[nutronjon]

Some Greek philosophers determined, reason, is the controlling force of the universe. What do you think that thought means?

[Turtle]

I think this is the very crux of the deism the Founders of the United States embraced and which stirred them to the great experiment on democracy in a republic. This controlling force, that is reason, is represented on the Great Seal of the United States as the All Seeing Eye, or Eye of Providence and is the implied actor in the phrase Annuit Cœptis.

The Founders particular takes on the nature of reason is recorded in a lifetime of their letters & deeds.

[nutronjon]

The people of Athens were unique. They did not invent math, but learned it from the Eygptians and possibly India, however, it was the Greek Pythagoras who gets credit for the therom named after him, because of his more scientific treatment of this information.

Athens was the mother of western civilization, father of the sciences and parents of democracy. These people had a special relationship with "reason". They saw themselves made in the image of the Gods, because they had this power of reason, and with this vision of man as capable of reasoning, they set out to ask the impossible questions and attempt to answer them. They also determined, because humans are capable of reason, they can govern themselves with reason, that is democracy.

Reason is not possible without words. "Logos is both the word by which the inner thought is expressed and the inner thought. In Greek philosophy, reason, is thought of as constituting the controlling force of the universe and as being manifested by speech." (from an old Webster dictionary).

In saying, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, reason is both an abstract thought, and a reality. That is, we have an abstract concept of gravity, and gravity is a force we can expereince, but it is not matter. We should not confuse the word gravity for gravity, nor the word God for God. God is a concept, like time is a concept. Within the concept of God is, reason, as the controlling force of the universe. Now to work with this concept of God, we must study nature, and then we can infer something about God. There is nothing supernatural about this God, because this concept of God is known, only through the study of nature.

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Some Greek philosophers determined, reason, is the controlling force of the universe. What do you think that thought means?

I don’t think that this reason or logic that Aristotle was so fond of is all too different from the scientific method today. I don’t think Aristotle would think it too different.

Logically objects move and combine and interact in order to follow the laws of physics. In Platonic language the laws of physics and chemistry would be the forms. As he says, the forms are the causes of everything else. The physical world that we see is a manifestation of those forms. This is clearly the beginning of the description of a scientific model. I think Plato would very much love to have seen how we’ve started to find and describe the perfect forms he spoke of.

Not only do modern scientific models look so much like Plato’s forms - we find them following Aristotle’s logic - now better known as the scientific method. To me it seems like they were starting to describe something that we have only recently (last couple hundred years) continued to build on.

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

That is, we have an abstract concept of gravity, and gravity is a force we can expereince, but it is not matter. We should not confuse the word gravity for gravity, nor the word God for God. God is a concept, like time is a concept.

Actually, time is measurable. God is not, by definition.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Within the concept of God is, reason, as the controlling force of the universe.

You are simply asserting some artitrary label that offers NOTHING to our understanding. We already have words to describe nature and reason (we call them "nature" and "reason"). Adding some unnecessary label like "god" only obfuscates the issue.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Now to work with this concept of God, we must study nature, and then we can infer something about God.

I think I may have mentioned this to you before in another thread about this "nature as god" concept of yours, but I'll say it here (either again or for the first time).

The blaring problem in all of this is that you assert a priori that god exists and is definable by nature. You have begun with an unproven premise, and then you go on to search for ways to "measure" and "study" the results of that unproven premise.

My challenge to your approach takes this back a few steps and looks at it from a grander level.

Prove the validity of your premise FIRST, then search for ways to measure it.

Until then, you may as well be asserting that a purple unicorn shat the universe into existence, and that you are now searching for purple feathers in the clouds of Zimbabwe in an attempt to connect with your creator.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

There is nothing supernatural about this God, because this concept of God is known, only through the study of nature.

Hey look, there goes one of those "opinions" again, a personal assertion assumed to be true with zero supporting evidence. You really need to quit with that, eh?


To the title of this thread, forces are studied in physics, and for any of them to be "controlling" implies that there is a "controller." I reject your premise on it's face, and disregard the assertion as unsupported opinion.

We already study nature, and we already study reason. The onus is on you to convince others that there is any benefit in adding on top of these existing studies and discussions the label of "god."

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think this is the very crux of the deism the Founders of the United States embraced and which stirred them to the great experiment on democracy in a republic. This controlling force, that is reason, is represented on the Great Seal of the United States as the All Seeing Eye, or Eye of Providence and is the implied actor in the phrase Annuit Cœptis.

The Founders particular takes on the nature of reason is recorded in a lifetime of their letters & deeds.

Wow, if you had popped into my previous efforts to get God accepted as an abstract concept, that we can explore by studying nature, several of the things I have said, and done, to make my point, may have been a whole lot different. The "thought police" thread would not have been created, in objection to those who prevent discussion of God, by stopping such discussion at, God doesn't exist, period, and won't let a discussion progress beyond this point.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Wow, if you had popped into my previous efforts to get God accepted as an abstract concept, that we can explore by studying nature, several of the things I have said, and done, to make my point, may have been a whole lot different. The "thought police" thread would not have been created, in objection to those who prevent discussion of God, by stopping such discussion at, God doesn't exist, period, and won't let a discussion progress beyond this point.

This is an outright lie, nutron. I challenge you to show any example where you were not allowed to continue in a discussion of your perception of god. And your continual accusation of "thought police" in these threads is also very inflammatory and unwarranted. You have refused to demonstrate any example of that either.

