[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Southtown

"Remember this, and show yourselves men; bring it again to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not [yet] done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yes, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it." -- Isaiah 46:8-11 web

In other words, wait and see.

That is the trouble with the bible. It is just 'words'.

Look to Nature, it is a lot of pictures. All these material things we have are copies of Natures creatures.
Of course, it did require a lot of study and experimental tests.

Mike C

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Mike C

And whos work is the bible?

And do not equate the biological Nature (BN) with the physical Nature (PN)

The BN can replicate while the PN cannot.

The human 'stem cells' can replicate while the hydrogen atom cannot.

That is because the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy say so.

Besides, we learn 10x+ times as much from Nature than from the bible.
And we copy Natures inventors. Examples:
River dams (beavers), aeroplanes (bird flight), submarines (fish), tanks (turtles, sonar and radar (dolphins and bats) and there are others.

What do we learn from the bible? The animals do not need the bible or the popes to tell them what to do. Does that mean that people are dumber than the animals?

As I said, Nature is the greatest inventor.
Nature is the greatest artist.
Therefore, Nature is our greatest teacher.

The colorful birds, fish and the Natural scenery like the setting and rising Sun plus other things gives you an idea of Natures art.

You can credit the Jews with a couple of inventions from the bible and their 'star of David'.
Their version of the 'holy land' (HL)(REligious ARea, produces the word 'rear) uses their father AbraHAM, to represent the HL.
Abrahams two sons Isaac and Ishmael were his first descendants.
So using the psychology of these names, you have a 'ham sandwich'.
HAM plus Isaac (consumer) and Ishmael completes the sandwich with bread?

FYI, the Middle East is determined to be the holy land because if represents the rear of this 'geographical creature' here on Earth as determined from its position in relation to the Italian peninsula that is shaped as a human leg.
This was done as a copy or reflection from the Moons image that formed the expression 'The Man in the Moon'.
This does require some imagination.
The Egyptians were aware of this as they declared the baboon 'Papio Hammadryas' as a sacred creature.

The image in the Moon is the source of all the religions because it is a link to the female menstral periods. I am sure the females were aware of this first.
They then would be aware of their fertile periods that amount to about 10(?) days out of the 'lunar cycle'..Also, that image on the Moon appears to look more like a 'fetus' rather than a man.
The Jews being chauvinists, use a man (Abraham) as the holy land representative.

The 'star of David' represents the current 'hot dog'. Natural 'sea stars (Star fish(?) are 5 pointed.

So you can credit the Jews as the inventors of the ham sandwich later referred to as a hamburger (using beef) and the hot dog.
So these two fast foods are the primary sources of our meals in the US.

NS

Bad choice, hydrogen was the first element and all others transmuted from it. The elements have the qualities of yin and yang, and the discussion on truth is not closed. Separation is illusion of the wholeness.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

I reckon there are three essential components in any god concept,
1) gods are assumed to control, but are distinct from, one or more natural phenomena
2) gods are assumed to have mainly autonomous volition
3) gods are assumed to be influenceable or controllable by humans.
So, humans hope, in the best case, to be able to control one or more natural phenomena by means of exploiting gods. In other words, gods are assumed intermediaries in attempted acts of magic, where "magic" is as defined by MacGregor-Mathers: "the science of the control of the secret forces of nature".
Thus even a monotheistic concept of god can not be defined as "nature", or even as natural forces, as gods occupy a distinct space that's neither natural entity nor natural force.
It's easy to see this by considering an example, a god of dice, clearly the dice themselves aren't god, neither are considerations of probability god nor the effects of wind or spin or any other element, in the phenomenal world, that might influence the outcome of a throw.

What is the justification for limiting a concept of God to your 3 components, instead of agreing to a scientific understanding of God?

Does anyone have anything to say of the Laws of Nature of which Cicero and Jefferson spoke and what Newton had to do with the acceptence of democracy?

Since Hydrogenbond brought it up- The UFO's were a US cover up of its research of such craft. Germany was the first to develop this research. The UK, USSR and US all competed for German research and the German researchers at the end of WWII. This was the focus of the Manhatten Project. For military reasons, the US wanted to keep the research of the air craft secret and encouraged a belief in UFO's. Personally I don't think this subject belongs in a discussion of Nature as God, any more as talk of unicorns and tooth fairies.

What belongs in a discussion of Nature as God is what we know of nature. By the way, God has made laws. They are called the laws of nature.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

What belongs in a discussion of Nature as God is what we know of nature. By the way, God has made laws. They are called the laws of nature.

How do you suppose god made these laws?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

What is the justification for limiting a concept of God to your 3 components, instead of agreing to a scientific understanding of God?

Does anyone have anything to say of the Laws of Nature of which Cicero and Jefferson spoke and what Newton had to do with the acceptence of democracy?

Since Hydrogenbond brought it up- The UFO's were a US cover up of its research of such craft. Germany was the first to develop this research. The UK, USSR and US all competed for German research and the German researchers at the end of WWII. This was the focus of the Manhatten Project. For military reasons, the US wanted to keep the research of the air craft secret and encouraged a belief in UFO's. Personally I don't think this subject belongs in a discussion of Nature as God, any more as talk of unicorns and tooth fairies.

