7
   

relationship between GOD,MAN and NATURE

 
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 04:53 am
Please could anyone help me out with the relationships between God, man and nature?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 2,926 • Replies: 38

 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 05:17 am
@wizzyrainy,
nature produced man and man made up gods.
Youre welcome
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 05:43 am
@wizzyrainy,
Not really. Such a connection, if there is one, is your own personal discovery.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 07:41 pm
@farmerman,
Man made up cars also...they bave purpose...do you believe in purpusless things ? Had it ocurred you that who mades up what is irrelevant for the fact it exists and its true ? The car is very real, and so is the essence of "God"...the car mades up the man just the same...


...you are a very practical very down to Earth type of intelligence...I am on the opposite side...
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 07:07 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The car is very real, and so is the essence of "God"

I see no such thing. Can you prove that? Of course not.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 07:47 am
@Ragman,
We probably talking about very distinct things...
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 08:04 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Can you possibly be more vague?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 08:09 am
@Ragman,
I suppose not. You right it was intentional.
I don't like to elaborate much when it comes to Metaphysics, nor should anyone.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 08:13 am
Let me throw you a bone...

A reality without creators ore actual causers of any kind past present and future is a good way of thinking about the unity of "God"...Einstein got it !
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 08:41 am
At the risk of being tedious, as I was saying:
Quote:
Such a connection, if there is one, is your own personal discovery.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 08:51 am
@Ragman,
Its no more true about "God" then its true about cars...some things are just more trivial then others...

Whatever sort of order there is to reality such order establishes how the impression of causation and rules can be perceived.

Nonetheless the whole of reality, past present and future, it is ONE !

...let me again provide you with my personal quibble with Farmerman wording.
He used the coinage "made". I am saying things are out of time frames of reference. The whole is one !
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 09:13 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I acknowledge your differentiation of those points.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 10:29 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
"cars" were an invention combined from a carriage and a farm implement.
Gods seem to have grown (lots of evidence in hitory and archeology to support this) out of mere awe to the development of complex mythopoeic cladistics and catechisms ostensibly with a purpose to establish some kind of moral code based on multiple promises of what will happen at the end of ones life.

I think the evidence that "tracks" the "manufacture and maturation" of gods is pretty good. Those who deny the evidence yet default to a code of behavior based upon the evolved myths will never be worth arguing with IMHO. They NEED some divine "chain of command" under which to live.

The ten commandments as a code of ethics is a great plan, but why not just say its part of natural law? not dependant upon some myhthic mumbo jumbo?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 11:00 am
@farmerman,
You are quibbling about the minimum common denominator about a classical "God" that I do not endorse to. That doesn't mean I don't have a point.

"Natural Law" is excellent obscure coinage trade off for "God". I don't distinguish them. Such Law or Laws are Eternal. Again the order of order is what it is.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 11:36 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:

"Natural Law" is excellent obscure coinage trade off for "God"
If god means where the preponderance of evidence leads you. Seems that is quite the opposite in the path of mythopoeia.

"the Good" can alo be substituted , or "man at his best".

Quote:
Again the order of order is what it is.
Or, "it is what it is"

If Im quibb;ling, you seem to wanna be occupying all fronts. Are you related to Frank?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 11:48 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:

"Natural Law" is excellent obscure coinage trade off for "God"
If god means where the preponderance of evidence leads you. Seems that is quite the opposite in the path of mythopoeia.

"the Good" can alo be substituted , or "man at his best".

Quote:
Again the order of order is what it is.
Or, "it is what it is"

If Im quibb;ling, you seem to wanna be occupying all fronts. Are you related to Frank?


First of I don't do mythopoeia when I coin "God" for ultimate reality any more then you do with "Natural Law"....not that you notice it.

As for "Good" drop "men at its best" (to many words) and replace for "functional" which is far more scientific. Functional, apt, is good, dysfunctional, or broken, is bad. Also forget "agents" and agency...as a scientist you ought to believe in cause and effect therefore you cannot believe in free willing agents if you are properly informed...

Yes to say that "it is what it is", or "is the order of order", is a very humble very scientific start to refer to existence at large without particularizing relative functional concepts. If doing such thing relates me with Frank then I am glad. Perhaps his stance is not sufficiently appreciated...it certainly seems factual that in spite of he repeating it ad nausea is not enough for some of you to get it...

(I am still envious of your summer trip... Wink)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 01:40 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
men at its best" (to many words) and replace for "functional"
. I was merely using a well known philosopher's terminology for"the good" .

OY, you fail to unerstand the mas of evidence that allows the conclusions that
1we made-up the conceptual "god"

2 life proceeds at a pace that today involves humanities mistakes than a god's involvement. I therefore can only assume that this descended back to the lives of the past as well.

3There is absolutely no falsifiable evidence of the existence of deities. There IS a huge amount of falsifiable evidence to the contrary

Frank enjoys straddling and trying to sound like an intellectual--Hes basically a nut who will, if we give him enough attention, go totally postal eventually.

I just hope it happens soon so he will depart and maybe some folks he chased away will return.

eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 02:10 pm
@farmerman,
I'm no believer in Gods or that the universe revolves around us.

But you go back to the singularity, big bang, what came before that.
Even if we live in a matrix and we're a computer simulation, somebody had to turn on the computer.
If the universe is a living thing, what birthed it?.

So forget gods and the religious crutch some need , it still leaves the question what started everything.
Does there not have to be a creator, starter?.
You could keep going back, what created our reality and then what created our creators reality.

I think I'll go listen to some music.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 02:28 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
Its circular there is no first cause, no start. Motion is also apparent not real. Spacetime is what you really have but you perceive reality as a movie in motion. Big Bang Big Crunch is now out of fashion or disproved since the Universe is said to be sort of "flat" but any good cosmology theory that wants to have wheels and last around will have to find a circular explanation, a loop on how our reality actually works. Such reality as a whole is timeless and there is nothing beyond it or behind it, it comprehends time itself within. As there is nothing to nothingness, nothing is no thing at all then you left with just a timeless everything.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 02:37 pm
@farmerman,
I don't believe in "invention" human or above human or whatever sort of creationism. For us, within time, all is discovery ! There is no creation in that which is eternal. Build a line which is not curved nor straight and you will convince me you have invented new geometry, go on...you see we edit stuff we invent nothing...

My concept of "GOD", was well explained before and has nothing to do with agency or mind. I have no part on the pathetic Judaic Christian mythology or any other similar bull. My "GOD" can be resumed in one single word: UNITY.
Reality is a timeless whole. Simple if you don't care to complicate it.
As for Frank he is stubborn like hell and repeats a lot of stuff all fair n true but don't think for a minute you are that different. You just have more techno babble to spit up. I like techno babble make no mistake...but when it comes to serious adults talk I know how to distinguish what is what...200 years of science have a lot to catch up with the best of 5000 years of Philosophy. (Please discount 90% of the idiots that dwell in philosophy, its a hard discipline, unlike science which any methodical dumb ass can do)
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » relationship between GOD,MAN and NATURE
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 05:08:58