I'm going out on a limb here at the risk of being tarred and feathered by others here.....but you and I only live once.....

[JohnDBarrow]

....or do we really?

 

What I believe.

Does it fall under religion, philosophy or some other discipline of human thought?

Here goes as follows:

The John Douglas Barrow Faith Canon
Drafted in the United States of America, June 10, 2024 A.D.

1. Nothing is higher in all of existence than Mother Nature, the Goddess of the Universe. Mother Nature is a human personification of nature, which might not be a conscious, living person or entity with a free will.
2. Any gods or deities which might exist apart from Mother Nature are only attributed to nature Herself. There is no supernatural or magic. Mother Nature is not above Herself.
3. Life and conscious existence following the death of a human being or any other living being is possible and even probable. There might be eternal spirits, everlasting conscious selves or souls which can only be attributed to nature. They may be associated with a living human body or some other physical living form as an animal or plant on Earth or elsewhere in the universe. Reincarnation is a likely possibility for what might lie beyond physical death.
4. The universe is eternal and everlasting. Time, matter, space, gravity, motion and energy are literally forever. Forever is much too long for any individual to experience one and only one single instance of life or consciousness, for a limited amount of elapsed time, over the entire course of eternity. This notion is bolstered by the fact that the human author, at the time of this writing, is conscious and living after the literal passing of forever already. It is as illogical and small-minded to discount the possibility of future life and consciousness following one’s physical death as it is to dismiss all possibility of conscious life beyond planet Earth.
5. It is bestowed by Mother Nature upon each and every peaceful living human being of planet Earth and each and every peaceful living intelligent entity in the universe, human or otherwise, the inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation.
6. Nothing in this canon can be humanly proven or disproven by any known observable test or experiment. This is a belief system and not based upon any absolute verifiable scientific knowledge. Since nothing within this canon regarding nature, god, life, consciousness, eternity or death can be verified as any truth, this faith might not even be considered in the realm of philosophy.
 

 

 

[TheVat]

45 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

There might be eternal spirits, everlasting conscious selves or souls which can only be attributed to nature. 

How do those three differ from each other?  They seem like synonyms.  

48 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

There is no supernatural or magic.

So then you are positing that spirits are physical entities consistent with natural laws?  What do you think their physical composition might be?  

51 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Nothing in this canon can be humanly proven or disproven by any known observable test or experiment.

Presently known?  Confused now.  This doesn't sound like spirits that are part of nature, i.e. the physical universe.  

54 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It is as illogical and small-minded to discount the possibility of future life and consciousness following one’s physical death as it is to dismiss all possibility of conscious life beyond planet Earth.

Confused again.  You said that existence of spirits can't be measured or observed, proven or disproven.  So that would seem quite different from the ET hypothesis, which presents various avenues of scientific testing.  

Also:

a more on-topic title would be helpful.  Passive-aggressive is not an attractive look for thread titles.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

What I believe.

!

Moderator Note

What I believe is that this isn’t your blog, it’s a science discussion forum

 

Quote

Nothing in this canon can be humanly proven or disproven by any known observable test or experiment

…and you’ve declared this to not be science.

Quote

this faith might not even be considered in the realm of philosophy

or philosophy

Take care to address responses to your post. Otherwise you’re soapboxing, which is against the rules.

[JohnDBarrow]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

How do those three differ from each other?  They seem like synonyms.  

So then you are positing that spirits are physical entities consistent with natural laws?  What do you think their physical composition might be?  

Presently known?  Confused now.  This doesn't sound like spirits that are part of nature, i.e. the physical universe.  

Confused again.  You said that existence of spirits can't be measured or observed, proven or disproven.  So that would seem quite different from the ET hypothesis, which presents various avenues of scientific testing.  

Also:

a more on-topic title would be helpful.  Passive-aggressive is not an attractive look for thread titles.

I knew I was going to be in a deep hole again coming back here. I think what I need is a place to discuss the metaphysical. For all I know, spirtis and souls are some form of energy. Who says they have to be material? To me, a SOUL is an eternal conscious self. It's true nature, if it even exists, is about as mysterious as the root cause of gravity. 

 

Let us now define NATURE;

 

NATURE Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

noun

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization:

   In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs.

3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers:

   The abandoned power plant was reclaimed by nature, covered in overgrowth and home to feral animals.

4. natural scenery:

   Tourists at the resort are surrounded by nature.

5. the universe, with all its phenomena:

   Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature.

6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art:

   a portrait true to nature.

8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character:

   human nature.

9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct:

   a man of good nature.

10. character, kind, or sort:

    two books of the same nature.

11. characteristic disposition; temperament: an evil nature.

    a self-willed nature;

    an evil nature.

12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization:

    a return to nature.

16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.

     

     

    I look at NATURE in the broadest senses as in 5, 6, 7 above. 

