sound scientific hypothesis must make experimentally testable predictions. Support (or, equally valid, refutation) for a hypothesis consists of data from experiments, compared to its predictions. The lack of such data – which is common – doesn’t prohibit the hypothesis being stated, only requires that its untested status be noted.

 

A problem arises when a member presents a claim as a hypothesis, without presenting any testable predictions of it. Claims such as “God is the stuff of the universe” appears to be such a claim, because no one making the claim has suggested how one might go about experimentally showing it true or false.

 

Worse are insinuations that experiments have been performed and support a claim, when they have not, or have, but did not support the claim. I don’t think this is the case for recent pantheist claims, but such insinuations are common with claims involving poorly defined terms. Often the person making such a claim is not the originator of the insinuation, but is merely repeating it. The rule that claims be backed up, even when you are confident evidence supporting them exists, serves to stop this chain of misinformation, and benefits us all (even if it doesn’t feel that way to a member on the receiving end of a “making/refusal to defend unsupported claim” infraction :)).

 

As I stress in the first part of this post, this doesn’t mean we should dismiss proposition that fall short of the standards of scientific hypotheses as unacceptable for discussion. However, we must be careful to always note their status as beliefs, or views. That Albert Einstein was a scientist and a pantheist, does not make pantheism a scientific hypothesis.

[nutronjon]

MySiddhi - you are no more special than anyone else on this forum. I know that for a fact.

 

If you are fortunate enough to be blessed with a larger than average brain, try not to wallow in the superiority of your own intelligence.

 

Try to refrain from calling God 'he', it'll create many negative associations, and if you do honestly think you have been chosen for some kind of higher purpose, then I wouldn't mention it here as you will simply be perceived as a lunatic.

 

There was a time when people commonly believed they had a God given purpose in life. It is unfortunate this is no longer true.

[Buffy]

Buffy stop the power struggle. Look at all those words, and none say anything about why we can not hold God and nature are one and the same thing. Your reasoning for disliking me, is not the reasoning needed for explaining why we can not consider God and nature as the same thing, and if we do consider God and nature as the same thing, then what has to be proven?

Its not a power struggle! Honest!

 

The issue is that you have the opinion that God and Nature are the same thing. I agree with that (albeit in a moderately different form), thus I *actually agree* with you, as much as you would seem to prefer that I not! :cheer:

 

You ask "what has to be proven?" Well, you've said yourself that it cannot be proven within a scientific context, so I ask the question "why prove it at all" (especially as you're about to see, attempts at that seem to go nowhere)?

 

Why is it so difficult to simply accept that "God as Nature" is your opinion? Why is it so important to you to insist that others be forced to share that opinion, especially when you've granted that its not provable?

 

Me and my arrow, :phones:

Buffy

[C1ay]

Sincerely, why is it a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal? By what authority do we separate God from nature?

 

Because there is no evidence to support it. There is no physical evidence that any God by any of the many ambiguous definitions exists in reality. As such it is one thing to acknowledge that such a God may exist and another to declare that it does exist. Without supporting evidence that is observable, testable and repeatable it is an errant premise that God does exist or that nature is God. For Pantheists there is such a belief that God is nature but they must realize that it is only a belief and beliefs in and of themselves are not proof that they are facts. In the interest of science, man's method of acquiring knowledge, they must realize that the pursuit of real knowledge must happen regardless of belief, in spite of belief, if it is to be a true pursuit of true knowledge.

[nutronjon]

Thanks, but please note that my request for clarification shouldn’t be construed as an endorsement of MySiddhi’s post. I have strong suspicions that it is nonsensical, but think it wise to be clear about what is actually being claimed before reaching that conclusion.

 

In the absence of a precise definition of “God” and “nature”, I don’t believe the truth of the statement “God and nature are equal” can be established. Such limitations due to the lack of precise definitions are endemic in philosophy discussion, and a large reason, IMHO, for the “fundamental maxims of philosophy”:

Seldom affirm

Never deny

Always distinguish

In an everyday, informal context, as discussed in the post and the posts preceeding “Pantheism”, the statement is a plain expression of pantheism (from the wikipedia article):

Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Pantheism is a venerable and historied idea that one’s unwise, I think, to dismiss as simply “false”.

 

This is, I think, a very important question, not just as it pertains to nutronjon, but to many members who have received warning and infractions, and been puzzled as to why.

 

In principle, every claim made at hypography (other than widely accepted ones, eg: 2+2=4) should be backed up. A sound scientific hypothesis must make experimentally testable predictions. Support (or, equally valid, refutation) for a hypothesis consists of data from experiments, compared to its predictions. The lack of such data – which is common – doesn’t prohibit the hypothesis being stated, only requires that its untested status be noted.

