[CraigD]

Nutronjon, reading your post in this thread and similar posts in others, I find myself confused when trying to construct a mental image of her beliefs. Though as a rule hypography discussion should address ideas, not their authors and messengers, I can see no relief for my confusion in this area other than to straightforwardly ask, Nutronjon, what are your beliefs concerning God?

Specifically, do you believe in a personal, interceding God? That is, do you believe that God is aware of your individual existence, and that He or His agent might, under certain circumstances, cause fortuitous or un-fortuitous events to befall you or others? (for example, a person is about to walk under a safe accidentally dropped by a mover’s hoist, but is briefly distracted, causing him to be missed)

Do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body? In other words, do you believe in an afterlife?

These questions, and their answers, are of personal belief, and thus require no argument or support. They should not be subjected to a requirement for such. My intention in asking is to further understanding of your posts. I understand that such questions may be considered personal and private, so please feel no requirement to answer them. Understand, though, that failure to provide a simple pair of yes/no answers to the two* specific question I ask above will be viewed by me, and likely by others, as evidence that your intentions are other than to communicate effectively and be understood.

________
* These two questions could be considered three, if you consider “do you believe in a personal, interceding God?” to be the separate questions “do you believe in a persona God?” and “do you believe in an interceding God?”, or four if you consider the question “do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” to be the separate questions “do you believe that, only if you act and/or think in a specific way, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” and “do you believe that, regardless of how you act and/or think, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?”

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Nutronjon, reading your post in this thread and similar posts in others, I find myself confused when trying to construct a mental image of her beliefs. Though as a rule hypography discussion should address ideas, not their authors and messengers, I can see no relief for my confusion in this area other than to straightforwardly ask, Nutronjon, what are your beliefs concerning God?

Specifically, do you believe in a personal, interceding God? That is, do you believe that God is aware of your individual existence, and that He or His agent might, under certain circumstances, cause fortuitous or un-fortuitous events to befall you or others? (for example, a person is about to walk under a safe accidentally dropped by a mover’s hoist, but is briefly distracted, causing him to be missed)

Do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body? In other words, do you believe in an afterlife?

These questions, and their answers, are of personal belief, and thus require no argument or support. They should not be subjected to a requirement for such. My intention in asking is to further understanding of your posts. I understand that such questions may be considered personal and private, so please feel no requirement to answer them. Understand, though, that failure to provide a simple pair of yes/no answers to the two* specific question I ask above will be viewed by me, and likely by others, as evidence that your intentions are other than to communicate effectively and be understood.

________
* These two questions could be considered three, if you consider “do you believe in a personal, interceding God?” to be the separate questions “do you believe in a persona God?” and “do you believe in an interceding God?”, or four if you consider the question “do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” to be the separate questions “do you believe that, only if you act and/or think in a specific way, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” and “do you believe that, regardless of how you act and/or think, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?”

do you believe in a personal, interceding God?[/B

No, I think that should be perfectly clear by now, and I am totally confused about why my position on that is not clear.

, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?

On this I am not sure. I do believe reincarnation is a possibility, but I do not believe we have proof of it. And if reincarnation were a fact, I am still unsure of how that would function. However, if you are asking do I think a diety judges us, absolutely not. I think if we were to discuss consciousness it would be helpful. What is it? Does it have an energy form? How do we explain ESP? What is the collective pool of intelligence? Is this separate from plants reacting to a smell that tells them they are in danger?, or other acts of nature, like an ambeoa dividing. Like the scientist I have linked to, I think there are so many mysteries for us to explore, but we can not explore truths in an environment of intolerance.

Your thoughtfulness in asking those questions, and concern for how I feel about answering the questions is like water following a draught. I am on the verge of being banned, because others are not understanding what I am saying, and I have several penalities, and don't expect to be here long. Thank you very much for asking questions and being considerate.

what are your beliefs concerning God?

Only that we should study nature to know God, not the so called holy books.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Only that we should study nature to know God, not the so called holy books.

And this is how you make yourself sound confusing. In presenting this statement the way that you have it gives the impression that you are claiming the very existence of God as a fact. Is this the case. Do you believe that there is a God or are you simply using the term God as a synonym for nature?

There is no doubt that we should study nature to have a better understanding of it. Why drag a reference to God into it when there is no corroborative evidence to support any correlation between nature and some entity for which there is no evidence?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by C1ay

And this is how you make yourself sound confusing. In presenting this statement the way that you have it gives the impression that you are claiming the very existence of God as a fact. Is this the case. Do you believe that there is a God or are you simply using the term God as a synonym for nature?

There is no doubt that we should study nature to have a better understanding of it. Why drag a reference to God into it when there is no corroborative evidence to support any correlation between nature and some entity for which there is no evidence?

Why examine the water for the cause of what is killing people, when there is no corroborative evidence to support any correlation between the dying people and the water? It is the witches causing all this dying, and we must find them and rid ourselves of them. When we are so sure of what we know, we do not tolerate even thinking of a possibility, we prevent the discovery of truth.

What does this sentence mean?

"The schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural god as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe." Stuart Kauffman.

How is that sentence different saying God is the stuff of universe and forces that organize it? I have said God is an abstract, or the X factor. What is the X factor if not an abstract or a chosen symbol? I have said, only if we consider God is the stuff of the universe, is God anything but an abstract idea, and only then can we use science to study God. There is absolutely no superstition in what I have said, none.

The quotes I used didn't prove a Christian God exist and this has never been my intent. I do not accept the God of Abraham as a real God/deity. I do not hold any superstitious ideas of a God at all. What I set out to prove is several scientist have thought of the universe as God, and I was penalized for this and brought closer to being banned. I don't think there should be a theology forum if what I am saying is not allowed. I think it is wrong to set people up with questions and then penalize them for answering them.

