Have any of you ever considered the possibility that the universe is "god" rather than a being standing on the outside, callin' shots?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Have you considered a nonsentient god wouldn't be much of a god, Towerpiller? Go ahead and worship it, but don't expect it to return your calls.
Then why call it god?
why not if the nature intelligently created itself...
...btw i usually don't use the word god because it apparently upsets or annoys people. dont ask me why that happens but it could equate to fear or possibly religious ptsd. I'm sure it varies from person to person (or should i say god).
And your evidence for this intelligent universe/nature/god is...?
Mind you, it might explain god's continual bad mood- pain makes people cranky: "Right. This part of me is going supernova RIGHT NOW! Ow...oow! OOOWWW!... OH FUCK! OH FUCK, OH FUCK THAT HURTS! THAT REALLY HURTS! I FEEL LIKE I'M TEARING MYSELF APART! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!"
@Sushi Re: "...Ow!...oow!... OOOWWW!..."
Dammit, Sushi! I'm glad I wasn't eating or drinking anything when I read that. ROFLMAO
Why not, you ask. Because it's not necessary.
You are simply giving nature a different name, nothing more. I have seen many people do this for a desperate attempt to hold onto their belief. They really want to believe there is something more or higher purpose to validate their belief.
What you appear to be doing is defining nature as a God, but the word 'God' usually has added attributes (and you know this as you do say "in order to make a distinction in conversation") and therefore usually has a particular meaning. What you are doing is redefining what it means, and misapplying the word God so that you can call nature 'God'. It’s still unnecessary and overly complicates issues in the grander scheme of things. Very Spinozan of you. Look I get what you are doing arguing over semantics is part of a philosophical conversation but other than that it's useless.
My question would be, but why bother? We already have a name for this. Re-defining something as ‘God’ tells us nothing and becomes more complicated. To use the word ‘God’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
I suggest you this very short video by TMM: Pantheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgafVyw9vx4
I disagree. it may actually be necessary in order to make a distinction in conversation.
Like if I want to talk about material aspects of the universe I might want to say "nature"...
but...
..if I want to talk about the metaphysical aspects of the universe, I might want to say "god".
if people are put off by the word god and i say nature or universe instead, they may be thinking purely matter based reality. Like people thinking the brain is the end all be all of existential experience.
Well, that is what I am doing isn't it, see above.
@Towerpiller
Nope. That isn't what you're doing. You started this thread with "Have any of you ever considered the possibility that the universe is "god" rather than a being standing on the outside, callin' shots?" You tried to substitute the word "god" with the word "universe". Now you want to go back to distinguishing between god/universe and nature/universe when it suits you to do so. You seem to be attempting a bait and switch.
I can imagine how the conversation would go: it would be god/universe when it suited your metaphysical argument, but nature/universe when it didn't. So long as you could get the person you're speaking with to accept "universe" as a synonym for "god", you'd win. You'd tie them up in knots trying to argue where the natural universe ended and the metaphysical universe began because it's all the universe/god.
Edit: Additional comment.
As I said to that old guy on a tricle.
i told you i might want to make verbal distinctions because if i say universe they may only be thinking of material. if i say god they may only be thinking metaphysically. but i personally believe either word should carry both aspects. also throw nature in there. its not a semantics game, its a dumbing down so theres less confusion. if im talking to a materialist then i might say physical/metaphysical aspects of the universe. if im talking to a religious/spiritual person i might say god. now unless you can truly know meaning through words (which you probably cant), i have to take this approach.
not a game, yet its fun. (riddle)
agreed.
collective rationallity is subjective. its arbitrated by, who the fuck knows. now if you adopt what is rational vs what isnt then its objective within your mind, otherwise its as woo woo as religion (which doesnt mean its a bad thing, its just a symbol for understanding things).
ok so, there is no quantifiable proof provided, just probability. nothing measured has lead to any truth, just probability. english definition if arbitrary. you dont even have proof it exists, just probability. also when i mean proof i mean concrete, 100%, cant be wrong. universe/multiverse=god=nature= everything...... and just to be a dick, how can the universe be happy? (just jokin')
hmmm, why did you say "gods", thats interesting but if you say multiple gods then throw them all together and everything else and i would call that god. also it is measurable (within yourself), it is quantifiable (within yourself), and it is knowable (within yourself). these truths are for each individual on their own, internally scoped but thats just a slice of the pie. but i wonder if the whole pie looks within itself or its self.
