Religion and Science

[bhsmte]

Thing is, I don't know a physicist personally or otherwise who doesn't speak with wonder and almost a mystique about the universe. Which is pretty much pantheism without admitting the label. You can't get away from theism that easily, but it's much easier to earn the label of atheist but still act like a pantheist by semi- or fully personifying the universe.

That was my point with einstein's thoughts on the subject. Sure, they see the universe with wonderment, but that doesnt mean many dont think that wonderment cant come from natural means.

 

[True Scotsman]

It's precisely because they're opposite in this sense that they work together. Religion is all about revealed truth or faith, but many times you can't really know for sure if a certain so-called truth is really a truth. In comes science to make a claim about something, like pointing out how all thinking is inherent to the brain. Then I'm able to modify my previous belief that only the soul, rather than the body, is about thinking.

Religion uses science to blot out any religious ideas that can't be the case because of scientific revelation.

The very idea of the supernatural is blotted out by science. Science and faith work together like food and poison, life and death, fire and ice. The one destroys the other.

This is why I asked my question about philosophical starting points. I find it interesting how fundamental principles effect a persons whole world view. You said that you start from a priori knowledge. I don't and that is why we are not going to agree on this issue. You use subjective reason while I use only objective.

 

[Received]

That was my point with einstein's thoughts on the subject. Sure, they see the universe with wonderment, but that doesnt mean many dont think that wonderment cant come from natural means.

And here's where the impasse will come with disagreements over subtle important things. I don't think you can have wonderment in the universe *as a whole* without having a Pantheist flavor. I think you can have wonder about particular things, and that would be basic nontheistic wonder, an extension of curiosity. But wonder toward "the universe" or "everything" is pure Pantheism, IMO.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

And here's where the impasse will come with disagreements over subtle important things. I don't think you can have wonderment in the universe *as a whole* without having a Pantheist flavor. I think you can have wonder about particular things, and that would be basic nontheistic wonder, an extension of curiosity. But wonder toward "the universe" or "everything" is pure Pantheism, IMO.

Would that not still be appreciation of the Works of God?

 

[Received]

Would that not still be appreciation of the Works of God?

From a Christian panentheistic perspective, that would be something like wonder at the "body" of God. Willard said that God is to the universe as we are to our bodies.

 

[bhsmte]

And here's where the impasse will come with disagreements over subtle important things. I don't think you can have wonderment in the universe *as a whole* without having a Pantheist flavor. I think you can have wonder about particular things, and that would be basic nontheistic wonder, an extension of curiosity. But wonder toward "the universe" or "everything" is pure Pantheism, IMO.

I think one can have wonderment without invoking a God, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

From a Christian panentheistic perspective, that would be something like wonder at the "body" of God. Willard said that God is to the universe as we are to our bodies.

I would disagree with Willard. I would say that the universe is to God like a developing embryo is to it's Mother and Father.

 

[Received]

I think one can have wonderment without invoking a God, but that is just my opinion.

Right, and here's where things get subtle (and I know I'm the one making things difficult here): there's the conceptualization of God (leading to labels of atheist or theist), and there's the preconceptualized wonderment at what may objectively be God but isn't labeled as such. Hence an atheist can easily be "closer" to God by his behavior than any jerk theist who has all the right concepts but lives a monstrous life. You might call it practical atheism and practical theism.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would disagree with Willard. I would say that the universe is to God like a developing embryo is to it's Mother and Father.

Sorry for the digression, Usus, but can you help me place you? Does your "oneness" view mean Pentecostal Oneness, Universalist Oneness, or Pantheistic Oneness? It seems important to this particular discussion.

 

[Received]

I would disagree with Willard. I would say that the universe is to God like a developing embryo is to it's Mother and Father.