I do think Did God already create a perpetual energy machine? Is an absolutely excellent question to ask, and I wish that is what everyone were discussing here.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I have said, only if we consider God is the stuff of the universe, is God anything but an abstract idea, and only then can we use science to study God. There is absolutely no superstition in what I have said, none.

You are proselytizing Pantheism. If you are a Pantheist then that's fine but you do not need to go on and on and on and on and on and on here trying to make a Pantheist of everyone else. No proselytizing period. If you want to convert people to your belief you need to find your converts elsewhere.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I don't think there should be a theology forum if what I am saying is not allowed. I think it is wrong to set people up with questions and then penalize them for answering them.

Allow me to quote you from a post made yesterday:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

to have a sincere theology thread, there must be acceptence of God. Those in power over this forum will not accept the existence of God, no matter how you express a belief in God. This makes the forum nothing bet a mouse trap for the cats who like to play with mice. If they can not win the arguments, the next step will be to penalize you for preaching, and if that doesn't silence you, you can be banned.

Have you read the Theology forum rules?

Originally Posted by Theology Forum Rules

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to).

Theology Forum Rules

"Preaching the word of god" in this context means that you can not assert that "to have a sincere theology thread, there must be acceptence of God.".

Furthermore, as stated before, some people here have faith in god, but they do not espouse the idea with a 'must accept' attitude. It has already been pointed out how this is offensive to both non-theists and theists of different beliefs as well. Does this make sense?

I do think Did God already create a perpetual energy machine? Is an absolutely excellent question to ask, and I wish that is what everyone were discussing here.

I think the thread might have been a bit more productive if it was phrased more like this: "If god created the universe, is it perpetual?"

It actually has some scientific merit if one considers the theory of big bang cosmology in terms of less than critical mass in the universe, in which case the universe will collapse into a big crunch...only to possibly bang again. Yet, there's no proof for that either...

Anyhow, you are not going to (necessarily) get banned nutron. You may still receive infractions, but that's all up to you.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CraigD

do you believe in a personal, interceding God?

Originally Posted by nutronjon

No, I think that should be perfectly clear by now, and I am totally confused about why my position on that is not clear.

Thank you, nutronjon, for making it clear.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Only that we should study nature to know God, not the so called holy books.

From this and other of your posts, I’m inclined to categorize you simply as a pantheist. This view – pantheism is usually not considered a religious belief system – is one of the most common among scientists. Statements such as Einstein’s famous

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”

is considered by most scholars, and by me, to be an affirmation of pantheism.

Many people who describe themselves as atheists might, under certain circumstances, acquiesce to be termed pantheists. I fall into this group. The main reasons I prefer the label atheist to pantheist are simplicity, avoiding confusion, and, to some extent, as a courtesy to theists. Atheism simply discards the troublesome concept of God as unreal, while pantheism keeps it in a form that few if any traditional religionist would agree should bear the Name. “I don’t believe God exits” is, IMHO, a more courteous position to offer theists than “I believe in God, but not what you mean by God, because your definition is childish and wrong”. I’ve also had some experience with people confusing pantheism with “belief in a religion with a pantheon of gods”.

I consider it critical to recognize the term panentheism, and understand that it is entirely unlike pantheism.

To quote Einstein again,

“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.”

(All Einstein quotes from the skeptically.org webpage Einstein the agnostic)

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Your thoughtfulness in asking those questions, and concern for how I feel about answering the questions is like water following a draught.

Thank you for these words. I’ve long felt the essence of hypography, an key difference between it an many similar, excellent science forums, is its sense of friendliness, and the feeling that all of us members fundamentally like one another. I fear we too often lose touch with this quality, to all of our detriment. (hugs all around)

[ryan2006]

I am glad I had time to leave this site for awile, I had to cool down. During that time I talked with Ben, a theologist student, who mentioned the "Prime-Mover argruement". God is the prime mover in this arguement saying that he puts everything in motion. Although I believe God is the Prime Mover he said some theologists just like to argue that God doesn't move the universe or multiuniverses. What I was saying with the title of this thread is that the universe is 100% efficient which wouldn't you then argue that it is the perfect perpetual energy machine?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by ryan2006

I am glad I had time to leave this site for awile, I had to cool down. During that time I talked with Ben, a theologist student, who mentioned the "Prime-Mover argruement". God is the prime mover in this arguement saying that he puts everything in motion. Although I believe God is the Prime Mover he said some theologists just like to argue that God doesn't move the universe or multiuniverses. What I was saying with the title of this thread is that the universe is 100% efficient which wouldn't you then argue that it is the perfect perpetual energy machine?

Even from that point of view you would have to make a lot of assumptions. Belief in God is a very personal thing but trying to tie God and science together is very difficult. While I subscribe to the theory of the mulitverse I see no reason to tie God into it. I am the opinion that very soon we will see an upset of cosmology every bit as revolutionary as relativity was to the Newtonian version of the universe. But I honestly do not see God as being a part of the new cosmology any more than God is a part of current cosmological theory. This of course doesn't prove or disprove God. Is there any reason you can give to back up your statement that God is the prime mover or is this just belief?

[modest]

Originally Posted by ryan2006

What I was saying with the title of this thread is that the universe is 100% efficient which wouldn't you then argue that it is the perfect perpetual energy machine?

I've noticed a lot of the trouble you've had in your threads stems from this description. What you are saying here appears no different at all from the first law of thermodynamics. Basically that energy is not lost - it is not destroyed. The total energy of the universe remains the same. If you were to rephrase your argument in this way; saying "first law of thermodynamics" or "conservation of energy" rather than "perpetual energy machine" then I believe you would be better understood and have less trouble getting your ideas across.

~modest