Treat2 ... are you looking for a debate about Pantheism?

Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Treat2 ... are you looking for a debate about Pantheism?

I noticed in a couple of threads Treat2 has been taking odd, random swipes at Pantheism. I don't know if he's aware that our numbers at RRS include a few pan(en)theists so I thought I'd start a thread where we can out ourselves for those who have a beef, of sorts, with our stuff and nonsense.

Treat2 (and any other atheist who wishes it) you're cordially invited to formally list, or rant if you'd prefer it, your objections to pantheism here so we (well.. in all likelihood it will just be "I&quotEye-wink can respond to them.

So it begins...


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I noticed in a

Eloise wrote:

I noticed in a couple of threads Treat2 has been taking odd, random swipes at Pantheism. I don't know if he's aware that our numbers at RRS include a few pan(en)theists so I thought I'd start a thread where we can out ourselves for those who have a beef, of sorts, with our stuff and nonsense.

Treat2 (and any other atheist who wishes it) you're cordially invited to formally list, or rant if you'd prefer it, your objections to pantheism here so we (well.. in all likelihood it will just be "I&quotEye-wink can respond to them.

So it begins...

Please don't bore us with a definition your god. Anyone can read about Pantheism and subsequently they need no definition from you of what god means to Pantheists. That's not particularly interesting.

Here's something of interest.. let's begin with your describing:

1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s).
2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
question

Could you provide a brief description of what you personally think about pantheism?

I could say that all a pantheist really does is relabel Nature or Reality as God, which really seems more like semantics than anything else.

I have no real issue with pantheism though as it is non-dogmatic.

 

Sticking out tongue


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Lady's first. Besides, "it's

Lady's first. Besides, "it's yo thang."


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:Could

FreeHugMachine wrote:

Could you provide a brief description of what you personally think about pantheism?

I could say that all a pantheist really does is relabel Nature or Reality as God, which really seems more like semantics than anything else.

I have no real issue with pantheism though as it is non-dogmatic.

 

Sticking out tongue

Undertand this...Einstein was no fuckin' dummy.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Eloise wrote:I

treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:

I noticed in a couple of threads Treat2 has been taking odd, random swipes at Pantheism. I don't know if he's aware that our numbers at RRS include a few pan(en)theists so I thought I'd start a thread where we can out ourselves for those who have a beef, of sorts, with our stuff and nonsense.

Treat2 (and any other atheist who wishes it) you're cordially invited to formally list, or rant if you'd prefer it, your objections to pantheism here so we (well.. in all likelihood it will just be "I&quotEye-wink can respond to them.

So it begins...

Please don't bore us with a definition your god. Anyone can read about Pantheism and subsequently they need no definition from you of what god means to Pantheists. That's not particularly interesting.

Here's something of interest.. let's begin with your describing:

1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s).
2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.

(Hmmmm. I'm gonna have a nightcap. I expect to become somewhat incoherent shortly, and my spelling to still be incomprehensible, as usual.)


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: let's begin

treat2 wrote:
let's begin with your describing: 1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s). 2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.


Sorry for the delay, after a long day of free time which I thoroughly wasted playing around on RRS, I suddenly got very busy.

So before I begin, I will admit I was hoping you'd indulge me with what it is that motivates you to rail against pantheism, in particular, as I've been noticing you do, but I'll answer your questions first, if you'd prefer.

Second I'd like to clarify, do you mean what is required, in my view, for a thing to be God?

For now, I'm going to go ahead with the assumption that's what you mean and answer it, whatever you will with it.

1. The first requirement for a thing to be "God" is that it has to be in a significant way something which is consistent with the proclaimed insight about gods and God in the appropriate literature.  It needs to have relevance to the historical ideas and traditional stories that are where the concept of a god originates, or else it is not a god at all, it's an unrelated entity to which you could give any name equally meaningfully. All other requirements are really just special cases of this one such as:

a) It can be seen to be under no limitations as to its potency in our perceptible reality. It should have a valid claim to unlimited efficacy throughout the entire universe of reality which we inhabit. Why? Because it says so in the literature.

b) "God", in any language or tradition, is through and through anthropomorphic, so what a human is needs be the image of the entity, then it can be God.

2. My requirement for something to be religion is pretty straightforward. It's got to be:
a) institutional
b) centered around belief
c) organised around the assertions of a person or persons who've claimed they are given authority over institution of beliefs by an occulted power

P.S. I'm irreligious.