Woo woo...
"(slang) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations. "
Woo-woo....
... is a slang term used to describe those who believe in phenomena that lacks substantiated evidence to prove the claim of the phenomena. It can also refer to the explanations for the specific phenomena itself. It also describes the method a person uses to understand such phenomena, based on the subjective nature or their personal philosophy which can be neither proven nor disproven. In this sense, one could associate woo-woo with philosophy, religion, or any other branch of study concerning itself with knowledge that is open to interpretation or subjectivity.
@Sheldon
Been awhile between metaphysical woo woo drinks for me. Health woo woo is part of my daily intake, sadly- I'm force fed it by a friend.
Oh it horrible. Every time someone tells me about a new fad diet, I just want to throttle them.
Sorry, my last comment was a bit messy. I separated them out with all of your quotes.
I told you i might want to make verbal distinctions because if i say universe they may only be thinking of material. if i say god they may only be thinking metaphysically. but i personally believe either word should carry both aspects. also throw nature in there.
it's not a semantics game, its a dumbing down so there's less confusion.
if I'm talking to a materialist then i might say physical/metaphysical aspects of the universe.
if I'm talking to a religious/spiritual person i might say god. now unless you can truly know meaning through words (which you probably cant),
i have to take this approach.
not a game, yet its fun. (riddle)
agreed
collective rationallity is subjective. its arbitrated by, who the fuck knows.
now if you adopt what is rational vs what isnt then its objective within your mind, otherwise its as woo woo as religion (which doesnt mean its a bad thing, its just a symbol for understanding things).
ok so, there is no quantifiable proof provided, just probability. nothing measured has lead to any truth, just probability. english definition if arbitrary. you dont even have proof it exists, just probability. also when i mean proof i mean concrete, 100%, cant be wrong.
universe/multiverse=god=nature= everything...... and just to be a dick, how can the universe be happy?(just jokin')
hmmm, why did you say "gods", thats interesting but if you say multiple gods then throw them all together and everything else and i would call that god. also it is measurable (within yourself), it is quantifiable (within yourself), and it is knowable (within yourself).
These truths are for each individual on their own, internally scoped but that's just a slice of the pie. but i wonder if the whole pie looks within itself or its self.
Skip
Skip
if "science" is your claim to knowing anything then you're working with probabilities, not truth. which means you havent proven anything, which means i believe you should keep looking (maybe with some other techniques besides scientific method).
Once again I'm not a religious person but i would consider myself an existentialist so I would recommend adopting all different types of information, sift through them, pick out the ones you agree with most (i dont mean intellectually, i mean blissfully, think joseph campbell), and continue until you Know( yes i purposely capitalized the K)
I shall apply attributes if I haven't already.
Ok, Maybe it was the wrong move to do all peoples quotes in one comment.
I will only select yours and leave the other people out of it.
I told you I might want to make verbal distinctions because if i say universe they may only be thinking of material. if i say god they may only be thinking metaphysically. but i personally believe either word should carry both aspects. also throw nature in there.
it's not a semantics game, its a dumbing down so there's less confusion.
if I'm talking to a materialist then i might say physical/metaphysical aspects of the universe.
if I'm talking to a religious/spiritual person i might say god. now unless you can truly know meaning through words (which you probably cant),
i have to take this approach.
not a game, yet its fun. (riddle)
You are welcome to use the "god" word which ever way you want. You can decide that the word god to you really means: toilet bowl.