 

A problem arises when a member presents a claim as a hypothesis, without presenting any testable predictions of it. Claims such as “God is the stuff of the universe” appears to be such a claim, because no one making the claim has suggested how one might go about experimentally showing it true or false.

 

Worse are insinuations that experiments have been performed and support a claim, when they have not, or have, but did not support the claim. I don’t think this is the case for recent pantheist claims, but such insinuations are common with claims involving poorly defined terms. Often the person making such a claim is not the originator of the insinuation, but is merely repeating it. The rule that claims be backed up, even when you are confident evidence supporting them exists, serves to stop this chain of misinformation, and benefits us all (even if it doesn’t feel that way to a member on the receiving end of a “making/refusal to defend unsupported claim” infraction :)).

 

As I stress in the first part of this post, this doesn’t mean we should dismiss proposition that fall short of the standards of scientific hypotheses as unacceptable for discussion. However, we must be careful to always note their status as beliefs, or views. That Albert Einstein was a scientist and a pantheist, does not make pantheism a scientific hypothesis.

 

Let me make this very clear. CraigD, it was not my intention to imply that you agree with MySiddhi’s post. I think it is clear that you don't. But instead of attacking him, you made a logical reply that was on subject. You have handled the disagreement as it should be handled. Not everyone is handling the disagreements as well as you, and I want to call everyone's attention to your good example.

 

"Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. " Pantheism is a venerable and historied idea that one’s unwise, I think, to dismiss as simply “false”.

 

I am not sure what you have said. Have you said pantheism might have merit?

 

The divide of eastern and western logic is problematic to our understanding of what each other are saying. I think the west has become far too materialistic. Awhile back I said we should talk of consciousness, and then I got to thinking- the air is full of verbal concepts, pieces of consciousness, only we need radios or TV's or computers to recieve them. That is wierd. It makes the question of what is consciousness an interesting question doesn't it? What is a thought, and what is a thought wave, and how is it we can use our thought waves to operate our computers? This is a science, but it is not exactly the study of matter.

 

As for your last statement Criag, perhaps science should not be so separate from philosophy? Science explores the unknown, and sometimes makes the unknown knowable. It is not limited to the known, and if it were, it would be no better than the church of old. Remember when no one believed it was unseen things that made people sick and caused disease and people were tortured and burned as witches. These terrible acts were committed by men who thought they were being very scientific. They had books and spent much time learning the scientific method for identifying witches.

 

At Hollywood High school, above the door to the science building, is written "science is truth". This is a terrible belief! Men of science of have been wrong. They don't know an unquestionable truth. They have beliefs based on the best information, but they are beliefs, not absolute truths.

 

Now what happens to the belief of God it we say, "God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it"? What happens to science if we say that?

[nutronjon]

Because there is no evidence to support it. There is no physical evidence that any God by any of the many ambiguous definitions exists in reality. As such it is one thing to acknowledge that such a God may exist and another to declare that it does exist. Without supporting evidence that is observable, testable and repeatable it is an errant premise that God does exist or that nature is God. For Pantheists there is such a belief that God is nature but they must realize that it is only a belief and beliefs in and of themselves are not proof that they are facts. In the interest of science, man's method of acquiring knowledge, they must realize that the pursuit of real knowledge must happen regardless of belief, in spite of belief, if it is to be a true pursuit of true knowledge.

 

Change your definition of God, because the universe can be considered the physical evidence of God. If it is or is not God, depends on how God is defined.

[C1ay]

Now what happens to the belief of God it we say, "God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it"? What happens to science if we say that?

 

Nothing and nothing. The part you seem to have difficulty understanding is that there is nothing wrong with you personally believing these things, only in your expectation for others to believe as you do. Why do you have so little respect for the beliefs of others that you think it is OK for you to go on and on and on proselytizing that everyone should just believe as you do, regardless of their own beliefs, and everything will be OK?

[coldcreation]

 

 

 

 

It would be a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal.

CC

 

Sincerely, why is it a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal? The nature of God is nature.

 

 

By definition, a state of divinity is very different from the patterns of behavior observed in the environment, or what is deduced from experience.

 

That is your definition

 

In the absence of a precise definition of “God” and “nature”, I don’t believe the truth of the statement “God and nature are equal” can be established. Such limitations due to the lack of precise definitions are endemic in philosophy discussion, and a large reason, IMHO, for the “fundamental maxims of philosophy”:...