What belongs in a discussion of Nature as God is what we know of nature. By the way, God has made laws. They are called the laws of nature.

As of yet, science has no tools I know of to use to in anyway understand God, The very concept is outside of the domain of science. If such tools are ever developed I would be the first to promote their use. Philosophy can debate the existence of God but not prove or even offer evidence of God. Do you have any links or other sources to show where your ideas about UFOs come from? Or the Nazi's, Great Britain or the US using UFOs as study material? The Manhattan project was the development of the Atomic bomb not the study of UFOs. Having been very interested in UFOs for more than 45 years I would love to read anything you have on the subject.

[ughaibu]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

God has made laws. They are called the laws of nature.

It's not clear that there are laws of nature. Can you defend your claim?

[Jet2]

Many years (thousands) ago, a Chinese called Lao Tzu defined the Law of Nature (or the order of the Universe) as Tao.

Many years later, Yoda in Stars War stated that it's the Force.

I think Nature as God is just too flat or plain in terms of terminology.
Come up a cooler name dude...

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

As of yet, science has no tools I know of to use to in anyway understand God, The very concept is outside of the domain of science. If such tools are ever developed I would be the first to promote their use. Philosophy can debate the existence of God but not prove or even offer evidence of God. Do you have any links or other sources to show where your ideas about UFOs come from? Or the Nazi's, Great Britain or the US using UFOs as study material? The Manhattan project was the development of the Atomic bomb not the study of UFOs. Having been very interested in UFOs for more than 45 years I would love to read anything you have on the subject.

Yes, what I said about UOF's was accurate and I got the information from-

OPB TV .... Secrets Of The Dead. EPISODE TITLE:. The Hunt For Nazi Scientists ... Ufo's: The Real History.

There is a channel for UFO hunters that might interest you, although I don't think the Secrets of the Dead show is explained at this site: MeeVee - UFO Hunters (TV Show) Videos, TV Listings, News, Gossip, Photos, Boards, Discussions

What is happening to the argument about God? I never said science could study God unless we consider God and nature as the same thing, which we can do. I have spoken only of studying nature, so why are you arguing we can not study God? It is crazy making when people's arguments are coming out of their own heads, rather than out of what I say.

Cicero did not say we could study God. He said we could study nature and from that infer something about God. When we do this, it is abstract thinking, not concrete thinking. Abstract-thought of apart from material objects. Gravity is not a material object, so we study it by studying material objects, and infer from our observations of matter something about gravity. Studying God is like that.

There are important reasons for doing this abstract thinking, that we can never get to, as long people insist on preventing discussion by refuting the whole notion of a God, no matter what. Philosophy can not discuss God, as long as some prevent any discussion of God from moving beyond the point of insisting there is no God. We are discussing this is a theology thread and the discussion can not move past the complete denial of God. I would like to suggest people who have no more to say about God than "God doesn't exist" stay out of the theology forum, because they are blocking discussions without making valuable contributions. I don't think the moderators should be tolerating this distruction of the theology thread, where even here, discussion of God is prevented.

To clarify, Cicero, Jefferson and I are speaking of studying nature, not a God. After studying nature, we can think abstractly about a God, using our study of nature to infer something about a God. When this is understood, people's minds will no longer held in closed boxes that prevent them from seeing outside the box, and that is how human knowledge is progressed. Our knowledge can not be progressed, when our freedom of speech is prevented by those who seem to think they right to prevent discussion of subjects of which they do not approve, and that is exactly what is happening here in the theology thread. Our understanding of God is retarded by those who prevent all discussion of God, with their one argument that God doesn't exist.

Several scientist give their opinion about "Does science make belief in God Obsolete?" at A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete? There is so much to be said, and we are prevented wonderful and stimulating discussions when people think they have a right to prevent everyone from discussing God, because they hold their understanding of God is the only one people are allowed to have. That God doesn't exist, period, end of discussion. Please, those who want to prevent discussion of God should stay out of this forum.

[InfiniteNow]

Why call it god when it's already otherwise and uniquely named? Since it can be called by another name, it is no longer god, it is instead that "other" thing. <thanks ughaibu, whom I tried to paraphrase here from a post he made elsewhere>

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

It's not clear that there are laws of nature. Can you defend your claim?

Hum, I don't think there would be a science forum, nor any sciences, if there were no laws of nature. Where are you coming from to suggest there are no laws of nature, some kind of fantatical religious group that thinks everything happens because a God, or Gods, will it to happen, and that these Gods can do anything they please, whenever they please?

In ancient Athens, the philosophers determined, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to reason. Now we no longer speak of gods but the laws of nature.

As for the argument we should come up with another word, other than God, I will argue, truth is better served if we stick with the word "God". This is because there are several religions and these people war with each other, because they lack agreements about truth. Cicero, held that when we understand the laws of nature, and govern ourselves based on these laws, such conflict will come to an end, and we will have rule by reason. That is what democracy is about. It is not the word we need to change, but our understanding of it.