If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (hate, atheist, quote)
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.
It's remarkable how often these things end up in a welter of accusations of bad behaviour. And on the Transitionals thread, how less than patient rebuttals provided the perfect excuse to start a squabble.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Pantheism makes the universe impersonal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Not quite. It makes divinity non-personal. The word "impersonal" has specific connotations that do not apply here ("not influenced by, showing, or involving personal feelings"). Pantheism is typified by the exact opposite of the impersonal. Sagan's words typify pantheism: "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." Magnificence, reverence and awe can only be perceived by way of feelings.
So what pantheism does is make divinity immanent. It isn't some wizened old man with a white beard making conscience (and perhaps capricious) decisions about individual people. It is simply a natural process. Nothing up the sleeve, nothing hidden behind a curtain. Still magnificent. Still awe-inspiring. Still worthy of reverence.
I hardly see how the universe like stars, moons, meteors etc. can have a personal relationship with someone. They are impersonal to us. They have no feelings one way or the other towards us humans. They just exist. Having reverence and awe for the beauty of space is one sided. I prefer a 2 way street.
"something" over "Nothing" is a big unanswered. Can't even assign probability. Therefore the only logical position is to not regard it as believable until something reliable supports it. The only reason it even needs to be mentioned is when people claim it as reliable, never mind probable.
yeah it is. It is a huge unknown and I don't know anything about this thing. I admit that. Like I said, on forums you get to pout and spout "not reliable", in person you do not get that luxury. I do know, that what we have the universe has more of. To claim otherwise is foolish.
Yes you can assign a probability. You choose not to. Simply put, "something" is more probable/and reasonable than "nothing". We can't put numbers on it, that's true enough. We can't put them on "love" or "hate" yet either. but they are there and we can "chemically" control them. To a degree that is. Marketing, education, and psychology are based on things we can't put formulas on.
So when someone asked a general question "do you think we are part of something more?" the answer is simply, "the data suggest strongly that we are. That data also suggest that claiming we are not is much less valid."
That's it. anything else is your revenge masked in "logic" with a base premise that is wrong. That base being "fight anything that counters "something" because I was hurt by religion. The NRA uses your tactic. But hey, the best wars have been fought using hidden truths too so you are in great company.
Well, perhaps you could give the reasons why 'something more' is more probable. Note, just citing unknowns will not do. You need to provide evidence of something beyond the material world we can demonstrate.
If you can do this, I may not believe it, but I will at least take it on board as a decent basis for an hypothesis.
I hardly see how the universe like stars, moons, meteors etc. can have a personal relationship with someone. They are impersonal to us. They have no feelings one way or the other towards us humans. They just exist. Having reverence and awe for the beauty of space is one sided. I prefer a 2 way street.
P.S. God isn't an old man with a white beard.
I have to say that Eusebius and I take the same view here. "God" or not. Not just nature dressed up like Galadriel and worshipped.
yeah it is. It is a huge unknown and I don't know anything about this thing. I admit that. Like I said, on forums you get to pout and spout "not reliable", in person you do not get that luxury. I do know, that what we have the universe has more of. To claim otherwise is foolish.
Yes you can assign a probability. You choose not to. Simply put, "something" is more probable/and reasonable than "nothing". We can't put numbers on it, that's true enough. We can't put them on "love" or "hate" yet either. but they are there and we can "chemically" control them. To a degree that is. Marketing, education, and psychology are based on things we can't put formulas on.
So when someone asked a general question "do you think we are part of something more?" the answer is simply, "the data suggest strongly that we are. That data also suggest that claiming we are not is much less valid."
That's it. anything else is your revenge masked in "logic" with a base premise that is wrong. That base being "fight anything that counters "something" because I was hurt by religion. The NRA uses your tactic. But hey, the best wars have been fought using hidden truths too so you are in great company.
You seem stuck on the whole "There is something." "Something is more likely than nothing" thing. This thread isn't about whether or not there is "Something" out there. This thread is about a pantheistic version of God.
If you think saying, "There is something out there, and that something is God," is logical, then you could certainly use a refresher course on logic. You are making a huge leap with no evidence. If that isn't what you are saying, then you are off topic in this thread.
I have to say that Eusebius and I take the same view here. "God" or not. Not just nature dressed up like Galadriel and worshipped.
Yeah one of the few times I have to agree with Eusebius as well.
If it's the awe,reverance, and wonderment of nature or physical reality....then I suppose I have it. But that doesn't conjure any more meaning for me than we learn about it. And the best way to learn about it is, unquestionably via science.
This post reminds me of a passage from one of Asimov's Foundation books . An emissary from the crumbling Empire comes to the exiled Foundation planet on the periphery of the galaxy to assure them the Empire still protects them . He makes a very eloquent statement concerning relations and obligations between the Empire and the Foundation concerning the Empire protecting the Foundation from rebel kingdoms around them , but when the Foundation experts parse the statement to remove the meaningless stuff , and get down to its actual substantive meaning, there is nothing left . The statement is simply of bunch of eloquent sounding words meant to appear to have substance while actually having no real meat or meaning .
Such is the case with the quoted above .
lmao, yeah right. your at it again. you lost before and you will lose again. You had your little hissy fit and couldn't get past your emotion. Than when baby settled down he says "Oh yeah, your right, now that I stopped whinning".
we are off "meaning to you" and on to what is best to base a belief off of. Observations or emotional opinions. And we will list observations that support our opinions.
Like I said, forums have ranters that rant. Like you. in person you don't get away with it. Would you like to list just the facts (again) and compare my facts to your facts? We did it before and you had no facts as I recall. You did have a lot of "I don't cares" or "you don't understand" me's, but no facts to support a claim. As I recall you had to make a point of getting off the topic of "what does the observations show" and move us, pigeon toe us, on "what it means to us." because you have nothing but an emotional based opinion.
Like I said so many post ago, you had to limit the discussion to "what does it mean to us" because if we stayed on observations your emotional stance won't hold up.
You take the first observation to support your claim.
Every single thing you spouted off about I challenged you and you let it drop or admitted you shot your mouth off and couldn't back it up. So spare me your nonsense . In the end , your statement was exactly what I had been saying all along, so only a delusional person could claim to have won such an exchange .
You are downright laughable . You STILL cannot prove one thing you claimed was wrong with what I said . You ran away every time I challenged you . But feel free to try again. It will be even easier to show you as the fool the second time around .
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.
"God" or not. Not just nature dressed up like Galadriel and worshipped.