Next Question...

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Eloise wrote:I

treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:

I noticed in a couple of threads Treat2 has been taking odd, random swipes at Pantheism. I don't know if he's aware that our numbers at RRS include a few pan(en)theists so I thought I'd start a thread where we can out ourselves for those who have a beef, of sorts, with our stuff and nonsense.

Treat2 (and any other atheist who wishes it) you're cordially invited to formally list, or rant if you'd prefer it, your objections to pantheism here so we (well.. in all likelihood it will just be "I&quotEye-wink can respond to them.

So it begins...

Please don't bore us with a definition your god. Anyone can read about Pantheism and subsequently they need no definition from you of what god means to Pantheists. That's not particularly interesting.

Here's something of interest.. let's begin with your describing:

1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s).
2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.

god!

1) Why do you REQUIRE god(s).
2) Why do you REQUIRE religion.

Look up the word "require" in any dictionary and apply it's first definition. Thanks.

BTW. if I was in a desert with my PC, a source of power and an Internet connection and if these posts were water, I would have died of dehydration. Shall I assume that this "debate" is intended to continue over a period of several years?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:treat2

treat2 wrote:
treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:

I noticed in a couple of threads Treat2 has been taking odd, random swipes at Pantheism. I don't know if he's aware that our numbers at RRS include a few pan(en)theists so I thought I'd start a thread where we can out ourselves for those who have a beef, of sorts, with our stuff and nonsense.

Treat2 (and any other atheist who wishes it) you're cordially invited to formally list, or rant if you'd prefer it, your objections to pantheism here so we (well.. in all likelihood it will just be "I&quotEye-wink can respond to them.

So it begins...

Please don't bore us with a definition your god. Anyone can read about Pantheism and subsequently they need no definition from you of what god means to Pantheists. That's not particularly interesting. Here's something of interest.. let's begin with your describing: 1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s). 2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.
god! 1) Why do you REQUIRE god(s). 2) Why do you REQUIRE religion. Look up the word "require" in any dictionary and apply it's first definition. Thanks. BTW. if I was in a desert with my PC, a source of power and an Internet connection and if these posts were water, I would have died of dehydration. Shall I assume that this "debate" is intended to continue over a period of several years?

No I think it can end now.

How about that?

You're behaving entirely too unpleasantly for me to care whether I am making your obnoxious arse wait longer than it wants to.

Have a nice day.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No I think it

Eloise wrote:

No I think it can end now.

How about that?

You're behaving entirely too unpleasantly for me to care whether I am making your obnoxious arse wait longer than it wants to.

Have a nice day.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No I think it

Eloise wrote:

No I think it can end now.

How about that?

You're behaving entirely too unpleasantly for me to care whether I am making your obnoxious arse wait longer than it wants to.

Have a nice day.

I think that was definitely the best decision.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eloise

butterbattle wrote:

Eloise wrote:

No I think it can end now.

How about that?

You're behaving entirely too unpleasantly for me to care whether I am making your obnoxious arse wait longer than it wants to.

Have a nice day.

I think that was definitely the best decision.

 

I think it was her best decision, too! lol


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
treat2, like seriously, in

treat2, like seriously, in another thread you asked me to come troll some christian website with you. That's not what we're here for, annoying posts are sent to trollville for a reason.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:treat2, like

Stosis wrote:

treat2, like seriously, in another thread you asked me to come troll some christian website with you. That's not what we're here for, annoying posts are sent to trollville for a reason.

You misunderstood me with regard to what I was talking about as to a Christian web site. I wasn't talking about trolling it. There are other ways to get on their nerves than trolling or flaming them.

Read what I asked in this thread, and re-asked again, again.
If call that trolling, that's you peregative. The person that started the post never answered the 2 questions I asked. Instead she went on with a long post explaining Pantheism. Exactly what I did not ask. As such I re-asked again.

That she didn't like my "tone" is her problem.
That she hsa a need to talk about her religion, and hear that I'm not interested in it, nor did I ask about it, is also her own goddamn problem.

If you want to consider that as trolling, fine. I am entirely used to it, and it's exactly the sort of crap that is commonplace, and why I never did, and still don't give a shit about what anyone calls "trolling".

If you don't like my answers, to fucking bad.

