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.
Wow...hadn't been on the board much in recent time.
For some reason, I came here today...and see this.
Thanx Mq801!
PANTHEISM: The "do all" concept!
You get God...that objectively exists unequivocally & irrefutably, and that is self-substantiating.
Aaaaaaand...no hocus-pocus stuff, or tithing! Cool!
Looking forward to checking out this thread!
Also wonderful to see all the usual suspects (that I never stopped loving for a second) are still here!
Welcome back old mate. I wonder whether you will note any changes. I won't labour to point that your former 'case for a theism - that doesn't have to be proved through "Pantheism".' has already been scuppered. Up to you how you use your time. Just so you can't say that nobody told you.
Welcome back old mate. I wonder whether you will note any changes. I won't labour to point that your former 'case for a theism - that doesn't have to be proved through "Pantheism".' has already been scuppered. Up to you how you use your time. Just so you can't say that nobody told you.
lmao ... "scuppered". Its sound like a christian forum that says "we scruppered a no jesus claim." to funny.
thats funny trans. so much "scuppered" went on you have run away and hide. If you just "shrugged off pantheism" you would be posting this crapola.
Wow...hadn't been on the board much in recent time.
For some reason, I came here today...and see this.
Thanx Mq801!
PANTHEISM: The "do all" concept!
You get God...that objectively exists unequivocally & irrefutably, and that is self-substantiating.
Aaaaaaand...no hocus-pocus stuff, or tithing! Cool!
Looking forward to checking out this thread!
Also wonderful to see all the usual suspects (that I never stopped loving for a second) are still here!
Good to see you again, Gldn. Our efforts to mitigate the rampant default atheism under the "burden of proof" nonsense here has borne fruit but meagerly. The atheists in the other threads still insist on couching their arguments using the EXISTENCE of God effectively pretending that this clarification eliminating that argument does NOT exist. What they're actually arguing about are the ATTRIBUTES of God but they insist on claiming it is about the EXISTENCE. It is very frustrating and annoying and now instantiated into the forum rules.
My Christian panentheism is effectively restricted by this rule from countering the existence argument in the other threads leaving the atheists free to use it without consequence which they do routinely in the other threads as well as in this one. As Arq (Trans) has boldly proclaimed, the R&S forum is effectively an atheist dominated forum.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-27-2020 at 08:03 AM..
It is the same (or similar) to putting it in Quotes. It is a Rhetorical Tactic for loading a word with Extra Meaning that can be appealed to as being 'Agreed' by Us through the Equivocation Ploy) to force on us a claim without our being able to dissent.
I would never do anything like that.
You mean like using "Nature" or "natural" to force your atheist claim without our being able to dissent - now by forum rule?
Quote:
You will note - not a mention of Intelligence and Forward Planning. Which is what would merit the 'God' - label rather than nature, with all the order, design and complexity, none of which really require an intelligent designer (the claim of Creationism - in the broad sense (1) that it has. Mystic, and indeed Arach and also Gldnrule (not seen for a while) all know this and that claim of intelligence puts the burden of proof on them. All three found an evasion; Gldrule appealed to pantheism (God without a god, it seems) Arach opted for 'Life' rather than 'God', but is stuck with trying to get what we think of as inanimate stuff (minerals, chemicals) accepted as 'alive' (2). Mystic simply ignores the point (3)
Our Reality has more than 7 billion+ individual "cells of sentience" on our tiny planet alone so your no intelligence argument fails which is why you refuse to consider our Reality as a single entity - more of your forcing a claim without allowing disent.
Quote:
For me, Intelligence...damn...lost me thread. I think 'intelligence' is the elephant in the Pantheion. If not, it is a worship of natural processes. And that raises the question of whether one can intercede with it for benefit in this life (or a next) by religio -ritual acts like prayer (doing it with technology isn't an Ism, it is an ology).
It is a worship of the "life forces" of our living God NOT your "natural forces" forcing an atheist claim without allowing disent.
Quote:
And a Pantheism that has or is a Thing that can be contacted with for granting wishes, giving revelations of Truth or just making Feelgood is a religion rather than just a fad or gimmick, like the Mandelbrot set.
Again those over 7 billion "cells of sentience" that are merely a small part of God's consciousness provide a venue for such appeals.
Quote:
A pantheism without an Intelligence... we atheists can just shrug. It does no harm to us. A Pantheism (or Pan -entheism - the semantic tweak makes no real difference) that postulates an Intelligence or something that has intent and will (or like Karma must to work - discrimination) simply plomps the burden of proof back on the claimant's sloping shoulders.
You make a big deal out of a "Burden of proof" while eschewing it entirely for your claims of nonexistence. What scientific basis do you have for claiming the NONEXISTENCE of any attributes that we know exist as part of our Reality? What scientific basis do you have for claiming that any attributes known to exist within our Reality are NOT possessed by our Reality taken as a single entity?
Quote:
(2) 'Vibrations' ..of course even a rock is buzzing with sub -atomic activity, but that isn't Life. Arach asked what is and I said 'it began with replication (of proto - DNA) if we must have a dividing line between the inorganic and organic'. He lolled and has ignored this point ever since.