 

 

Good point GraigD. Both the words 'god' and 'nature' are ambiguous from the start, at least as expressed by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I should have used the words supernatural and physical.

 

So the sentence should read: It would be a false statement to claim that the supernatural and physical are equal.

 

 

Here are some definitions, far less open to interpretation than 'god' and 'nature':

 

_________________________________________________

 

Source: supernatural - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

supernatural:

 

1:*of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :*of or relating to God or a god' date=' demigod, spirit, or devil.

2 a:*departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b:*attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).[/quote']

 

_____________________________________________

 

Source: physical - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

physical:

 

1 a:*of or relating to natural science b (1):*of or relating to physics (2):*characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2 a:*having material existence :*perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight' date=' motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey> [/quote']

 

______________________________________________

 

 

If anyone disagrees with the relation 'god-supernatural' then the burden of proof is on him/her/them to show that god is related or attached to the physical world.

 

 

Simply saying "The nature of God is nature" or "God equals nature" means nothing.

 

This is a fallacy (in addition to being related to false dilemma, Catch-22 (logic), and circular reasoning: its really saying God is equal to God) called false analogy, consisting of an error in the content of the analogy itself.

 

 

The following is an example of a false analogy:

 

The universe is like an intricate watch.

A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.

Therefore' date=' the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator.[/i']

 

While the universe may be like a watch in that it is intricate, this does not in itself justify the assumption that watches and the universe have similar origins. For this reason, most scientists and philosophers do not accept the analogy, known as the argument from design, with this one specifically known as The Watchmaker Analogy.

 

By changing a term, the fallacy becomes apparent:

 

The universe is like an intricate watch.

Many early watches were designed by locksmiths.

Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith.

 

 

Though, by vague definition, 'god' and 'nature' may be similar in one respect (such as everywhere present) they do not both share the fundamental property of relating to physics, of having material existence, or of being perceptible through the senses (though a telescope, microscope or even normal vision glasses).

 

 

 

CC

[nutronjon]

Nothing and nothing. The part you seem to have difficulty understanding is that there is nothing wrong with you personally believing these things, only in your expectation for others to believe as you do. Why do you have so little respect for the beliefs of others that you think it is OK for you to go on and on and on proselytizing that everyone should just believe as you do, regardless of their own beliefs, and everything will be OK?

 

The importance of seeing God and nature as the same thing is political. It means testing what we believe to be true scientifically, instead of arguing this is what the bible says, this what the Koran says, this is what the book means, and so on. It is our best protection against theocracy and superstition and down right foolishness. Jefferson, Franklin and Adams are perhaps the best known founding fathers who argued for this.

Like Locke, Adams believed that since God created the laws of the universe, the scientific study of nature would help us understand His mind and conform to His wishes.

This is a little to Christian influence for me. I perfer the pre-Christian thinking of Cicero, but was told I can no longer link to Cicero to support what I am saying. Christianity humanized God, and when this is done we get a God who rules by whim, depending on if He is pleased or displeased, Cicero's concept of God is not like this. With Cicero, what happens is the consequence of the motion, and nothing can change the result, except another action that changes the direction/effect of the motion. In a democracy, our laws are suppose to be based on this principle of cause and effect based on our understanding of the Laws and Nature and Nature's God.

 

Maybe it works better to say, our lives are the collective result of experience, God is the collective result of atomic particles and forces, and not exactly the creator of them. The problem we bump into is dehumanizing our concept of God. Not until we get to humans is anything human. Before this is the laws of universe, and we can only learn them and use this knowledge for our benefit. We can not change them with worship, wishing, burning candles, etc., because nothing happens by the whim of a God. God is not a supernatural human. God is the stuff of the universe, according to this point of view, that God is nature.

[nutronjon]

Good point GraigD. Both the words 'god' and 'nature' are ambiguous from the start, at least as expressed by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I should have used the words supernatural and physical.

 

So the sentence should read: It would be a false statement to claim that the supernatural and physical are equal.

 

 

Here are some definitions, far less open to interpretation than 'god' and 'nature':

 

_________________________________________________

 

Source: supernatural - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

 

 

_____________________________________________

 

Source: physical - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

 

 

______________________________________________

 

 

If anyone disagrees with the relation 'god-supernatural' then the burden of proof is on him/her/them to show that god is related or attached to the physical world.

 

 

Simply saying "The nature of God is nature" or "God equals nature" means nothing.

 

This is a fallacy (in addition to being related to false dilemma, Catch-22 (logic), and circular reasoning: its really saying God is equal to God) called false analogy, consisting of an error in the content of the analogy itself.

