1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettContrary, I have defined god as all of existence. Maybe someday you will open your eyes up and 'see' what is all around you, instead of just focusing in on a small detail, missing the whole picture. 😉
The problem with this approach is that you've virtually defined god out of existence. To say that god is synonymous with the universe is basically to say nothing. If that is the case then why use the term "god" at all? Why not just call ...[text shortened]... troduce unnecessary and murky variables like god into the picture?
Mike
<edit> The problem with defining it as just the 'universe' is that there is no spirituality attached to it.
1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4Okay there are two distinct views brought out here they are not
Kelly,
Fascinating, so the Universe was created by God but is not of Gods creative energy. I disagree, since all matter is energy.
I did not say that what I wrote was related to Mithra. I am not of that faith.
I am a pantheist and sough ...[text shortened]... orrect errors of a previous post.
In Love there is Life
Angela
even close to being similar. You said earlier. "Pan = all. Pantheists
believe that the Universe IS GOD" Which I completely disagreed
with, since I said that God created the universe, it is His handy
work, not His being. Now you are saying that because the universe
was created by God's created energy and since all matter is
energy that is the same thing. Well in a word, no. One is something
God did, the other is god, there is a distinction between the two.
Kelly
Originally posted by rapalla7Why isn't there? You can look up at the night sky and be moved by its vastness and experience a sense of wonder. You don't need to call it "god" for that. The natural universe itself is quite capable of instilling a sense of awe without having to introduce some tawdry "god" concept into the picture. By saying god is synonymous with all of existence is to make god completely superfluous. There is no need to retain the term. Just say that the natural universe is capable of instilling a sense of joy and wonder in you and leave it at that.
Contrary, I have defined god as all of existence. Maybe someday you will open your eyes up and 'see' what is all around you, instead of just focusing in on a small detail, missing the whole picture. 😉
Mike
<edit> The problem with defining it as just the 'universe' is that there is no spirituality attached to it.
Originally posted by rwingettRwingett ,
Why isn't there? You can look up at the night sky and be moved by its vastness and experience a sense of wonder. You don't need to call it "god" for that. The natural universe itself is quite capable of instilling a sense of awe without having to introduce some tawdry "god" concept into the picture. By saying god is synonymous with all of existence is ...[text shortened]... atural universe is capable of instilling a sense of joy and wonder in you and leave it at that.
I don’t know why I can’t look at the world with your eyes. I wish that I could. Life would be so much simpler for me; however, I desire the comfort that knowing I am not alone and will just come to an end. I am a spiritual person, as you are; only in a different way. If you choose to call your god science or reason, so be it, I can not argue that because if it makes you feel good, I am glad. I do not have the comfort or the ease of taking the religion that was given to me, I am still seeking. I am more Wiccan than Christian in my beliefs. I follow more in the lines of nature as a religion than anything else. I have said god is all around me, and I look on gods face every day, and I know that there has been one god from the beginning of time; call it what you will. It is very possible that you are seeing the same thing as me, but you deny it or cannot bring yourself to name it.
Mike
Originally posted by rapalla7You should read some Ralph Waldo Emerson, I bet you'd really dig him.
Rwingett ,
I don’t know why I can’t look at the world with your eyes. I wish that I could. Life would be so much simpler for me; however, I desire the comfort that knowing I am not alone and will just come to an end. I am a spiritual person, as you are; only in a different way. If you choose to call your god science or reason, so be it, I can not arg ...[text shortened]... are seeing the same thing as me, but you deny it or cannot bring yourself to name it.
Mike
Originally posted by RagnorakWithout getting into a discussion about god's existence or non-existence...how could a deist not believe in a deity? Wouldn't that make the so-called deist an atheist?
Ok, well I edited my original post, which included 'from a self confessed possible Deist', but I cut that out. Obviously I should have left it in there, but it was an honest question and I wasn't expecting to be picked up on it. I think its fair to say that if you are spreading the beliefs of something, then you probably believe in those beliefs. Anyw ...[text shortened]... .
Can u at least enlighten me as to why Deist's believe the Deity created the universe?
D
Feivel
Originally posted by rwingettI think the problem is that such a conception doesn't provide a basis for believing that one is known by the Universe. There isn't any sense of being special, or loved, by the Divine. The Universe isn't aware, it doesn't care in the least about you. It doesn't allow for any type of personal relationship. That must strike many people as seeming somehow empty. Just speculation on my part.
Why isn't there? You can look up at the night sky and be moved by its vastness and experience a sense of wonder. You don't need to call it "god" for that. The natural universe itself is quite capable of instilling a sense of awe without having to introduce some tawdry "god" concept into the picture. By saying god is synonymous with all of existence is ...[text shortened]... atural universe is capable of instilling a sense of joy and wonder in you and leave it at that.
Originally posted by bbarrDoesn't that make it even more awe-inspiring?
I think the problem is that such a conception doesn't provide a basis for believing that one is known by the Universe. There isn't any sense of being special, or loved, by the Divine. The Universe isn't aware, it doesn't care in the least about you. It doesn't allow for any type of personal relationship. That must strike many people as seeming somehow empty. Just speculation on my part.
Originally posted by bbarrActually, that's essentially how i'd define (Freudian slip--I wrote ''deifine''😉 spirituality, in part.
Perhaps, but it also makes it cold and impersonal. Also, why should we categorize experiences of awe as spiritual? Rwingett seemed to connect the two, but I'm not sure why.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenPerhaps an experience of awe could be a necessary condition for having a spiritual experience, but I doubt it is sufficient. Can't you think of awe-inspiring experiences that wouldn't qualify as spiritual?
Actually, that's essentially how i'd define (Freudian slip--I wrote ''deifine''😉 spirituality, in part.
Originally posted by bbarrNot really, since I haven't got a clear notion of what spiritual means.
Perhaps an experience of awe could be a necessary condition for having a spiritual experience, but I doubt it is sufficient. Can't you think of awe-inspiring experiences that wouldn't qualify as spiritual?
The things I've seen that I'd most likely identify as stimulating spiritual experiences are very clever things, like soap bubbles, rose hips in a strong current and a couple things I've read.
Originally posted by FeivelI don't see how you are getting that inference from my post?
Without getting into a discussion about god's existence or non-existence...how could a deist not believe in a deity? Wouldn't that make the so-called deist an atheist?
Feivel
My question was...
Can u at least enlighten me as to why Deist's believe the Deity created the universe?