I don't think that's terrible inconsistent with Willard's view. I always viewed God's omnipresence as infinitely "bigger" than the everexpanding universe. It's just that, if the universe is all of physical stuff, then only through the universe can God act in physical ways.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Sorry for the digression, Usus, but can you help me place you? Does your "oneness" view mean Pentecostal Oneness, Universalist Oneness, or Pantheistic Oneness? It seems important to this particular discussion.

No worries, sure! Mathematical oneness and "Shema Israel" oneness. Oneness of God before all creation, Oneness of God outside all the universes, Oneness of God ruling all universes, Oneness of the Kingdom of Heaven established all universes.


The oneness of the KoH is similar to the oneness of the 7 colors in white light.


Like the human body is one: A wholoarchy of simultaneously arising integrated parts.

 

[Resha Caner]

No worries, sure! Mathematical oneness and "Shema Israel" oneness. Oneness of God before all creation, Oneness of God outside all the universes, Oneness of God ruling all universes, Oneness of the Kingdom of Heaven established all universes.


The oneness of the KoH is similar to the oneness of the 7 colors in white light.


Like the human body is one: A wholoarchy of simultaneously arising integrated parts.

OK. Carry on.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I don't think that's terrible inconsistent with Willard's view. I always viewed God's omnipresence as infinitely "bigger" than the everexpanding universe. It's just that, if the universe is all of physical stuff, then only through the universe can God act in physical ways.

Well the "physical stuff" we get to enjoy is 99.999999% empty space. Atoms are huge flying wave-forms of very very little stuff. In my mapping, God is STUFF taking up all space. An ocean of quark matter billions of times denser and hotter that atomic matter. It is an infinitely super conductive Fermi liquid that before creation would set up similar to a plasma crystal in zero-G.

A beginning of a universe is void space made in that. The universe is like a womb but it is also like an open mouth in which a Word is being expressed into fulfillment.

 

[Received]

Please continue in this direction.

So you think on a very fundamental quantum level that the universe is sentience, and this sentience is God?

 

[Received]

You'd also hold that God, being the stuff you're talking about, is no bigger than the universe, i.e., the universe's borders are God's borders?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I don't think that's terrible inconsistent with Willard's view. I always viewed God's omnipresence as infinitely "bigger" than the everexpanding universe. It's just that, if the universe is all of physical stuff, then only through the universe can God act in physical ways.

To really "nutshell" the story:

Before the beginning was GOD and GOD was fully every where. A nothing did not exist.

GOD spoke his own Name and God happened:
The Word vibrated GOD until void space was made where the fullness of GOD was not. The Spirit of God and the Son of God was left in GOD's receding wake.

The vibration of the Word causes the Image of God to appear in the space created and these are the Laws of the universe. The Image has 10 powers/principalities.

We are made in "Their" Image.



Some might say we are holographic...but actually we are sono-morphic: Vibration creates form. Light bounces off of form.

 

[Received]

To really "nutshell" the story:

Before the beginning was GOD and GOD was fully every where. A nothing did not exist.

GOD spoke his own Name and God happened:
The Word vibrated GOD until void space was made where the fullness of GOD was not. The Spirit of God and the Son of God was left in GOD's receding wake.

The vibration of the Word causes the Image of God to appear in the space created and these are the Laws of the universe. The Image has 10 powers/principalities.

We are made in "Their" Image.



Some might say we are holographic...but actually we are sono-morphic: Vibration creates form. Light bounces off of form.

Sweet Jesus. Do you have any writings of your own or anyone else you recommend on this train of thought?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you have any writings of your own or anyone else you recommend on this train of thought?

::: speechless :::

 

[Received]

::: speechless :::

Lol, but not enough to say you're speechless.

 

[Resha Caner]

Lol, but not enough to say you're speechless.

I deleted some comments drawing parallels to rockytopva. It was not meant the way it would have come across. Sometimes I want to engage in these conversations. Sometimes I read a post and it just makes me very, very tired.

So, I had two conflicting objectives: 1) Say something challenging to start the questioning of what was just posted. 2) Don't get dragged into a very long conversation.