Edited June 12 by JohnDBarrow

[MigL]

We are a science site, and we discuss evidence based facts, not beliefs, and certainly not

4 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

The John Douglas Barrow Faith Canon

this crap.

[Phi for All]

There's nothing persuasive about making claims you can't possibly be sure about. You simply can't know most of the things you're claiming, like the universe being eternal. As far as matter, gravity, and motion being eternal, we have evidence of a time when they didn't exist as we know them. And your Mother Nature reference is childish and lacks nuance, or any understanding of science. Why again are you looking for a science discussion if you clearly don't want to learn any science?

[JohnDBarrow]

Mother Nature a childish term? My high school science teacher even used the term in class. I don't mind learning science as in the boilng point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. I say there is much more to human thought than science though. Science is not absolute knowledge of everything in the universe. I posted this in the General Philosophy section because it has more to do with human thought and wonder in general. What happens to us when we die (beyond becoming worm food) is an age-old curiosity. Do scientists reject the metaphysical totally? According to my dictionary, metaphysics is actually a branch of philosophy. 

 

I have revised my Canon of Faith as follows:

 

1.       Nothing is higher in all of existence than Mother Nature, the Goddess of the Universe. Mother Nature is a mere human personification of nature, which is probably not any conscious, living person or entity with a free will. NATURE is the absolute sum total of everything, both known and unknown, in the one and only Universe. Since Man, himself, is a product of nature Herself, it can only be logically deduced that anything done, said, made or thought by Man is also attributed to Nature in the broadest sense of Nature. Man and his doings are merely a part of Nature.

2.       Any gods or deities (conscious, living, intelligent and perhaps immortal entities above Man) which might exist could only be attributed to nature Herself if such things actually do exist. There is no room for such notions as the supernatural or magic in this Canon of Faith. Mother Nature is not, and cannot be, above Herself.

3.       Life and conscious existence following the death of a human being or any other material (physical) living being is possible and even probable. There might be eternal spirits, everlasting conscious selves (or souls) which existence could only be attributed to nature if such things actually do exist. They might be associated with a living human body or some other physical living form as an animal or plant on Earth or elsewhere in the universe. To only consider human beings as possible possessors of souls (eternal conscious selves) is foolhardy and narrow-minded. Reincarnation is a likely possibility for what might lie beyond physical death. 

4.       The universe is eternal and everlasting. Time, matter, space, gravity, motion and energy are literally forever. None of these entities have a beginning or an end. Forever is much too long for any individual (unique conscious self) to experience one and only one single instance of life or consciousness, for a limited amount of elapsed time, over the entire course of eternity. This notion is bolstered by the fact that the human author, at the time of this writing, is conscious and living (in the flesh) after the literal passing of forever already. It is as illogical and small-minded to discount the possibility of future life and consciousness following one’s physical death as it is to dismiss all possibility of conscious life beyond planet Earth.

5.       It is bestowed by Mother Nature upon each and every peaceful living human being of planet Earth and each and every peaceful living intelligent entity in the universe, human or otherwise, the inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation.

Nothing in this canon can be humanly proven or disproven by any known observable test or experiment. This is a belief system and not based upon any absolute verifiable scientific knowledge. Since nothing within this canon regarding nature, god, life, consciousness, eternity or death can be verified as any truth, this faith might not even be considered by some to be within the realm of philosophy. The faith described herein might be best allied with human thought within the realm of the metaphysical.

[KJW]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Mother Nature a childish term? My high school science teacher even used the term in class.

You do realise that your high school teacher was teaching children? Well, maybe not children, but certainly not adults.

 

 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Mother Nature a childish term? My high school science teacher even used the term in class. I don't mind learning science as in the boilng point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. I say there is much more to human thought than science though. Science is not absolute knowledge of everything in the universe. I posted this in the General Philosophy section because it has more to do with human thought and wonder in general. What happens to us when we die (beyond becoming worm food) is an age-old curiosity. Do scientists reject the metaphysical totally? According to my dictionary, metaphysics is actually a branch of philosophy. 

Mother nature is just a term we use, like gaia, to explain, amongst other things, the seeming intelligence of our world; would you say a bee hive has a soul?

Metaphysics is kind of a first principal way of thinking, am I here? etc. IOW it's where to start your journey of wonder, not an excuse to stop thinking.

If you want to believe your soul is eternal, then have at it and good luck to you, just don't expect a reasonable argument, there is none, bc it's nonsense in it's literal sense.

Can I damage my soul? Is a far more interesting question...

No-one cares about the world according to John, it's not even interesting enough to become a future religion, ask Brian...

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Nothing in this canon can be humanly proven or disproven by any known observable test or experiment. This is a belief system and not based upon any absolute verifiable scientific knowledge.

!

Moderator Note

Since you're just repeating yourself and soapboxing, and since this isn't science, I'm going to close this. Nothing about it can teach anybody anything meaningful about science. Consider another source of discussion.