He didn't ignore it, he tried to explain it to you using the example of a living cell. Within it there are components which do NOT manifest what you would call life but the cell as a whole does. You refuse to extrapolate that example to our Reality as a whole.
Quote:
(3) I was going to say: "and tries to make the most out of the fact that the universe ("Reality" is merely a semantic faddle to appeal to 'Unknowns') exists and is why we are here and should be called 'God'." But in view of Mod. impatience with this 'Universe is God' -argument, I won't.
What you call a semantic faddle is an undeniable fact. Our Reality IS why we are here and why absolutely everything exists. How that could be anymore Godlike is beyond me. You are free to individually attack any ATTRIBUTES of God you think unsupportable but God's existence is off the table. The simple and undeniable truth is that every attribute that exists in our Reality is an attribute of God under panenthesim, including our unique and powerful consciousness.
Good to see you again, Gldn. Our efforts to mitigate the rampant default atheism under the "burden of proof" nonsense here has borne fruit but meagerly. The atheists in the other threads still insist on couching their arguments using the EXISTENCE of God effectively pretending that this clarification eliminating that argument does NOT exist. What they're actually arguing about are the ATTRIBUTES of God but they insist on claiming it is about the EXISTENCE. It is very frustrating and annoying and now instantiated into the forum rules.
My Christian panentheism is effectively restricted by this rule from countering the existence argument in the other threads leaving the atheists free to use it without consequence which they do routinely in the other threads as well as in this one. As Arq (Trans) has boldly proclaimed, the R&S forum is effectively an atheist dominated forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Explain how you are NOT arguing about the attributes instead of smacking your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I know. He keeps fiddling the argument to look like it's something else, and is oblivious to the fact that he isn't fooling anyone.
While the response of the forum indicates that you ARE fooling most here, the fact remains that you are arguing attributes and trying to force your atheist claim without allowing dissent using your labels. You do this in spite of the FACT that "WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUR REALITY IS OR IS NOT." What scientific reason do you have for forcing the existence claim using YOUR preferred labels?
it really comes down to semantics. he calls it god, I call it the biosphere, you call it the universe.
who is dead wrong?
Given the definition of biosphere, I can at least confirm you are dead wrong, because the universe includes far more than just the regions surrounding and including Earth.
Biosphere - the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth (or analogous parts of other planets) occupied by living organisms.
Sure hope we're not going to start using definitions not commonly found in the dictionary again...
Good to see you again, Gldn. Our efforts to mitigate the rampant default atheism under the "burden of proof" nonsense here has borne fruit but meagerly. The atheists in the other threads still insist on couching their arguments using the EXISTENCE of God effectively pretending that this clarification eliminating that argument does NOT exist. What they're actually arguing about are the ATTRIBUTES of God but they insist on claiming it is about the EXISTENCE. It is very frustrating and annoying and now instantiated into the forum rules.
My Christian panentheism is effectively restricted by this rule from countering the existence argument in the other threads leaving the atheists free to use it without consequence which they do routinely in the other threads as well as in this one. As Arq (Trans) has boldly proclaimed, the R&S forum is effectively an atheist dominated forum.
What fruit meagerly born are you referring to I wonder...
After just having addressed this "burden of proof" issue again in another thread, forgive me if I shrug off your comment about this here yet again. I'm trying to keep the spinning in circles to a minimum...
Explain how you are NOT arguing about the attributes instead of smacking your head.
While the response of the forum indicates that you ARE fooling most here, the fact remains that you are arguing attributes and trying to force your atheist claim without allowing dissent using your labels. You do this in spite of the FACT that "WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUR REALITY IS OR IS NOT." What scientific reason do you have for forcing the existence claim using YOUR preferred labels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
What fruit meagerly born are you referring to I wonder...
Acknowledging that pantheism and panentheism are legitimate religions and arguments that eliminate your demands for evidence of the existence of God since they encompass ALL existing evidence as evidence of God.
Quote:
After just having addressed this "burden of proof" issue again in another thread, forgive me if I shrug off your comment about this here yet again. I'm trying to keep the spinning in circles to a minimum...
Your inability to establish any scientifically sound basis for the existence demand in the face of the pantheistic religions means your spinning in circles is apt to be unending. We are NOT claiming the existence of something not yet existing. We are characterizing what DOES exist. All your disbelief centers on what its attributes are or are not.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-27-2020 at 12:19 PM..
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.
Our efforts to mitigate the rampant default atheism under the "burden of proof" nonsense here has borne fruit but meagerly. The atheists in the other threads still insist on couching their arguments using the EXISTENCE of God effectively pretending that this clarification eliminating that argument does NOT exist. What they're actually arguing about are the ATTRIBUTES of God but they insist on claiming it is about the EXISTENCE. It is very frustrating and annoying and now instantiated into the forum rules. 
He keeps fiddling the argument to look like it's something else, and is oblivious to the fact that he isn't fooling anyone.
is a religion rather than just a fad or gimmick, like the Mandelbrot set.
