God...who believes?

Do you believe a God/Gods/Higher Being exists?

  • Total voters
    46
Enmos said:
But that's all we've ever talked about.
I think that you believe that you experienced God, but I'm not convinced that it was really God that you experienced. I'm not calling you a liar.
You can't ask if you are convincing in general, it needs a context.
For what it's worth, I think you are a decent and honest person and probably very pleasant to be around (as long as you aren't talking to God while ignoring me :p).
Click to expand...

ok, i can live with that. :)
 
Enmos said:
Then why call it God? Why the personification ?
Click to expand...

well i don't necessarily think god is a personification. maybe an embodiment.

and nature is really just a bunch of matter. it's the law that governs the matter right? without law it would just be a big lifeless glob of chaotic mush.
 
Enmos said:
Glaucon, do you have any thoughts on post 34?
Click to expand...

Not that I'm sure how it's relevant but....

You're entirely correct. Outside of the scope of 'nature', there is no natural law.
What we call natural law is nothing but the inductive generalizations of behavioural patterns that have been observed in nature.

Interestingly, note that without an observer, there is neither natural law, nor nature.....

:)
 
Lori_7 said:
well i don't necessarily think god is a personification. maybe an embodiment.

and nature is really just a bunch of matter. it's the law that governs the matter right? without law it would just be a big lifeless glob of chaotic mush.
Click to expand...

Nature includes both matter/energy and the laws, it's all in one.
The laws may govern the matter/energy, but the matter/energy likewise governs the laws.
I have to admit that I don't have a detailed understanding of this though.
 
glaucon said:
Not that I'm sure how it's relevant but....

You're entirely correct. Outside of the scope of 'nature', there is no natural law.
What we call natural law is nothing but the inductive generalizations of behavioural patterns that have been observed in nature.

Interestingly, note that without an observer, there is neither natural law, nor nature.....

:)
Click to expand...

Thanks :)
I happily reject that last line though, if you don't mind :p
 
Enmos said:
I don't understand. Explain ?
Click to expand...

well, that there's no law without nature, and no nature without an observer.

it kind of rings the same to me.

i mean, i can draft a house, but i don't have to actually build the thing.
 
Lori_7 said:
well, that there's no law without nature, and no nature without an observer.

it kind of rings the same to me.

i mean, i can draft a house, but i don't have to actually build the thing.
Click to expand...
The observer is part of nature..
Anyhow, I don't think Glaucon is saying that the moon isn't there if you close your eyes. An observer can apparently be anything, but I'm not big on Quantum Physics.
 
Enmos said:
The observer is part of nature..
Anyhow, I don't think Glaucon is saying that the moon isn't there if you close your eyes. An observer can apparently be anything, but I'm not big on Quantum Physics.
Click to expand...

and you said that nature was part of the law.
 
Anyhow.. perhaps we should continue this elsewhere (or not at all). We're kind of off-topic :p
 
glaucon said:
Not that I'm sure how it's relevant but....

You're entirely correct. Outside of the scope of 'nature', there is no natural law.
What we call natural law is nothing but the inductive generalizations of behavioural patterns that have been observed in nature.

Interestingly, note that without an observer, there is neither natural law, nor nature.....

:)
Click to expand...

Yuck. Are we really going into Schrodinger? :eek:


Meh, but this discussion as a whole positively reeks of potential semantic dispute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top