GOD=NATURE

we are all talking about the same thing…we just argue about what is real and what is supernatural…because we are driven to compete…
and some people don’t know about nature…

heh I am laying a big egg here…atheists take notice…you cant attack it because you only attack the fathergod…

The term supernatural is oxymoron.

Supernatural means that something is superior than nature.
But, the problem is that if anything is superior than nature, how it can ever exist or happen?
If anything can happen, than simply means that it natural.

Someone may argure that supernatural is that does not happen normally. But, even that does not the test of logic.
Cyclones and earh-quakes rarely happen but that rarity does not make then supernatural.
They are very much the part of the nature.

with love,
sanjay

atheists please try to attack this position------------GOD=NATURE

you should really acquaint your self with words before making an ass of your self.

with love,
Chris Brown

bring it on

If God is the essence of everything, Nature would be a manifestation of God, not a sum total.

you could look at it either way…I like my way…you like your way…only opinions not the truth
but I think my way is more accurate because it only assumes what is known not what is believed…

How do you presume to believe that belief may or may not be what is known? I know God beyond belief.
Why would an atheist feel threatened by naturalistic philosophy? Don’t they believe Nature is all there is?

ier----all some atheists attack is the fathergod…they don’t know anything else…
the reason I like my god------my god is a work in progress…my god is nature as we know it now…but tomorrow we will add on…
there is no telling what is out there…there may be something very personal…but we don’t know all about personal nature…
we don’t even accept what human nature is and can be…this nature god is a work in progress …it is a god that bridges the gap between atheist and theist…
we can argue about the science…the facts …but we can stop fighting and join forces if both sides will agree to the working hypothesis of god…

I just underwent an operation. Family and friends were praying for me. The operation was a success; and, to everyone’s astonishment, I have felt no pain. Two days later-- no pain from a large incision in my throat. Prayer works! God heals!

I am glad you came through good…what do you think of my last post…

I don’t think atheists will attack naturalism. Theists might; but I don’t. I’m a Christian naturalist and see no problem with God=Nature. I just see God as more than that.

well it is more than that… and we all may be surprised…you have bridged the gap but you still believe you are right and I am wrong…

No, I don’t see what you say as wrong. It’s just incomplete for me; maybe not for you.

hey I think it is incomplete…it is a work that is not finished…and since it is not finished…how can we know for sure…we then must say…I don’t know god

Sure, and if I say

DRAGONS = NATURE

That proves dragons exists, because nature obviously exists, right?

I’m really tired of addressing this particular argument, figure it out yourself.

you are tired of the argument because you have nothing to say…you just don’t get what I am saying or you haven’t followed this thread
I am redefining god so that the atheist-theist debate can turn into a discussion…

You don’t get my point at all. Concepts like “God” and “Dragon” are too deeply embedded in minds of most people to change their definitions now.

No matter how you try to redefine it, when you say “God” people will always think of an incredibly powerful and intelligent being that created the universe, they will NOT think of nature. You’re just bringing further confusion to the discussion.

Just like it doesn’t matter if you try to redefine the word “Dragon”, as people have already learned to think of a flying, fire-breathing reptile (or the Chinese version), NOT nature.

Stop trying to change the definitions of old words, it’s not going to happen, if you have a new concept, express it with a new word.

The LAST thing the theist-atheist debate needs is more confusion.

very good points…this will not be easy…but we must redefine a lot of things…this will clear up confusion…
people have used the word god for centuries to mean what we don’t know and try to control it…
so we do not know about the origin of the universe but we are working on it…it is a work in progress…it is part of the naturegod…
atheists need to hold on to attacking the persongod…they are not attacking what people are doing to each other…
we need to talk about secular humanism as being part of our nature …part of the naturegod…you still don’t get it…
I want to redefine the word god…I want an agnostic god plus nature…we already know some about nature…
people want to hold on to the persongod as the authority…I don’t like this…it is their heroin…it is not easy to give up an opiate…