But when communicating with others, if you do not carefully define your definition of god, but it is a keyword in your statement, expect confusion. Expect people to be annoyed by misusing a word because communication breaks down, people talk past each other, we might as well just be grunting and screaming nonsensical baby speak at each other pointing wildly in the air trying to get our thoughts across.
Most of us use the common definition of the word "god" as in a supernatural being, a being to be worshipped. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
If you want to say: :hey for me, I feel god could/is the entire universe." I say go you, enjoy worshipping the entire universe, I mean hey, that means worshipping everything. I am part of that universe, worship me! Leave me free decent food or other cool offerings, or better money, and I will even appreciate your worship.
If you want to clarify your god does not need worship, sure, go ahead, we may actually be starting to get closer to what you are really trying to say. I have said before I do not believe in any gods, but if I were to worship something (I wouldn't unless threatened by force,) I would worship the sun, it fits the bill of creator, powerful, and if it were to go out, or leave, we would all die nearly instantly. If the sun burped in our direction, we would at the very least, be sent back to the stone age.
Give me your best definition of metaphysical aspects, as you understand it to mean. As a materialist, I'm curious your position.
We can demonstrate objective evidence for the existence of the physical universe.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for a metaphysical universe?
@Tower
Thats closer to the muslim belief where the universe is so embued with Allah's presence and power there is no need for what we understand as physics or chemistry...everytime a candle is lit Allah will cause the flame... thats how they bypassed natural philosophies of the 11th century...and dispense with science....in any case what difference do you think it would make?
i barely know shit about the muslim belief. and i consider science as a neutral entity. it doesnt mean shit without an attached meaning like curiosity or fun or love. i dont say survival because survival is an excuse to have more time to experience things like curiosity, fun, love.
I find your view of science very similar to my own, actually. We need the other unscientific aspects of life to appreciate science. Wonder at nature inspires biology, and fascination with light and motion breathe life into physics. Pyromania and culinary arts drives chemistry, and adventurous natures innovate tomorrow. Arts rise from science, and fuel its advance in turn. The perpetual motion that is the impossibility of physics is a reality of the fine arts and humanities.
@Towerpiller: should i say god
You can say "god" if you want, but the word would be meaningless, since neither you nor any other theist really understand what it means.
Have you ever considered that the universe is Vishnu? I have!
I have zero reason to accept any of those propositions. I understand science and this universe enough to know that it is in this state without any spiritual intercession.
The entire universe is hostile to life. The amount of destruction is overwhelming. If I was to believe the universe had any purpose, it was to create black holes.
Sorry, I completely reject this concept.
A universe by any other name is still the universe. We're cool with the universe.
@What if the universe is god .
What if a giant jar of peanut butter is god and we are just the smegma emerging from its rot. As long as we are playing the "What If Game" anything is possible. What if the universe is just a giant turd clinging to an elephant's arse. (Come on in and join the fun. Make your own universe. Never mind facts, evidence, or anything real. Faith is all you need! Let's all play the "WHAT IF GAME!")
I don't think you, any of you, understand my point. May I refer you to the comments I made to whatever his name is, the guy with the la lakers logo. My reasoning is there.
@ Tower
"My reasoning is there."
No, that is not "reasoning". That is an excuse, a rigmarole, an apologetic.
If you want to talk about the "metaphysical aspects of the universe"; that isn't too big a sentence unless you are talking to six year olds. If you want to talk "natural aspect of the universe" that is not a big or unreasonable sentence.
What you seem to want to do is create a "slang" shortcut which serve only to confuse any rational person in the habit of using precise english.
The Universe is quite happy existing, being quantifiable, measurable, has a definition in English and is a term comprehended in the same way by most thinkers.
"God" as opposed to gods, is apparently unmeasurable, unquantifiable, unknowable (unless you know her) and the product of limited imaginations to explain natural events.