What you fail to understand is that it is you who have attemted to control both the information and the tone of discussions by constantly complaining about the fact that people here, including moderators, have questioned, challenged, or simply rejected your assertions. What you obviously fail to understand is that that is the nature of debate. Your expectation of receiving validation for your personal religious beliefs here in these science fora are the true source of your dissatisfaction with the discussion.

I suggest you take a serious look in the mirror and see if you can detect a shread of humility.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Wow, if you had popped into my previous efforts to get God accepted as an abstract concept, that we can explore by studying nature, several of the things I have said, and done, to make my point, may have been a whole lot different. The "thought police" thread would not have been created, in objection to those who prevent discussion of God, by stopping such discussion at, God doesn't exist, period, and won't let a discussion progress beyond this point.

It is a sad reflection on posting in general, in my opinion, that given the leisure to respond in a civil manner, some still choose to use insults and name-calling to counter a view they do not hold. Who ya gonna call?

As to the god concept and reason, I get the sense you mean to say the religious concept of god has usurped the reason concept of god, and that it is desirable to reset the reason concept to the fore. While I hold reason to a preeminent position, I don't much care to characterize it as god because in my opinion this implies worship and worship is an unreasonable excess. Everything in moderation.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Turtle

It is a sad reflection on posting in general, in my opinion, that given the leisure to respond in a civil manner, some still choose to use insults and name-calling to counter a view they do not hold. Who ya gonna call?

As to the god concept and reason, I get the sense you mean to say the religious concept of god has usurped the reason concept of god, and that it is desirable to reset the reason concept to the fore. While I hold reason to a preeminent position, I don't much care to characterize it as god because in my opinion this implies worship and worship is an unreasonable excess. Everything in moderation.

Now some post in this thread are an absolute delight, and I am avoiding the ones that will probably make me feel like shit, so I can enjoy discussion with those who are willing to talk about what I have been trying to talk about.

You are exactly correct. For political and social reasons, at home and internataionally, it is very important re-establish the reasoning for democracy. For sure that is not something we can spread with guns, and by refusing to talk with national leaders, or any other power plays. One of our biggest concerns is the Muslim countries and they have a scientific tradition from the very beginning of Islam. But as happened in Christian countries, the ignorant and supersitition became dominate, and upsurged reason. If we take back God and the our rightful positions as moral authority, that would be a huge victory that could make a huge difference around the world. Considering we can no long avoid each other, I think we need to move in that direction as rapidly as possible.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

I don’t think that this reason or logic that Aristotle was so fond of is all too different from the scientific method today. I don’t think Aristotle would think it too different.

Logically objects move and combine and interact in order to follow the laws of physics. In Platonic language the laws of physics and chemistry would be the forms. As he says, the forms are the causes of everything else. The physical world that we see is a manifestation of those forms. This is clearly the beginning of the description of a scientific model. I think Plato would very much love to have seen how we’ve started to find and describe the perfect forms he spoke of.

Not only do modern scientific models look so much like Plato’s forms - we find them following Aristotle’s logic - now better known as the scientific method. To me it seems like they were starting to describe something that we have only recently (last couple hundred years) continued to build on.

-modest

Thank you Modest. What a relief to read an informed post. Actually I think you know more about Aristotle and Plato than I do. I have had a problem with Plato. I am not conformable with the notion that there is perfection in another realm. Perhaps I am just not understanding Plato correctly? I am concerned that Plato's ideas got Christianity off in a supernatural direction that is unpleasant. Not Plato alone, but all the combined ideas, include Egyptian of a judging god/goddess and after life.

On the other hand, Pythagoras and sacrid numbers, which I believe go with Plato's perfect forms, and Aristotlian, logic give us something to chew on. I do not have a good grasp of these ideas, and therefore, I want to study them with others, and see if there are any gems we should keep.

The idealism of Plato resolved itself into a futile struggle involving a dualism between matter and thought.

I am not sure if this is futile struggle? In the Nature as God thread I posted a Hindu Consciousness link and may be that should come here? As you know, the Stoics were materialistic, and what we are learning of neutrinos makes the Stoic point of view worthy of consideration.

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....

But in spite of this materialism, the Stoics declared that God is absolute reason. This is not a return to idealism, and does not imply the incorporeality of God. For reason, like all else, is material. It means simply that the divine fire is a rational element. Since God is reason, it follows that the world is governed by reason, and this means two things. It means, firstly, that there is purpose in the world, and therefore, order, harmony, beauty, and design. Secondly, since reason is law as opposed to the lawless, it means that universe is subject to the absolute sway of law, is governed by the rigorous necessity of cause and effect. Hence the individual is not free. There can be no true freedom of the will in a world governed by necessity. We may, without harm, say that we choose to do this or that, and that our acts are voluntary. But such phrases merely mean that we assent to what we do. What we do is none the less governed by causes, and therefore by necessity.

How is that last statement? I have argued against predetermination in the past, but the way this above arguement is worded, makes sense to me. It is the conditions of our time that set our concepts. Not many of us are comparing the concepts of our times with the concepts of the past, and seeking truth or wisdom. To do so, of course, is what gives us liberty. That is a much broader pool of knowledge on which to base our choices, and as Jefferson understood the pursuit of happiness, it is by expanding our minds with the study of the classics, and the writings of well informed scientist, philosophers and peers that we pursue happiness and enjoy liberty.

The quotes are from Stoicism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]