-->
@janesix
But not responsible for the creation of our universe?
Earth and Moon Geometry
Posts
Total:
58
-->
@janesix
Most def. is a possibility. I agree.
Intelligent design has a process. Creationism is something random's will. ID would implicate everything was pieced together and evolved to get to this point. Creationism would implicate a wave of a wand and poof. Also, ID doesn't have to be just one entity, it could be more than one working to create which i like to have to possibility in the mix. It's mainly that ID is a process that each atom was intelligently directed and put together to make a larger creation. It's like finding the material, putting the computer together, making the computer stronger, then having complex video games vs. i thought of a game and poof here it is.
Wait a minute, why is creationism not a process? who defined it as not being one? I believe in both creationism and the process of creation...they go hand in hand. ID and creationism are compatible.
Creation IS a process, from point A to point B.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I am not sure if the universe was created. I think the solar system probably was.
I don't know if God is the creator.
I am not sure if the universe was created. I think the solar system probably was.
So...you would lean towards a materialistic process?
I don't know if God is the creator.
Wouldn't that what be what God does? if God was not the originator of existence what does that qualify God as? or does it qualify as "God"?
-->
@EtrnlVw
So...you would lean towards a materialistic process?
I lean towards a being I call the Universe, who I think is part of the fabric of the universe itself.
Wouldn't that what be what God does? if God was not the originator of existence what does that qualify God as? or does it qualify as "God"?
The normal idea of God is the Creator. I don't have the normal idea of God.
-->
@janesix
I lean towards a being I call the Universe, who I think is part of the fabric of the universe itself.
But why not panENtheism? meaning that God is not just the universe but just before it.....what put the universe in motion from a conscious reality? Can you give me a reason to think God is JUST the universe and not the Creator of it?
The normal idea of God is the Creator. I don't have the normal idea of God.
Give me an example then, so I know what abnormal looks like.
-->
@janesix
Panentheism-
is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed pantheism of Baruch Spinoza.[1] Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.
-->
@EtrnlVw
But why not panENtheism? meaning that God is not just the universe but just before it.....what put the universe in motion from a conscious reality? Can you give me a reason to think God is JUST the universe and not the Creator of it?
Give me an example then, so I know what abnormal looks like.
I think that the universe may be a natural phenomenon. God is our moral authority, and the Universe created the solar system so conscious entities would have a place to grow spiritually. God and the Universe are both parts of the natural functioning o the universe,and we are a part of that.
-->
@janesix
I think that the universe may be a natural phenomenon.
So you do take a materialist worldview of the universe?
God is our moral authority
Not if there was a materialistic process of the universe. There would be no moral authority.
and the Universe created the solar system so conscious entities would have a place to grow spiritually. God and the Universe are both parts of the natural functioning o the universe,and we are a part of that.
How did the universe create our solar system by itself and all that is within it? and why would it have any preference for conscious entities for them to grow? rather the universe shows evidence that is was created for conscious entities, not the other way around, if first was a mindless universe conscious entities would be irrelevant . If God were a natural function of the universe it would be the universe then that would hold authority correct?
-->
@EtrnlVw
So you do take a materialist worldview of the universe?
I take a naturalistic view.
Not if there was a materialistic process of the universe. There would be no moral authority.
Why not?
How did the universe create our solar system by itself and all that is within it? and why would it have any preference for conscious entities for them to grow? rather the universe shows evidence that is was created for conscious entities, not the other way around, if first was a mindless universe conscious entities would be irrelevant . If God were a natural function of the universe it would be the universe that is God, correct?
I didn't say the universe was mindless. I said the opposite. The universal mind is the Universe/God. And that would include all the minds in the universe.
-->
@janesix
I take a naturalistic view.
Correct me if I am wrong, both naturalism and materialism both have the same meanings? in essence they both deny that an event or object has a supernatural significance.....
Naturalism-
a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.
Materialism-
is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
Not if there was a materialistic process of the universe. There would be no moral authority.
Why not?
Read the definitions.
How did the universe create our solar system by itself and all that is within it? and why would it have any preference for conscious entities for them to grow? rather the universe shows evidence that is was created for conscious entities, not the other way around, if first was a mindless universe conscious entities would be irrelevant . If God were a natural function of the universe it would be the universe that is God, correct?
I didn't say the universe was mindless. I said the opposite. The universal mind is the Universe/God. And that would include all the minds in the universe.
