Nature is a great help to me…at times it almost becomes my lover. Not that I ever truly lose my sanity but there are times when nature binds me to itself and I am made whole again.
Religare - to bind. 
the more I study nature the more I believe in god…I am an agnostic believer…try that one
That’s the relevant part.
Thanks, James.
The more I look at the universe, I can see the possibility of Something far different and inscrutable than anything we try to define with our puny brains.
I’m an agnostic because I choose not to believe. Believe what?!
i like the agnostic position…we don’t know about the nature of everything…
i personally like to define god as nature or the ultimate reality of everything…
what do you think about that…
So long as the agnostic position means I cannot know, I would not agree with it. Any statement about wonder and awe at Nature is a statement of knowing by effect. Even if the knowing is described as ineffable, it is still an awareness.
I thought agnostic meant------ not knowing…
But do we not know the experience of wonder and awe in the presence of Nature? What if we see God=Nature? Can we then be considered agnostic? When does experience=fact?
if we accept GOD=NATURE…then we don’t know very much…so I would have to remain agnostic until we know about the nature of things…we don’t know origins
We will never know origins or final endings. We live in the mesocosm, the middle ground between extremes. All we know is where we exist. Origins and endings are based on our own mortality, our temporal existence. Consequently, we can only guess about what exists beyond our mesocosmic reality.
we may be able to understand the origin of life on earth…
We have only theories about the origin of life on Earth. One is that the planet was seeded when organic chemicals contained in comets met warm springs at the bottom of the sea (Crick). Another is that pools of organic soup produced nucleic acids, which formed archaebacteria. If one believes God did it, the argument is always how on the scientific side. On the emotional side, the argument is why.
good way to put it…I don’t know about the why thing…does anyone…we may be able to know exactly about the origin of life…we are learning about the pre-biotic chemical evolution…crick is still an idea…I like the urey idea better…
Why does Science and Religion have to be separated here? Even if a God did it, the present Science remains the same.
And one can still, with or without a creator,within one’s totality, stand in awe of it.
WHY can also be uttered within its totality. The answer to that is found within each Self’s core.
Why does Science and Religion have to be separated here? Even if a God did it, the present Science remains the same.
And one can still, with or without a creator,within one’s totality, stand in awe of it.
WHY can also be uttered within its totality. The answer to that is found within each Self’s core.
in my core there is no answer…
Are not wonder and awe at Nature some sort of answer? It just may not be answer enough.
absolutely…it is answer enough for right now…it keeps me on a good road…
Oh, I think that within your core, turtle, there is a answer or response - as Irrelleus said…wonder and awe are an answer.
A response does not only come from the mouth. Most “real” responses come automatically, almost without one’s own volition, when it comes to responses at our core.
Unless we’re really self-aware, we may not even be aware of them.