Energy and God

[ModernArtist25]

Some people believe God is energy. It created the universe and it lives within us. Do you believe in this? If so.....

 

the energy definition linked to God must be number 2:

 

noun

1. 1.

   the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.

   "changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"

   synonyms: vitality, vigor, life, liveliness, animation, vivacity, spirit, spiritedness, verve, enthusiasm,zest, vibrancy, spark, sparkle, effervescence, ebullience, exuberance, buoyancy,sprightliness; More
2. 2.

   power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.

    

    

    

    

Edited August 22, 2016 by ModernArtist25

[Phi for All]

I don't see any evidence for god(s), but I also don't see that those definitions of energy are all that different. The second one gives a source for the energy, and the first one seems more about attitude, but both describe how it's used for work.

 

If a god is using chemistry and physics for energy, how do we tell the difference between its work and what goes on normally in the universe?

[John Cuthber]

The existence of energy has been repeatedly and clearly demonstrated.

[disarray]

 

Some people believe God is energy. It created the universe and it lives within us. Do you believe in this? If so.....

 

Well you have defined your use of the word "energy." Now maybe you might go back and define the word "God" as you are using it in your question as to whether your reader believes that a God with energy created the universe and lives within us, as you say.

 

For that matter, you might also define your use of the phrase "lives within us." And indeed, to whom are you referring when you say us....Does that include rabbits, hamsters, and algae? If so, are you excluding inanimate things, or do chairs and chariots included in the term "us"?

 

And does this God have self-awareness. And where did the putative God come from, and how old is he/she/it, and does he have any siblings or soul mates?

 

And can you find another term besides "God" as that term seems to be taken by a number of religions who wish to suggest that he takes a concern and part in the affairs of people....or does your God do that too?

Edited August 22, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

I am familiar with this point of view and there is plenty of merit in it...not that I necessarily buy into it. It stems from broader pantheism and the rationale behind it is that energy is the universal constant (omnipresent), it is part and parcel of everything that exist within the universe (in one form or another), it sustains life (and thus "consciousness") and it can be argued to be the first cause and the last effect as (most importantly), in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, it cannot be created nor destroyed. This kind of god concept should not be confused with an anthropomorphic deity; it is just an abstract entity...that does not rely on worshipping or that gets "personally" involved.

[disarray]

I am familiar with this point of view and there is plenty of merit in it...not that I necessarily buy into it. It stems from broader pantheism and the rationale behind it is that energy is the universal constant (omnipresent), it is part and parcel of everything that exist within the universe (in one form or another), it sustains life (and thus "consciousness") and it can be argued to be the first cause and the last effect as (most importantly), in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, it cannot be created nor destroyed. This kind of god concept should not be confused with an anthropomorphic deity; it is just an abstract entity...that does not rely on worshipping or that gets "personally" involved.

 

So yes, that was my point in my post too....Why use the word "God" at all if one is trying to present some sort of broad pantheism of some sort, as one gets the impression that the issue is either going to be confusing and/or is an attempt to eventually addon anthropomorphic qualities to said God.

[Memammal]

^ Well, Spinoza, Einstein and a host of others have also done so...i.e equated god to nature.

[disarray]

 

^ Well, Spinoza, Einstein and a host of others have also done so...i.e equated god to nature.

 

Spinoza, whom Einstein references and largely agrees with, lived in a time where it was virtually unthinkable to entertain notions about the ultimate nature of the universe without mentioning religion, even if it was to dismiss it, or perhaps, more to the point, redefine its terms.

 

Similarly, Einstein was speaking metaphorpically, perhaps to try to relate his ideas to the public, as he was wont to do (e.g., his disagreements with Bohr about causality). However, he was quite aware that his use of the term sparked a lot of controversy, and indeed may assumed that he was affirming the existence of a personal or Christian or Jewish God. Therefore, he had to do a lot of backtracking and bravely stated that he believed no such thing, but was merely expressing his awe about the universe.

 

Similarly, Jefferson used religious terminology in the Dec of Ind., and again, there are those who use words that were meant in a deistic/metaphorical sense to claim that Jefferson believed to the usual Christian deity, which he did not. Again, Jefferson learned that he needed to be careful as to how he used the term "God." Similar remarks apply to George Washington.

 

Bottom line is that scientists have made the mistake of tossing the word "God" around lightly when discussing various issues, but I think that it is gradually dawning on people that it is not the best term to use, given its wide range of connotations.

[Memammal]

Bottom line is that scientists have made the mistake of tossing the word "God" around lightly when discussing various issues, but I think that it is gradually dawning on people that it is not the best term to use, given its wide range of connotations.

I agree. The "God particle", "genetic Adam & Eve", et al, were all a bit disingenuous.

[disarray]

I agree. The "God particle", "genetic Adam & Eve", et al, were all a bit disingenuous.

Yes, I recall that there was a lot of media scrambling to clarify that the Higgs Boson field was not a discovery that somehow proved that the universe originated on its own without the help of an anthropomorphic God. But just between you and me, I think that science is trying to do just that.

[iNow]

Conflating energy with god is a bald attempt at draping theistic woo with the credibility of science. Science has earned a reputation of trustworthiness that theism has regularly thwarted, and introduction of this term is merely a desperate attempt to steal back some lost respect.