So now you believe in the universal mind? the universal mind was before creation, the universe. It represents what I have been proposing, not you. It addresses the underlying cause of all being including the universe.
UNIVERSAL MIND-
"is a concept that tries to address the underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe. It includes the being and becoming that occurred in the universe prior to the arising of the concept of "Mind", a term that more appropriately refers to the organic, human, aspect of universal consciousness."
Those interactions have occurred, do occur, and continue to occur. Universal consciousness is the source, ground, basis, that underlies those interactions and the awareness and knowledge they imply."
However, even before the projection of the universal mind is pure awareness (consciousness), as a mind is useless without an observer, because the mind is not an entity. Again, the universe is not the originator, the Creator is.
-->
@janesix
I am not surprised you don't see design. That would disrupt your worldview. You need to hold on to that at all cost.
I fully intend to hold on to my honesty, integrity, rationale and reason. It's unfortunate you have thrown that all away a such a little cost.
And rather than thinking, you would prefer to believe that some obscure geometrical "square/circle" ratio is a sign of design, where in a universe ruled by the laws of nature, no such other "design" has revealed itself. That's called one gigantic leap of faith with no sense of follow from one to other.
Obscure geometric shape = Designed Planetary System
Funny stuff.
We all do, we have no choice, we are all forced to share exactly the same physical reality, anything else is fantasy.So you do take a materialist worldview of the universe?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Again, the universe is not the originator, the Creator is.
why do you think that?
-->
@janesix
why do you think that?
Not just me, but the proposition you supplied.
Universal mind or universal consciousness- "is a concept that tries to address the underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe. It includes the being and becoming that occurred in the universe prior to the arising of the concept of "Mind", a term that more appropriately refers to the organic, human, aspect of universal consciousness. It addresses inorganic being and becoming and the interactions that occur in that process without specific reference to the physical and chemical laws that try to describe those interactions. Those interactions have occurred, do occur, and continue to occur. Universal consciousness is the source, ground, basis, that underlies those interactions and the awareness and knowledge they imply."
I believe the above for many reasons and we've been discussing it for years. One reason included is the superior understanding and observation of consciousness and soul as well as the universal mind. I don't buy into materialism and naturalism, it makes no sense. To me, a universal consciousness fits better with our experience, answers why the universe exists and why things act with a purpose in creation.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Tell me about your experiences with God.
-->
@janesix
As of right now, they are irrelevant to this particular discussion and I feel will add no value. My experiences are rangy, and apply to different things and various methods. Reason being, is because you have five layers that cover the soul that you can observe through, four layers beyond that of the physical layer. So, when dealing with experiences of God or God Itself, we're talking about the actual soul layer, which is beyond space and time, beyond the mind and the five layers. This takes place at a pure conscious layer of what we can experience.
-->
@janesix
You mean the appearance of design. The appearance of design when you compare it to what?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can you give me a reason to think God is JUST the universe and not the Creator of it?
Can you give a reason that your god created the universe?
Yes, you are wrong. They don't deny, they explain. It is your beliefs in the supernatural that deny reality.Correct me if I am wrong, both naturalism and materialism both have the same meanings? in essence they both deny that an event or object has a supernatural significance.....
How did the universe create our solar system by itself and all that is within it?
That's just a question from ignorance and personal incredulity.
UNIVERSAL MIND-"is a concept that tries to address the underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe.
If you had noticed from the wiki page you lifted that, it states it as a "Fringe Theory" which means it has little to do with reality and is mostly some bizarre notion created in someone's head. It's not a definition that constitutes what's real.
-->
@disgusted
The accretion model.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Correct me if I am wrong, both naturalism and materialism both have the same meanings?
They are very close, but not exactly the same. The difference is that naturalism does not assert that non-material things do not exist, only that they have no effect on the physical world. Materialism asserts non-material things do not exist. If you are a materialist, you are also a naturalist, but the converse is not necessarily true.
-->
@janesix
Where have you observed that?
-->
@disgusted
Where have I observed what?
-->
@janesix
Where have I observed what?
The accretion model.
11 days later
-->
@Stronn
Thank you Stronn, I was hinging my response on " naturalism- a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance". Or..."the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."
In this case, what would be the alternative to naturalism as defined above out of curiosity?
-->
@EtrnlVw
The converse of naturalism would be supernaturalism, which asserts that non-material things have an effect on the physical world.