If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (America, agnostics, worship)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have said, and confirmed today that this has to be intelligent and forward -planning. Without that, 'nature' is the better term and the god -label is just misleading. Stop fiddling about and show that nature is Intelligent or stop trying to peddle us the god -label.
That of course is the question we never get to. Just as 'First cause' argument never get as far as 'well, so what if a god did make everything?' One of these days I will purport to be persuaded and then ask what I do about it. I suspect 'stop calling yourself an atheist' will be the least of it.
Damn...am I a prophet or not?
Thank you mate. Or I think so, for finally admitting that you cannot prove the objective existence of GOD. Don't feel bad. Nor can anyone else, nor indeed make a persuasive case.
So what about it? Stop telling us it is a fact that God exists because it is nature with smarts. It is your repeated insistence that this is a fact that keeps bothering us. If you admit that you have no decent case for Mystic's theory', then we are reconciled in spades, and no need for the prayer page.
Mystic is a PanENtheist.
I'm a Pantheist.
I said GOD was intelligent and forward planning...not that it had to be, to be GOD. I never said it had to be (MOF, just the opposite)...I just noted that it was, to the degree that which comprises it is intelligent and forward-planning. How do you keep getting that wrong over and over again?
It only has to be "Something of Supreme Value". That's it...no more than that. If you have an issue with that...take it up with Merriam-Webster.
Prove something that is "of Supreme Value" objectively exists...and GOD objectively exists. THAT is the "evidence". And Atheism is nullified by that. Those that don't like that FACT notwithstanding.
Mystic is a PanENtheist.
I'm a Pantheist.
I said GOD was intelligent and forward planning...not that it had to be, to be GOD. I never said it had to be (MOF, just the opposite)...I just noted that it was, to the degree that which comprises it is intelligent and forward-planning. How do you keep getting that wrong over and over again?
It only has to be "Something of Supreme Value". That's it...no more than that. If you have an issue with that...take it up with Merriam-Webster.
Prove something that is "of Supreme Value" objectively exists...and GOD objectively exists. THAT is the "evidence". And Atheism is nullified by that. Those that don't like that FACT notwithstanding.
Ok One says God is in nature the other that God Is nature. And Why do you keep putting in that caveat? If nature has to be intelligent (and Is presumes as true what you still have to demonstrate to be true) to deserve to be called 'God', then that is the degree to which it has to be intelligent. And that is what you have to produce the evidence for.
What you got? "Something of Supreme value' another sub -definition. That definition cherry -picking is evidence of nothing but that you cannot produce any evidence that nature is intelligent. If you can't, then talk of 'Is' is fallacious (assuming what has to be proved) and 'everything' is 'nature' (or at least that is a less misleading term to use) and 'something of supreme value' can be applied to a lot of things including gods. That doesn't mean the thing it may be applied to actually exists.
Did do really think that you could get me to swallow this :-
"God = a huge invisible man who rules the other gods' is in the dictionary, so that proves it exists. And if you don't want to accept that argue with the dictionary"? Do you think nobody can see what is a crummy bit of fiddling in place of your not being able to produce a scrap of evidence of the only kind you need to?
I am downcast. I thought you had at last seen that you have no good evidence for anything (or everything) that can sensibly be called God, and would agree that you simply had faith in it and would stop badgering us to believe it without good evidence and cease this semantic juggling which fools no-one and is just tiresome. But it seems not.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-22-2016 at 03:09 AM..
... would achieve the same things you describe above in breaking down walls formed by religious dogma .
No, not all the same things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
So what you're saying is that the difference is reverence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
I've have acknowledged that some define God as to include the physical universe as being God.
That is what I said: The equality between the word on the left and its definition on the right is what you acknowledged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
And I stress the supernatural in response to the posts of certain pantheists posters here .
Which ones? The equation between divinity and the physical universe leaves no room for the supernatural in pantheism. It is simple set theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Quote:
Originally Posted by slyfox2
Define pantheistic God.
“Panentheism” is ...a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. (Stanford)
Precisely. While it is not a definition, what happens in practice sometimes is...
Panentheism = Pantheism + Supernatural
It is important to recognize that there is a difference between mystery and the supernatural. Mystery only become supernatural when you say something about it that is not evidence-based, such as giving it specific intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Mystic is a PanENtheist. I'm a Pantheist. I said GOD was intelligent and forward planning
The problem is... Where is the intelligence resident? Practically any answer to the question would result in panentheism. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It only has to be "Something of Supreme Value". That's it...no more than that. If you have an issue with that...take it up with Merriam-Webster. Prove something that is "of Supreme Value" objectively exists...and GOD objectively exists. THAT is the "evidence". And Atheism is nullified by that. Those that don't like that FACT notwithstanding.
This hits the nail on the head 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
What you got? "Something of Supreme value' another sub -definition.
