Can Nature and God be the same thing?

Widdershin: You realize this is getting vaguely serial killery, yes?
Why do you say that? What have you read in Psychology Today?

Why I am me, of course, and all that is.

Your physical me is mostly bacterial, did you know that?
W4U, at first when I heard that I was blown away, how can that be. It took, gladly not all to long, to realize germs are much smaller that human cells, so the whole thing seemed less outlandish.

Of course, often the most sensational first reports are the sexiest so get propagated the most, still after the first rush, turns out 90% may have been a little over the top.

Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body Ron Sender, Shai Fuchs, and Ron Milo

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991899/

Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·1013. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (≈90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·1013 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg.


 

Back to the original question:

CAN NATURE AND GOD BE THE SAME THING?
I read that and wonder how on Earth could they not be the same thing?

 

Here’s a little thing that popped into my head decades ago and that keeps on replaying.

God Is Creation.

Why rob God of God’s Creation by shoving Creation’s story into a one-dimensional freeze frame?


Of course, it goes without saying that this God is truly beyond all human understanding,

so lets focus on her Creation and the here and now.

Citizen said:

Of course, it goes without saying that this God is truly beyond all human understanding,
Now, you are talking.
so lets focus on her Creation and the here and now.
This is my kind of religion. The best creation of God to focus on is me. Begin with what is near at hand before we look at what is far. Confucius said that the journey of 1000 li begins with the first step. And yet, we are preoccupied with the origin of the universe and the evolution of man using an organ called the brain.

 

You started this thread with a poorly stated question and have continued to bounce around. Here’s your best attempt at explaining yourself, pg 2:

To me, reality is inherently perceptual in nature because the field of consciousness, prior to cognition, has no material qualities. At the onset of cognition, everything takes on a form, color and texture informed by knowledge to generate an illusion of Nature. Is this supernatural or what? To me, that is God in action.
And that's word salad. Now we are saying we are "preoccupied" with the origin of the universe. Really? Have you looked at budget figures lately? We are preoccupied with occupying each other's land and forcing our ideas on others. I'm limiting that "we" to America. You know what CC talks about, when he says "Creation", he's talking about the existing universe and the life within it, that we can see and interact with. We are "preoccupied" with evolution because you can use that theory to make vaccines and to improve crop yields.

If you ever figure out what the topic is of this thread you started, please let us know.

As I told you, Lausten, I try my best to make myself understood. You may believe that words have definite meanings. I don’t.

Perception A

To me, “God” denotes an unknown mystery behind life in all its manifestations, primarily with me at the center, AS WELL AS, “Creation” itself as you mean it (“the existing universe and the life within it, that we can see and interact with”). It’s all one thing, to me. And I live my life with that perception as the basis for all my actions. In other words, I am - as Sree - a part of, and at the same time, Creation itself.

Perception B

You, on the other hand, sees Creation as the existing universe and the life within it, that you can see and interact with. And you live your life with this perception as the basis for all your actions. In other words, you are - as Lausten - a part of but separate from the rest of Creation.

The topic appeals to you to critically examine Perception B and consider the validity of Perception A.

In other words, you are – as Lausten – a part of but separate from the rest of Creation.

The topic appeals to you to critically examine Perception B and consider the validity of Perception A.


That’s not what I think and I’m not going have a conversation where I do nothing but correct you.

But I do want you to correct me, Lausten. In scientific circles, you would have to present an argument that stands the test of reason. It takes rigor and integrity. Thank God, we are no longer in Galileo’s era and I won’t be forced to take poison.

But I do want you to correct me, Lausten.
Yes, you want to say nonsensical things and have people respond to you. Did you google "troll" yet?
Lausten: Yes, you want to say nonsensical things and have people respond to you. Did you google “troll” yet?
I googled "troll" a long time ago. It's a bad word folks in forums throw at others who upset them. I do realize that the arguments I present can be upsetting to those who want to stay in their comfort zones. This is why I don't persist or hound anybody with my viewpoints. If they voice their resentment using insults, I move on. A troll wouldn't.

I was impressed with the way Richard Dawkins dealt with Deepak Chopra. If he were in your place, he wouldn’t let me get away with Perception A which is a kind of Chopra nonsense found in Hinduism. How could Sree be a part of, as well as, the entirety of Creation itself? Dawkins is not here. Anyone else want to take me on?

I’m not going to waste a lot of time on you, because that is exactly what you are trying to get me to do. I could find a long discussion about snopes himself (originally it was his online name). He was an early forum user and people would come into his discussions who were obviously out of their league on the topic, so he would adopt a stance that was absurd. It wasn’t what he believed, but he wasn’t about to spend his time educating the new member who was not interested in being educated, so he would get them involved in a discussion where his goal wasn’t to be right, but just to frustrate them and hopefully get them to leave.

Sure, you can find lots of people who say a troll is someone you don’t agree with, but what did you just do? You just said, “Perception A

To me, … blah blah blah”

Then said the barely English, “the topic appeals to you to critically examine….” But now you are calling Perception A Chopra-ish nonsense. Why would I ever attempt to respond to anything you ever say again, knowing that you are knowingly spouting nonsense? You even have the nerve to tell me I should have and that my failure to do so was due to my inability. No, I didn’t respond because it is nonsense.

