Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

God has proved himself via two signs:

1- creating life, beings and objects in the world

2- his words to human

Ah yes, the words. Those who consider speech as "proof" are who pay con men's utility bills.

There's one born every minute.

[Mans]

Well, at present, we just pay attention to the No.1 that expresses, God has proved himself through the nature and creatures.

[Jklint]

Well, at present, we just pay attention to the No.1 that expresses, God has proved himself through the nature and creatures.

Actually it's more like nature created the creatures who created god.

[Mans]

What is your definition of the nature? It is the trees, oceans, sun, stars, mountains...?

[Jklint]

What is your definition of the nature? It is the trees, oceans, sun, stars, mountains...?

...the whole enchilada!

[Mans]

So, based on your definition, this whole enchilada is a collection of different things? right?

[Belindi]

So, based on your definition, this whole enchilada is a collection of different things? right?

What makes you think the things of nature are well ordered?

[Mans]

May you explain more about your perspective? What you imagine about nature and things?

[Sculptor1]

In the late Reformation/early Enlightenment arguments about the value and veracity of the Bible led to a movement which sought to know god, not just through the Book of God, but what they called the Book of Nature.
It was thought that the more you knew about "god's creation", the more you would understand God. So like a double edged knife both Books would show God in his true light.
It soon became clear that Nature painted a shocking picture of God, and the numerous biblical contradictions concerning natural phenomena showed a deepening division between the two methods.
Now, the religious community have to ignore the truth of nature and can only sugar coat it to paint a picture of god the way they want it to be, as they have always had to do with the cherry picking that occurs with hermeneutics.

But the premise remains. If god is the creator, then you should be able to know god through nature.
But do not forget Hobbes' reflection, red in tooth and claw, and the other negative aspects; poison, disease, malformation, plague, disaster.

[Sculptor1]

What is your definition of the nature? It is the trees, oceans, sun, stars, mountains...?

pain, poison, disease, malformation, plague, disaster, catastrophy.

[Belindi]

May you explain more about your perspective? What you imagine about nature and things?

Spinoza. I'm a pantheist or panentheist whatever. The thing is I do believe nature is ordered not chaotic.

[Mans]

May you explain more about your perspective? What you imagine about nature and things?

Spinoza. I'm a pantheist or panentheist whatever. The thing is I do believe nature is ordered not chaotic.

I'm not familiar with the ism that you mentioned, but it is a true viewpoint that the universe is based on regularity and science and no one of the objects and being in the world is created by chance or is among a chaotic system.

I researched about pantheism and the final result was this definition: "Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God."

Although discussion about pantheism takes us out from the main topic, but it brings up this question that whether each on the elements and things in the nature is a part of God? Do pantheists believe in such the belief?

[Mans]

What is your definition of the nature? It is the trees, oceans, sun, stars, mountains...?

pain, poison, disease, malformation, plague, disaster, catastrophy.

Yes, these things exist as well but I just exampled the topmost things in nature

[Sculptor1]

pain, poison, disease, malformation, plague, disaster, catastrophy.

Yes, these things exist as well but I just exampled the topmost things in nature

No you did not.
I exampled the topmost things in nature.

[Felix]

Mans: Although discussion about pantheism takes us out from the main topic, it brings up the question of whether each of the elements and things in nature is a part of God? Do pantheists believe this?

Not far from the main topic.... The panthesis is that God is omnipresent, so everything would be immanent in Him. However, the explicit meaning of that statement would depend on one's definition of "God." For example, if He is defined as Consciousness or Intelligence than It would be immanent in material reality, i.e., Consciousness/Intelligence would be manifest in it, but if not equally so, we would have the material polarities of conscious/unconscious, good/evil, etc.

If God was both Omnipresent and Omniscient, such polarities would not manifest, because they reflect a lack of consciousness or awareness of wholeness. Either way, the idea of omnipotence can be dispensed with.