It is the operational definition in society. Belief in God is that which distinguishes people who value themselves above everything else (on the one side) from people who acknowledge that there is some value greater than themselves (on the other side). That's is the operational impact of the word God in our language.
It is the operational definition in society. Belief in God is that which distinguishes people who value themselves above everything else (on the one side) from people who acknowledge that there is some value greater than themselves (on the other side). That's is the operational impact of the word God in our language.
Define "greater" in this context then. Because I can agree the universe is greater than ourselves in some sense but that doesn't mean the universe itself is greater in every way.
In other words....if I can use a single word to mean exactly the same thing as your god....it means you are playing word salad semantic games.
It is the operational definition in society. Belief in God is that which distinguishes people who value themselves above everything else (on the one side) from people who acknowledge that there is some value greater than themselves (on the other side). That's is the operational impact of the word God in our language.
I'm afraid that is a false argument and a rather insulting one, also. Those who have considered the claims and evidence and conclude that they do not believe in a god (and thus the definition that applies to it proves nothing ) value truth (through sound reasoning and valid evidence) above themselves. It is almost an axiom that we are happy to be proved wrong because we learned something new.
The old smear of making ourselves supremely important is ..well, just another atheist -basher. And a false argument of course. Since theism doesn't have any better case it must try to win by discrediting the opposition, because they can't disprove them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-22-2016 at 05:54 AM..
Define "greater" in this context then. Because I can agree the universe is greater than ourselves in some sense but that doesn't mean the universe itself is greater in every way.
No one says you have to be a pantheist. Heck, no one says you cannot be a sociopath, for that matter, and that's getting to the point: The polar opposite of revering something of supreme value is for all intents and purposes sociopathy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
In other words....if I can use a single word to mean exactly the same thing as your god....it means you are playing word salad semantic games.
God has three letters. What single word could you put forward that is shorter than that word that I use? Therefore, if I can use a single, three-letter word to mean something, why should I use your alternative?
No one says you have to be a pantheist. Heck, no one says you cannot be a sociopath, for that matter, and that's getting to the point: The polar opposite of revering something of supreme value is for all intents and purposes sociopathy.
I asked for what definition of greater we're talking about & got a not-so-thinly veiled implication of being a sociopath if I don't agree with the definition you didn't give. I see you are still up to doing god's good work.
Supreme value it is then? So then how ought one revere everything? How does one go about serving everything?
And what utility does that have in daily life...to quite literally...revere everything? Do you revere the virus that made you sick as well? Polluted water? Miscellaneous asteroid dust 100B light years from here? Because thats all part of the stuff that makes everything to me. And while it all might be necessary functions of everything....I see no reason to sit & revere it.
Quote:
God has three letters. What single word could you put forward that is shorter than that word that I use? Therefore, if I can use a single, three-letter word to mean something, why should I use your alternative?
More semantic games. By that rationale, I can proclaim the letter A to be everything and a much better word to use than god. Come on...have you really considered the absurdity of pan(en)theism before?
We have the word which encompasses everything. Not so surprising....it's "everything". And we all know what we mean by that word.
Look...I perceive a God that objectively exists...and can be proven as such. Thus, God.
That renders Atheism null and void.
I will admit there are many things I am not capable of...proving the objective existence of GOD isn't one of those things.
For some reason...it is very obvious that bothers you. I hope you are able to reconcile that. Really, I do.
Hey...maybe you could try the Prayer Thread!
Its Not really as false argument. I mean who has concluded? A milli or ex fundy out for revenge? I mean if we are just looking at “how the universe works” and putting that “truth” above “ourselves” then claiming “something” is far more reasonable than “not something” or “it's irrelevant”.
Rendering that truth “Irrlevant” is really a “personal opinion” that has been put ahead of “truth” for personal emotional needs. theist or otherwise.
Assigning the trait of “omni-dude” is a gross misunderstanding. But in this case, two gross misunderstandings means we have just two plain old mistakes. Normal people don't have to choose between two mistakes in this case. I say this case because it's not an election.
I can’t really take a person seriously that feels … ruling anything out that has the word "theist" near it is not stupider-est thing we ever heard. Sure, Praising this thing is out, making laws on this thing is out, and It snapping its fingers and going poof there it is, is out. Magic is out. But truth is not.
Do little pieces of the universe make bigger pieces of the universe?
Is it more probable that our region of space is "alive" than "not alive"
Is it more reasonable to claim we are the most complex thing in this region of space.
who concluded no-no-yes on these?
Now after that we can honestly and openly discuss the notion/question of rituals being useful to people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One says God is in nature the other that God Is nature. And Why do you keep putting in that caveat? If nature has to be intelligent (and Is presumes as true what you still have to demonstrate to be true) to deserve to be called 'God', then that is the degree to which it has to be intelligent. And that is what you have to produce the evidence for.
) value truth (through sound reasoning and valid evidence) above themselves. It is almost an axiom that we are happy to be proved wrong because we learned something new.