 

 

 

 

 

Though, by vague definition, 'god' and 'nature' may be similar in one respect (such as everywhere present) they do not both share the fundamental property of relating to physics, of having material existence, or of being perceptible through the senses (though a telescope, microscope or even normal vision glasses).

 

:hihi:

 

 

CC

 

 

Why not? This is my whole argument. Why do we have to agree that God is not the fundamental property of physics, having material existence?

[nutronjon]

I think we can think of the Big Bang as "the primal fire".

 

 

Stoicism [internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

All things being material, what is the original kind of matter, or stuff, out of which the world is made? The Stoics turned to Heraclitus for an answer. Fire logos) is the primordial kind of being, and all things are composed of fire. With this materialism the Stoics combined pantheism. The primal fire is God. God is related to the world exactly as the soul to the body. The human soul is likewise fire, and comes from the divine fire. It permeates and penetrates the entire body, and, in order that its interpenetration might be regarded as complete, the Stoics denied the impenetrability of matter. Just as the soul-fire permeates the whole body, so God, the primal fire, pervades the entire world.

[C1ay]

God is the stuff of the universe, according to this point of view, that God is nature.

 

Again, you are advocating pantheism and showing no respect for the beliefs of others. Can you not see this?

[CraigD]

"Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. " Pantheism is a venerable and historied idea that one’s unwise, I think, to dismiss as simply “false”.

I am not sure what you have said. Have you said pantheism might have merit?

Certainly I assert that pantheism - and even many other views and belief systems less compatible with science – have merit. Even religious interpretations of the world now viewed by a majority of a given community as reprehensible - for example, Mormonism, which professes scientifically unsupported racists policies (eg, see Mormon racism in perspective) - can be shown to have merit, in that the contribution of individuals and communities to society can be show to be improved by them.

 

Specifically, pantheism is a view very compatible with a rational, scientifically materialistic worldview, as evidenced by the prominent scientists such as Einstein that have openly subscribed to pantheism.

 

It’s very important, however, to precisely defined the view I’ll here term “pure pantheism” (which previously and hereafter I’ll refer to by the single term “pantheism”), and distinguish it from related views, such as panentheism. As I interpret it, pantheism arises from the recognition that our minds – the entirely physical properties and processes that result in us thinking and communicating our thoughts with one another – work best when we maintain a degree of emotional arousal correlated to certain subjects, such as scientific theories describing fundamental physical interactions and their large-scale statistical properties. We are, IMHO, neurologically constituted in a way that lends itself to beneficial emotions such as sense of awe and humility in the face of nature, emotions traditionally considered within the domain of religion and mysticism. Pantheism provides a worldview that allows us to experience this – to feel a motivating and rewarding sense of emotional ecstasy around often rigorous and bewildering concepts – without the requirement to accept on faith any proposition unsupportable by scientifically materialistic means.

 

In contrast, panentheism is the belief that “the substance of God” permeates physical reality, causing it to interact as it is observed to. It is entirely as superstitious as the belief that the world as assembled from formless matter and life and order “breathed into” it by a supreme creator or inferior demiurge. Although panentheism is not, IMHO, inherently incompatible with a scientific worldview, every scientific hypothesis based upon it has, to the best of my knowledge, either not yet been tested, or been demonstrated false. Well known recent panentheistic theories include Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic field, a radical alternative to practically all theories of physics. Regrettably, rather than admitting the failure of the theoretical predictions of this and other theories to be experimentally confirmed, many proponents falsely claim that they have been. When this occurs, such theories cease to be scientific, and become what is commonly termed pseudoscience.

 

IMHO, pantheism is a very useful component of a scientifically-minded person’s personal belief system, while panentheism is not. Understanding the precise definitions and distinctions between these two concepts is of less but similar importance than understanding, say, the precise definitions and distinctions of the scientific concepts of force and energy.

 

:hihi: I’m concerned, neutronjon, that you may not adequately understand the definitions and either of the above two pairs of concepts. I suspect you either already do or could quickly understand pantheism, panentheism, and related terms, but would need to put greater effort into understanding basic physics. Despite the effort involved, I believe such an undertaking would be of great benefit to you personally, and to your contributions to hypography.

[CraigD]

Simply saying "The nature of God is nature" or "God equals nature" means nothing.

I agree.

 

Sayings such as these may emblemize to the pantheistic view I described above, in a sense similar to how the statement “science rocks!” emblemize more complicated explanations of how science is personal and social beneficial. In the best case, these short, memorable statements serve as reminders – mnemonic devices – for the more complicated ideas they emblemize. In the worst case, they lead to unintended misinterpretations, confusion, and pseudoscience.