What is a religion without a god or deity? Atheism is a religion? Why are you assigning alternate meanings to established language?
Theism by definition requires a God. Atheism by definition does not require a god. Atheism is a non-belief system. And here you come and tell me I am religious?
It sounds as if you consider nothingness as infinite empty space. It isn’t.
Nothingness is not reality. Nothingness is the infinite absence of reality.
“Nothingness” is a “timeless”, “dimensionless”, “permittive” condition.
Let me remind you of the dictionary definition;
re·li·gion noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
Now, if you want to assign the practice of mathematics to me, then you are assigning that to every dynamic object. It all is guided by mathematical equations.
But that does not make mathematics God. That is just an other attempt to fit God into another undefined form. There is no God, never was, never will be.
The question “Who is God” is a contradiction in terms.
Not “What” but “Who”? A supernatural person, named God?
Not if one states it as the universe being in everything and moving through everything. That is external and internal, then it is ALL, Everything, the totality of the universe. Of course, I’m not calling “god” the universe, but it is the only example I come think of to meet the definition of “entirety”. BTW, the infinite darkness, though there appears to be nothing, no thing, is in and of itself a thing.
I have no objection to the use of "entirety"l. I object to the use of the term God as representing the entirety, especially if it is associated with a form of “personhood”.
Still, I cannot imagine an entirety of nothingness. Nothingness is the absence of an entirety.
en·tire·ty noun
the whole of something.
Not; the whole of nothing !
So, if we are going to examine the term God and what it represents, in a scientific manner, we discover it cannot be analyzed for any kind of properties that cannot be explained via the generic mathematics of spacetime geometry.
At this point y’all ought to understand the figurative use of language as well as the literal. The entire sentence or paragraph is the meaning. Not the fragments of each word used.
Does “science” define immeasurable Reality? Does write4u seem to understand the implications of the question?
[quote=“brmckay, post:545, topic:7931”]
At this point y’all ought to understand the figurative use of language as well as the literal. The entire sentence or paragraph is the meaning. Not the fragments of each word used.
Yes, in linguistics we can use metaphor. Science does not require metaphor.
Does “science” define immeasurable Reality? Does write4u seem to understand the implications of the question?
Where does it say that “science” defines immeasurable Reality?
sci·ence noun
the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
Does brmckay understand the difference between science and religion?
And I have to object to you imagining that you own the word, or even any of the myriad meanings of “God”. Especially when you misrepresent how it is being used. Which is a disingenuous artifice to say the least.
You are telling me that I cannot do what I have been doing for over 50 years, because you have been doing something different with that time. When I tell you what the word means, that is what the word means for the purpose I use it. If you can’t translate, just say so. Making up rules and projecting expectations is not good science.
Nono, I follow the rules as they are made up by scientists, not linquists.
You cannot find fault with my citing the accepted definition of science.
You just admitted you are the one making up the rules and projecting your expectations. I do indeed understand what you are projecting, I just disagree with your interpretation, ok?
I am being very conservative, whereas you engage in “flights of fancy”, and you are welcome to that, just don’t get on my case for citing the correct definitions of words.
As English is my second language I often consult the dictionary, much to the dismay of people who learned English the lazy way and assign meanings to words that do not exist in Reality!
I also write poetry and use poetic metaphor.
When I engage in scientific communication, I try to be “scientifically correct.”
I also happen to follow Max Tegmark and agree with his “Mathematical Universe” where he proposes that mathematics eventually will allow us to understand everything.
You have been creating definitions all along, so not surprising that you make this claim. It is your right, but, if your intention is to communicate, well, not sure how you can do that the way you are going about it. When Teilhard de Chardin talked about the singularity, he wrote long essays about it, and came at it from different angles. I have problems with what he said, but I admire his attempt and he spawned thinkers for generations who have grappled with it.
As for science, one of the lines that divides it from other forms of inquiry and investigation is how it makes clear what it doesn’t know and admits that very little is certain. Scientists applaud those who come up with a new theory or design a new experiment that challenges the old. They don’t say things like “as it actually is” without being specific about the thing they are talking about and how they demonstrate what it is.
If you’ll allow me to butt in and answer the question at hand, science definitely does not have a claim on the ultimate horizon or immeasurable reality. At best, by analogy, we are a ship on an ocean and we know there is something beyond the horizon.
Spinoza did his thing using axioms, attributes, propositions, and definitions. He used God and Nature interchangeably, and it got him a lot of trouble. But we owe a lot to his work, even if, like me, it’s seen as a “first cause” argument with a lot of window dressing. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu
Have you noticed how much difficulty there is acknowledging ultimate infinitude? That is the horizon line. Even for the ship on the ocean, the horizon line is an effect of the curve of the sphere. One of the previously mentioned relative infinities. A subset of the undivided Whole.
To the degree that science does not acknowledge its own limitations, it is a false teaching. Reality (as-it-actually-is) is immeasurable. We are emergent characteristics. Our knowledge, and lack of knowledge is an emergent characteristic. Our relativity is the dance of Shiva. Which means that the knower and what is known are not actually two things.
To you and me it is nothing, but following his thinking, it something. He’s being philosophical, not scientific. Religiously philosophical, much like the Buddhists and the Hindus and maybe like a “God In Us” type Xian.
No, he doesn’t, as far as I can tell, but he does understand religious philosophy. I’m just not sure what his intent is though. I’m been trying to figure out what it is ever since he arrived.