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.
The graphic below shows the different conceptions of God. Pantheism is NOT my version. Mine is Panentheism and the overarching Bubble is God (Reality) and it is comprised of the Transcendent Consciousness of God (spacetime field) and the Universe is the Immanent portion (measurable physical) of God (Reality).
The graphic below shows the different conceptions of God. Pantheism is NOT my version. Mine is Panentheism and the overarching Bubble is God (Reality) and it is comprised of the Transcendent Consciousness of God (spacetime field) and the Universe is the Immanent portion (measurable physical) of God (Reality).
I think this helps clarify your beliefs, but also will help clarify why many debate the issue with you. In the left side one can argue that we can prove gods existence because we define god as the universe, and we know the universe exists. You make these arguments yourself. But on the right side we can see that what we can prove is the lighter shade of purple, the universe. What we can't know exists simply because we know the universe exists is the dark purple, god. You debate the existence of god from a pantheist POV while believing in god from a panentheist POV.
I think this helps clarify your beliefs, but also will help clarify why many debate the issue with you. In the left side one can argue that we can prove gods existence because we define god as the universe, and we know the universe exists. You make these arguments yourself. But on the right side we can see that what we can prove is the lighter shade of purple, the universe. What we can't know exists simply because we know the universe exists is the dark purple, god. You debate the existence of god from a pantheist POV while believing in god from a panentheist POV.
we can measure it. Does the system we live in match up better with life, non life, or a tweener, like a virus.
And how doe that relate to a belief. Back to the Santa analogy we go ... Christmas is February.
The graphic below shows the different conceptions of God. Pantheism is NOT my version. Mine is Panentheism and the overarching Bubble is God (Reality) and it is comprised of the Transcendent Consciousness of God (spacetime field) and the Universe is the Immanent portion (measurable physical) of God (Reality).
from our point of view they are they would appear equivalent.
I think this helps clarify your beliefs, but also will help clarify why many debate the issue with you. In the left side one can argue that we can prove gods existence because we define god as the universe, and we know the universe exists. You make these arguments yourself. But on the right side we can see that what we can prove is the lighter shade of purple, the universe. What we can't know exists simply because we know the universe exists is the dark purple, god. You debate the existence of god from a pantheist POV while believing in god from a panentheist POV.
What you leave out is the fact that Consciousness itself is transcendent to the Universe or physical portion of Reality (God) because in its imagination it is not subject to or constrained by the laws that govern the Universe.
What you leave out is the fact that Consciousness itself is transcendent to the Universe or physical portion of Reality (God) because in its imagination it is not subject to or constrained by the laws that govern the Universe.
Do you have any solid established evidence that consciousness extends even beyond the orbit of Earth, much less beyond the universe?
Do you have any solid established evidence that consciousness extends even beyond the orbit of Earth, much less beyond the universe?
Pertinent point bolded for emphasis
Well, think about what comprises synaptic firings because in the Resonance Theory of consciousness it is the aggregate resonant synaptic firings that comprise the consciousness we think with. Perfect resonance achieves almost infinite amplification certainly enough to form a single quantum state (Bose-Einstein Condensate) that we experience as our Self. Based on all we know, where do quanta reside? Don't let the bubbles confuse you, they represent conceptual divisions only for purposes of explanation.
The only real separation is based on our limited ability to measure which atheists use against theists to limit the consideration of God. Currently, our measurements must be made at the macro level using our delayed consciousness making it impossible to capture consciousness as a measured phenomenon.
Well, think about what comprises synaptic firings because in the Resonance Theory of consciousness it is the aggregate resonant synaptic firings that comprise the consciousness we think with. Perfect resonance achieves almost infinite amplification certainly enough to form a single quantum state (Bose-Einstein Condensate) that we experience as our Self. Based on all we know, where do quanta reside? Don't let the bubbles confuse you, they represent conceptual divisions only for purposes of explanation.
The only real separation is based on our limited ability to measure which atheists use against theists to limit the consideration of God. Currently, our measurements must be made at the macro level using our delayed consciousness making it impossible to capture consciousness as a measured phenomenon.
Much of what you say is interesting, and as I said on another thread the idea of a field of common consciousness outside the brain we draw upon is intriguing. I just don't see the point of using it to argue with atheists. It can't be proven now, maybe ever. Why try and use it as a weapon and get bent out of shape when it is rejected? I much prefer to focus on what it means to me and let others live their own lives.
Much of what you say is interesting, and as I said on another thread the idea of a field of common consciousness outside the brain we draw upon is intriguing. I just don't see the point of using it to argue with atheists. It can't be proven now, maybe ever. Why try and use it as a weapon and get bent out of shape when it is rejected? I much prefer to focus on what it means to me and let others live their own lives.
Well, contrary to popular opinion here, I am not using any weapons for any purpose just explaining and defending my Christian Panentheism against attacks from BOTH the atheist and the theist camps. I was quite satisfied with my views but a friend asked me to explain them more fully for a mass audience. That birthed my Synthesis attempts which provoked a lot of hostile reactions and they have continued from there.
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.
Panentheism