 

If you want to hold a deistic view that god is the cosmos, great. Good on ya, but please don't misuse physics principles that can actually be measured and tested and clarified with detailed equations all so your woo and weird beliefs stop coming across to the average observer as so completely hollow, untenable, and foolish.

[ModernArtist25]

 

Well you have defined your use of the word "energy." Now maybe you might go back and define the word "God" as you are using it in your question as to whether your reader believes that a God with energy created the universe and lives within us, as you say.

 

 

God definition = energy (to some people)

 

 

I think god is an illusion though. God is anything we want it to be

Edited August 23, 2016 by ModernArtist25

[Strange]

 

Some people believe God is energy.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

^ Well, Spinoza, Einstein and a host of others have also done so...i.e equated god to nature.

 

But that isn't what the thread is about.

 

Unless you are also saying that nature is energy.

[Memammal]

Citation needed.

Is that really necessary..? I am aware that there are people who think of god as akin to energy.

 

But that isn't what the thread is about.

 

Unless you are also saying that nature is energy.

That comment of mine was in reference to disarray's previous post (#6). It should be self-explanatory.

 

 

Conflating energy with god is a bald attempt at draping theistic woo with the credibility of science. Science has earned a reputation of trustworthiness that theism has regularly thwarted, and introduction of this term is merely a desperate attempt to steal back some lost respect.

 

If you want to hold a deistic view that god is the cosmos, great. Good on ya, but please don't misuse physics principles that can actually be measured and tested and clarified with detailed equations all so your woo and weird beliefs stop coming across to the average observer as so completely hollow, untenable, and foolish.

I don't agree that a natural/abstract concept of god necessarily deserves this kind of "ridicule". Let us assume that all living beings share a (varying-in-degree) primordial sense of belonging, or being part of a greater unifying entity, something that they "instinctively" want to look up to (a shared origin, in a sense our common ancestor, the universe that spawned us), a kind of gut feeling that all our ancestors might have sensed since the proverbial dawn of time. That in itself would not be a misplaced " intuition", right? It will also not be far-fetched to further assume that this sense of "awe" or "belonging to" has, throughout history, mistakenly manifested in all sorts of primitive superstitions that later developed into more organised religions, i.e. a misplaced (or misdirected) sense of spirituality so to say. Thus, by making a mind shift from believing in- and/or worshipping a supernatural deity (or deities) to reconnecting to that same primordial sense of belonging to- or harnessing a power of appreciation for a greater natural force is surely a step in the right direction. And why not call it god? After all:

 

Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction:

• as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical entity or category;
• as the "Ultimate", the summum bonum, the "Absolute Infinite", the "Transcendent", or Existence or Being itself;
• as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.

Some pantheists equate god to nature, others equate god to the universe, others equate god to energy. Basically it boils down to very much the same thing though...

 

Consider the likelihood of a block universe, i.e. that ever-existing, deterministic, all-encompassing entity/environment that all of us experience a tiny part of as we move through our embedded life line...which in itself has always been- and will always stay part of it. Is it not something to marvel at (like Einstein did)?

[Strange]

Is that really necessary..? I am aware that there are people who think of god as akin to energy.

 

But that is not what the OP said.

[iNow]

by making a mind shift from believing in- and/or worshipping a supernatural deity (or deities) to reconnecting to that same primordial sense of belonging to- or harnessing a power of appreciation for a greater natural force is surely a step in the right direction. And why not call it god?

One is free to, but I would advocate that it's more detrimental than helpful. The term has too much baggage, too much history, too many different mutually exclusive definitions from person to person, and is far too imprecise to be very helpful. It would be far better IMO to use alternative words that better fit what's being described and which don't simultaneously call to mind old white dudes with beards surfing on clouds or some multi-armed shiva or sea king with a trident.

[Delta1212]

Let us assume that all living beings share a (varying-in-degree) primordial sense of belonging, or being part of a greater unifying entity, something that they "instinctively" want to look up to (a shared origin, in a sense our common ancestor, the universe that spawned us), a kind of gut feeling that all our ancestors might have sensed since the proverbial dawn of time.

 

We're assuming this based on what?

[Memammal]

^ Use any synonym for that expression, for example..."Consider the possibility that..."

 

PS. The kind of paradigm that I alluded to ties in with Pantheism, Taoism, Animism and the Hindu concept of Brahman, among others.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Memammal

[freekundli]

I don't see any evidence for god(s)

If you have not seen any evidence for god. That does not mean there is no God.

[John Cuthber]

If you have not seen any evidence for god. That does not mean there is no God.

It does mean that He is not energy- because we do see evidence for that.

(Also, if we never see evidence for God, then He might as well not exist. but that's a different issue)

[Phi for All]

If you have not seen any evidence for god. That does not mean there is no God.

 

Yes, but that's not what this thread is about. The rest of my post addressed that.

[freekundli]

It does mean that He is not energy- because we do see evidence for that.

 

He is energy.

[iNow]

Oh, well now that you've expanded and elaborated with such erudite evidence and example, I've now completely reversed my position.

 

[/sarcasm]

Edited August 30, 2016 by iNow

[Strange]

He is energy.

 

Let me think about that for a moment....

 

No, he isn't.

[Phi for All]

He is energy.

 

Seriously, that's all you got? This sounds more like preaching than science.

 

What are you trying to do, boost your post count?