The terms are not compatible.
If you want a term that encompasses a sentient universe and an omnsicient god...well make one up! "Wanker" comes immediately to my mind, any other offers?
i told you i might want to make verbal distinctions because if i say universe they may only be thinking of material. if i say god they may only be thinking metaphysically. but i personally believe either word should carry both aspects. also throw nature in there. its not a semantics game, its a dumbing down so theres less confusion. if im talking to a materialist then i might say physical/metaphysical aspects of the universe. if im talking to a religious/spiritual person i might say god. now unless you can truly know meaning through words (which you probably cant), i have to take this approach.
not a game, yet its fun. (riddle)
agreed.
collective rationallity is subjective. its arbitrated by, who the fuck knows. now if you adopt what is rational vs what isnt then its objective within your mind, otherwise its as woo woo as religion (which doesnt mean its a bad thing, its just a symbol for understanding things).
ok so, there is no quantifiable proof provided, just probability. nothing measured has lead to any truth, just probability. english definition if arbitrary. you dont even have proof it exists, just probability. also when i mean proof i mean concrete, 100%, cant be wrong. universe/multiverse=god=nature= everything...... and just to be a dick, how can the universe be happy? (just jokin')
hmmm, why did you say "gods", thats interesting but if you say multiple gods then throw them all together and everything else and i would call that god. also it is measurable (within yourself), it is quantifiable (within yourself), and it is knowable (within yourself). these truths are for each individual on their own, internally scoped but thats just a slice of the pie. but i wonder if the whole pie looks within itself or its self.
@ Towerpillar
"i told you i might want to"
I have no idea what this entire post of seemingly disconnected statements, half formed ideas and , not to be polite, new age bullshit actually means.
The final paragraph is just woo woo bollocks. None of the things you describe are internally quantifiable, measurable or any sort of fucking pie.
It certainly does not defend the indefensible.
Sorry, it was a bit messy. Maybe I should separate them out with all of your quotes.
I told you i might want to make verbal distinctions because if i say universe they may only be thinking of material. if i say god they may only be thinking metaphysically. but i personally believe either word should carry both aspects. also throw nature in there.
it's not a semantics game, its a dumbing down so there's less confusion.
if I'm talking to a materialist then i might say physical/metaphysical aspects of the universe.
if I'm talking to a religious/spiritual person i might say god. now unless you can truly know meaning through words (which you probably cant),
i have to take this approach.
not a game, yet its fun. (riddle)
agreed
collective rationallity is subjective. its arbitrated by, who the fuck knows.
now if you adopt what is rational vs what isnt then its objective within your mind, otherwise its as woo woo as religion (which doesnt mean its a bad thing, its just a symbol for understanding things).
ok so, there is no quantifiable proof provided, just probability. nothing measured has lead to any truth, just probability. english definition if arbitrary. you dont even have proof it exists, just probability. also when i mean proof i mean concrete, 100%, cant be wrong.
universe/multiverse=god=nature= everything...... and just to be a dick, how can the universe be happy?(just jokin')
hmmm, why did you say "gods", thats interesting but if you say multiple gods then throw them all together and everything else and i would call that god. also it is measurable (within yourself), it is quantifiable (within yourself), and it is knowable (within yourself).
These truths are for each individual on their own, internally scoped but that's just a slice of the pie. but i wonder if the whole pie looks within itself or its self.
Skip
Skip
if "science" is your claim to knowing anything then you're working with probabilities, not truth. which means you havent proven anything, which means i believe you should keep looking (maybe with some other techniques besides scientific method).
Once again I'm not a religious person but i would consider myself an existentialist so I would recommend adopting all different types of information, sift through them, pick out the ones you agree with most (i dont mean intellectually, i mean blissfully, think joseph campbell), and continue until you Know( yes i purposely capitalized the K)
I shall apply attributes if I haven't already.
Pages