Originally posted by caissad4What if God is just an entity with the power to control energy wich was already in the universe?
As a Pantheist I can state that we do not believe that some "higher intelligence" created the Universe and then "stepped back". Pan = all. Pantheists believe that the Universe IS GOD. Using your own Christian logic: Before the existence of the Universe there was only GOD, right. Therefore everything which exists is derived from the creative energy of GO ...[text shortened]... nowing, RIGHT.
I would recommend you read up on Mithra. It is very similar to Christianity.😉😉
God cannot be allpowerfull by the way;
If He can find His way home from anywhere in existence, He cannot get lost.
If He can lift everything, He cannot create a stone He cannot lift.
If He is immortal, He cannot die.
If He is mortal, there is something that can kill Him, and He cannot survive that.
Originally posted by bbarrI was trying to make a possible connection, not a necessary one. I was merely trying to accomodate a sense of spirituality in a naturalistic, non-theistic outlook. I guess it all comes down to how you want to define the term "spiritual".
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.
Originally posted by rwingettYou seem to put out the idea that your world 'just' exists and alway's will. Mine is that there is a consious connection between man and the universe. I think that people are either able to see or feel the connection, or refuse to. I do not just see and hear the world around me, I feel it pulsing with energy and life.
I was trying to make a possible connection, not a necessary one. I was merely trying to accomodate a sense of spirituality in a naturalistic, non-theistic outlook. I guess it all comes down to how you want to define the term "spiritual".
Originally posted by RagnorakIf they ascribe no creative abilities to the creator (god) then they do not believe in a deity and are NOT deists. If they do not believe in a deity they are atheists. What is so hard to follow?
I don't see how you are getting that inference from my post?
My question was...
[b]
Can u at least enlighten me as to why Deist's believe the Deity created the universe?
[/b]
Feivel
Originally posted by Feivel
2. Belief that the intelligent designer is outside the universe, and not part of the universe (as in pantheism).
Originally posted by caissad4
Pantheists believe that the Universe IS GOD.
I find this confusing. I've seen a little in the newspaper lately about some scientists claiming to be pantheists. But it seems like a semantic game to create a God from what is known. Pantheism certainly seems like atheism by another name. Saying God is nature seems like the same thing too. What am I missing?
Originally posted by FeivelI'm sorry, you still have completely lost me.
If they ascribe no creative abilities to the creator (god) then they do not believe in a deity and are NOT deists. If they do not believe in a deity they are atheists. What is so hard to follow?
Feivel
Could you please post the question that you think I am asking to get the resonse that I am getting?
I am asking a specific question about Deists, and you are answering me explaining what a non deist is, and what an atheist is.
I'll try again...
Can u at least enlighten me as to why Deist's believe the Deity created the universe?
ah, I see where a problem may be arising.
How about this way of asking the question...
According to popular Deist beliefs, for what purpose did the Deity create the universe?
D
Originally posted by zucchiniMain Entry: pan·the·ism
Originally posted by Feivel
[b]2. Belief that the intelligent designer is outside the universe, and not part of the universe (as in pantheism).
Originally posted by caissad4
Pantheists believe that the Universe IS GOD.
I find this confusing. I've seen a little in the newspaper lately about some scientists claiming to be pan ...[text shortened]... eism by another name. Saying God is nature seems like the same thing too. What am I missing?
[/b]
Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
Originally posted by RagnorakAccording to popular Deist beliefs, for what purpose did the Deity create the universe?
I'm sorry, you still have completely lost me.
Could you please post the question that you think I am asking to get the resonse that I am getting?
I am asking a specific question about Deists, and you are answering me explaining what a non deist is, and what an atheist is.
I'll try again...
[b] Can u at least enlighten me as to why Deist's beli ...[text shortened]... ..
According to popular Deist beliefs, for what purpose did the Deity create the universe?
D
Deism doesn't concern itself with that question. Why is more a question to ask a religion such as christianity.
Feivel
1 edit
Originally posted by rapalla7I simply mean that there is nothing in rwingett's post to suggest that either science or reason is synonomous with "god." Given rwingett's persistent statements about the inefficacy of "god" in explaining his sense of wonder at the universe, I thought the metaphor unfair.
Could you expand on your critisism?
Moreover, I think the metaphor is inaccurate. To equate a reliance on science or reason for acquiring knowledge to accepting either one as a "god" is either totally false or at the very least a gross equivocation on the word "god." I was thinking of this equivocation, when I said "poetic license."
Originally posted by telerionWhat I was telling rwingett is basically, he has the right to believe what he want's and I respect that as I am sure he respect's I also have a right to believe as I do. That is why I addressed it to him and not a gerneral post. I also know what his personal stance is on religion for the most part, and I think he knows what I mean. I can certainly see how you could feel as though I was trying to blurr the lines between religion and science, but that is not the case as I have already stated my position on what I believe. My post was to 'rwingett'.
I simply mean that there is nothing in rwingett's post to suggest that either science or reason is synonomous with "god." Given rwingett's persistent statements about the inefficacy of "god" in explaining his sense of wonder at the universe, I thought the metaphor unfair.
Moreover, I think the metaphor is inaccurate. To equate a reliance on scien ...[text shortened]... the word "god." I was thinking of this equivocation, when I said "poetic license."
Mike
Originally posted by rapalla7Of course the universe is full of energy, otherwise it would be devoid of, well, anything. So, would you agree with any of the following:
You seem to put out the idea that your world 'just' exists and alway's will. Mine is that there is a consious connection between man and the universe. I think that people are either able to see or feel the connection, or refuse to. I do not just see and hear the world around me, I feel it pulsing with energy and life.
- The Universe is intelligent and globally organised by this intelligence.
- Humanity is an essential part of this organisation, and so has 'protected status' in some form.
- There exists a form of 'spiritual energy' which is distinct from physical energy. (Is spiritual energy affected by entropy? Is it conserved?)
- Spiritual energy is essential to life (anything else?). Personality, or at least some aspect of it, consists of this energy and persists after physical death, which represents the separation of the physical and spiritual parts of a person.
Originally posted by FeivelDoes the Deist treat other beings/species the same as mankind?
6. Belief that the Deity imposes no pre-ordained, or divinely inspired moral code of behavior on mankind, but rather expects man to develop his own codes of conduct for living in harmony with his fellow man based on his God-given Reason.
D