By the way, you are persisting with your viewpoints. I pointed that a few comments up. Maybe if, as I suggested, you start your own threads, and limit yourself to those, I’ll leave you alone.

When you look at his posts in other threads he only bothers to respond in ways that keeps the argument going. You give a point by point rebuttal of what he says, he responds to everyone but you. When he does bother to respond absolutely none of it addresses what was said. He never defends any argument he makes. When it comes to that he just changes the subject and the argument instead.

Widdershin: You give a point by point rebuttal of what he says, he responds to everyone but you.
I do notice that you are very intense with your replies to my posts. Obviously, you have strong feelings about things you believe in. I am not good at navigating on this forum and can't remember who I talked to on which topics. This is one reason why I did not respond to you, and to others too. Another reason is to avoid quarrels. There is no point locking horns when we don't see eye to eye on matters of concern to you a well as to me. I look forward to collaborative inquiry into social issues with a view to finding solutions together.
and can’t remember who I talked to on which topics.
Then quit posting so much
I do notice that you are very intense with your replies to my posts.
I can be, yes. If you find that offensive, I apologize. My background in these subjects is one of arguing with people who were trying to use psychology, whether they knew it or not, to "win" the argument at any cost. When I'm in my head I tend to automatically revert to "argument mode". I honestly mean on offense or disrespect by it and I will try to watch it in the future.
Obviously, you have strong feelings about things you believe in. I am not good at navigating on this forum and can’t remember who I talked to on which topics. This is one reason why I did not respond to you, and to others too. Another reason is to avoid quarrels. There is no point locking horns when we don’t see eye to eye on matters of concern to you a well as to me. I look forward to collaborative inquiry into social issues with a view to finding solutions together.
You do develop a little anger over the years with people telling you that you, your beliefs, your way of life and what you want for your own children don't matter. When you said the same thing in not so many words, yeah, there was probably a little anger there. Again, I don't do it on purpose. I don't dislike you or anything. I just don't agree with you on much. I also don't respect you, but I don't mean to disrespect you either. We haven't had the kind of rapport that would foster a mutual respect.

I actually don’t want an argument. I would absolutely LOVE a reasonable debate where we listen to each other and consider what the other has said. I don’t expect anyone’s mind to change, but a little more understanding between we two would be something. To me, arguing is really pointless, though I can be bated into an argument from time to time. When I realize it, though, I try my best to turn it around. That doesn’t always work, though. I am human with an instinctive desire to defend myself (in this case, the things I’ve said).

That being said, the last response you gave me WAS a response to what I had posted and DID NOT address a thing in that post. It WAS a deflection and change of subject. I want to believe people are being honest and genuine in the things they say, but I’ve also learned that I have to be realistic. If you’ve moved the football once I’m going to be a little leery about trying to kick it again.

sorry that was just a draft, didn’t mean to hit enter. Beside I think W responded plenty well.

"W, you are very intense with your replies to my posts."
W. posts don't seem "intense" to me, he seems well informed and I haven't seem him flame out in an intense manner. Seems to me like he says he'd really rather have a discussion - you dodge serious discuss and rather come up with provocative statement that shifts the discussion away from the topic and into psychology as a rhetorical tactic to unbalance your opponent. Then if they smack you, you get to cry foul and play victim.

 

Sree:....and can’t remember who I talked to on which topics.

Lausten: Then quit posting so much


I like to socialize and do so, in this forum, like someone, with drink in hand in a crowded room, would at a party. I move around from one interesting conversation to another. I don’t ask for names and can’t remember faces. I won’t even remember the party the morning after if I drink too much.

I know you are getting impatient with me, like a hunter getting pissed off by a damn dog that won’t stick with the pack. I thought this was a forum for critical inquiry to root out superstitions for the betterment of humanity. It is obvious to me that we are at odds about what this is suppose to mean. Naturally, your opinion matters, not mine and I can live with that.

W. posts don’t seem “intense” to me, he seems well informed and I haven’t seem him flame out in an intense manner.
No, I don't think his assessment is entirely unfair. I do use words like "stupid" and "crazy". I do that referring to the argument or belief, not the person, but I can certainly see where someone would take offense to that. After all, would an intelligent person have a stupid belief? The answer, of course, is "Yes! It happens all the time!" But that's not how our brains process such a comment on the spot. And some people to intentionally insult the belief as a backhanded way of insulting the person. This is never my intention, but how is he to know what's in my head?

Your assessment, however, also seems to be right in line with what I have seen of Sree, including the post right above mine (if nobody beats me to the Submit button). A little bit of what certainly appears to be a “victim” deflection there in that second paragraph. That second sentence reminds me of Randy Marsh from South Park being lead away from the children’s baseball game, drunk, shirtless and with his pants around his ankles saying, “I’m sorry. I thought this was America!”

As always, Sree’s way is having it both ways, drunk-post without thinking, then call it critical inquiry and be totally amazed that someone questions what he’s doing.