The R&S Pantheism Thread (Jehovah, atheism, quote, God)
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.
Not really. I said, "....things that humans consider "evil" , "bad", "wrong", etc."
But, ultimately, all that is subjective. Those concepts are human constructs and only exist as ideas people have.
Case in point...there are things that some consider "a right" that they sanction...that I think is the most evil, heinous barbaric thing that humans could do.
And God is necessarily that too.
I usually get, "So God is dog poop, snot, toilets, and dildos?" I just say, Yes, of course.
SO, yup...God is Vlad the Impaler, and even the act of impaling. And though most think that's rough...Vlad probably thought he was a cool dude, and enjoyed impaling people.
Ok, fair enough. That which humans subjectively consider "bad," "evil," "hate," etc are God.
And of course vile posts are God and good posts are God. Attacks on Pantheism are God and defences of Pantheism are God.
Your defence of Pantheism is God, but it is also an attack on God as the posts you criticise are also God. I am God. You are God. When you argue against me you argue against God.
Everything is God. What a wonderfully sensible concept.
I view ALL that exists, in totality, as a single Entity...One Thing.
Those things that get mentioned by puerile people looking to bash Theist Beliefs, is such a infinitesimal part of something 93 Billion light years across that encompasses a hundred billion galaxies each containing a hundred billion stars.
And the idea that those things are "gross" is just a human construct anyway...and only brought up so people that think likewise will focus on it and ask, "...why would you want to worship that?".
Also...I have "reverence" for the God I perceive...no "worship" involved.
Ok, fair enough. That which humans subjectively consider "bad," "evil," "hate," etc are God.
And of course vile posts are God and good posts are God. Attacks on Pantheism are God and defences of Pantheism are God.
Your defence of Pantheism is God, but it is also an attack on God as the posts you criticise are also God. I am God. You are God. When you argue against me you argue against God.
Everything is God. What a wonderfully sensible concept.
Your argument is a common one...brought up by those that view everything as individual things and do not embrace the concept that everything, in totality, is actually just One Thing.
Please take the bit of time it takes to read this: https://medium.com/the-sophist/spino...g-2e1a411085c9
I really should be going, but I don't see any attributes here known to define a god.
I've never heard of a god defined by mass / energy / matter.
Not in any religious texts anyway.
This may be your interpretation of those things and that's fine.
Everything you describe is defined by physical laws that humans discovered through science.
They are scientific terms.
You can call it all god if you want but its not 'definitely a god', only that you perceive it to be that.
To me it's all physics.
Anyhow, now I'm definitely going.
It is all physics, Cruithne. It is physics that describes how God lives and reproduces, IMO. How God came to exist is suspected but unknown (Big Bang). How long God will exist is unknown. But everything is some aspect of God which is why the existence and attributes of our consciousness mandate that we consider it God that we are investigating with our physics. What else would we consider a ubiquitous conscious Reality, if not God?
Of course, to the typical "separate things" view of Reality, it seems acceptable to believe that our utterly unique consciousness just emerged from all the other decidedly not conscious stuff here and is not an attribute of Reality taken as a single entity. I have trouble accepting the irrationality of using info from less than 5% of Reality to posit the "poofing" of a phenomenon and attributes into existence that simply exist nowhere else in our measured Reality and just happens to exist beyond our direct measures along with 95+% of Reality. My rational assumption would be that it is of the same nature as the 95+% of Reality that contains the measurable 5%.
In other words, the spacetime field that is responsible for our existence is a consciousness field and we are reproducing our cellular portions of it. But, of course, you already knew that, Cruithne. The difference is that my panENtheist view contains consciousness which transcends our immanent Reality. That is indeed another ball game entirely.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 07-15-2021 at 05:41 PM..
I view ALL that exists, in totality, as a single Entity...One Thing.
Those things that get mentioned by puerile people looking to bash Theist Beliefs, is such a infinitesimal part of something 93 Billion light years across that encompasses a hundred billion galaxies each containing a hundred billion stars.
And the idea that those things are "gross" is just a human construct anyway...and only brought up so people that think likewise will focus on it and ask, "...why would you want to worship that?".
Also...I have "reverence" for the God I perceive...no "worship" involved.
Your argument is a common one...brought up by those that view everything as individual things and do not embrace the concept that everything, in totality, is actually just One Thing.
Please take the bit of time it takes to read this: https://medium.com/the-sophist/spino...g-2e1a411085c9
But does that One Thing have parts?
If it does have parts, then you arguing against the criticism of Pantheism, is part of God arguing against part of God. So it still is you (God) arguing against God.
If the One Thing doesn't have parts, then the argument for pantheism is the same as the argument against pantheism, which is the same as you and me and everything else. In fact the concept of Pantheism and the concept of nonsense are also the same One Thing.
The fault with Spinoza is that he started with the idea that God existed, then tried to find the most rational way to justify the existence. But what he missed out is why a concept of God is needed at all.
If it does have parts, then you arguing against the criticism of Pantheism, is part of God arguing against part of God. So it still is you (God) arguing against God.
If the One Thing doesn't have parts, then the argument for pantheism is the same as the argument against pantheism, which is the same as you and me and everything else. In fact the concept of Pantheism and the concept of nonsense are also the same One Thing.
The fault with Spinazzola is that he started with the idea that God existed, then tried to find the most rational way to justify the existence. But what he missed out is why a concept of God is needed at all.
Yeah...that was the fault with that Spinazzola guy.
Just like a basis of finding valid information with the Scientific Method, is that it must be falsifiable.
A hypothesis can't be right, unless it can be proven wrong.
In order to be shown as true...it must be able to be shown as false.
The only way one understands the logic in that, is if one achieves a understanding of the logic in that.
Carry that over to "Oneness" and it's relation to Pantheism/God.
I view ALL that exists, in totality, as a single Entity...One Thing.
Those things that get mentioned by puerile people looking to bash Theist Beliefs, is such a infinitesimal part of something 93 Billion light years across that encompasses a hundred billion galaxies each containing a hundred billion stars.
And the idea that those things are "gross" is just a human construct anyway...and only brought up so people that think likewise will focus on it and ask, "...why would you want to worship that?".
Also...I have "reverence" for the God I perceive...no "worship" involved.
You view poorly, grasshopper. From what I have seen on this forum, the only reverence you have is for yourself, but that is a different story.
I've educated you on this before, but I guess as a non-learner you need lots of repetition. You don't perceive your god, you imagine it. Try to tuck that away.
BTW, can you offer any evidence for your imaginary "god"?
Yeah...that was the fault with that Spinazzola guy.
Just like a basis of finding valid information with the Scientific Method, is that it must be falsifiable.
A hypothesis can't be right, unless it can be proven wrong.
In order to be shown as true...it must be able to be shown as false.
The only way one understands the logic in that, is if one achieves a understanding of the logic in that.
Carry that over to "Oneness" and it's relation to Pantheism/God.
What are you saying - that Pantheism is falsifiable? I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are talking about before replying.
If it does have parts, then you arguing against the criticism of Pantheism, is part of God arguing against part of God. So it still is you (God) arguing against God.
If the One Thing doesn't have parts, then the argument for pantheism is the same as the argument against pantheism, which is the same as you and me and everything else. In fact the concept of Pantheism and the concept of nonsense are also the same One Thing.
The fault with Spinoza is that he started with the idea that God existed, then tried to find the most rational way to justify the existence. But what he missed out is why a concept of God is needed at all.
Why is a concept of the Universe or multiverse needed at all???? The shallowness of your philosophical perspective becomes ever more apparent the more you talk.
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.