I asked 2 VERY SIMPLE questions twice. They still remain to be answered, but obviously the thread-poster would rather attempt to avoid answering them and refer to my responses as trolling, whilst her fellow poster does the same about something else.

So it goes. Frankly, I didn't expect answer to my questions as that would have been too difficult for a Pantheist to figure out.

As yes... trolling again. Nope. Just telling it as it is.
To damn bad if you don't like it. That's how it is.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Stosis

treat2 wrote:
Stosis wrote:

treat2, like seriously, in another thread you asked me to come troll some christian website with you. That's not what we're here for, annoying posts are sent to trollville for a reason.

You misunderstood me with regard to what I was talking about as to a Christian web site. I wasn't talking about trolling it. There are other ways to get on their nerves than trolling or flaming them. Read what I asked in this thread, and re-asked again, again. If call that trolling, that's you peregative. The person that started the post never answered the 2 questions I asked. Instead she went on with a long post explaining Pantheism. Exactly what I did not ask. As such I re-asked again. That she didn't like my "tone" is her problem. That she hsa a need to talk about her religion, and hear that I'm not interested in it, nor did I ask about it, is also her own goddamn problem. If you want to consider that as trolling, fine. I am entirely used to it, and it's exactly the sort of crap that is commonplace, and why I never did, and still don't give a shit about what anyone calls "trolling". If you don't like my answers, to fucking bad. I asked 2 VERY SIMPLE questions twice. They still remain to be answered, but obviously the thread-poster would rather attempt to avoid answering them and refer to my responses as trolling, whilst her fellow poster does the same about something else. So it goes. Frankly, I didn't expect answer to my questions as that would have been too difficult for a Pantheist to figure out. As yes... trolling again. Nope. Just telling it as it is. To damn bad if you don't like it. That's how it is.

The answer to both your questions is "I don't."

Too damn bad for you if you couldn't figure that out from what I did post, I made it clear and straightforward didn't I?

Oh wait.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
 If you have no reason for

 If you have no reason for believing in those two questions treat2 asked, why would you believe in these ideas? The only way you can truly make a valid case for just the possibility of your pantheism is by only renaming natural laws as God. This is unscientific, though, as it is unfalsifiable given that if there is no true God as the causality of something, we would continue to find reasons for why things happen at deeper and deeper levels and you would always continue to say they work that way cause it is God that is doing this.
I gave this answer, but I still feel a bit confused about the actual details of what you specifically believe as a pantheist. I have read definitions for it, but I am confused with these definitions and things you have said, so perhaps you could be more elaborate in what you believe. Some extra effort to do this very clearly would definitely be appreciated.

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote: If you

Madmax958 wrote:

 If you have no reason for believing in those two questions treat2 asked, why would you believe in these ideas?

For the reasons I gave in my original answers, essentially.

I say God isn't necessary for any reason, not to me nor to the universe. This universe could simply be a universe like that presupposed by the scientific method ie closed in the respect that we can refer to it from an insular standpoint, but for the fact that it isn't and we cannot. God simply is what is, the literature has insight.

 

MadMax58 wrote:

The only way you can truly make a valid case for just the possibility of your pantheism is by only renaming natural laws as God.

Or, by conceding the point that they were already so named with a significant degree of accuracy, which is more like the case as I have it.

MadMax58 wrote:

This is unscientific, though, as it is unfalsifiable given that if there is no true God as the causality of something, we would continue to find reasons for why things happen at deeper and deeper levels and you would always continue to say they work that way cause it is God that is doing this.

So let me clear up that I do not have God as a causal necessity. Moreover, there is reason to believe that cause is not even a necessary condition but a correlative one, and this is my standpoint. In such a case, more cause is just more cause, it doesn't supplant the universe it is found within.

MadMax58 wrote:

 perhaps you could be more elaborate in what you believe. Some extra effort to do this very clearly would definitely be appreciated.

 

I know I haven't done what you've asked exactly, but I find it is usually better to start with the basic statement that what God is follows directly from understanding what we are. It is my view that an average conception of humanity and its place in the universe sorely lacks precision and I think that is the point which needs to be pressed moreso than whether God exists.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:treat2

Eloise wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Stosis wrote:

treat2, like seriously, in another thread you asked me to come troll some christian website with you. That's not what we're here for, annoying posts are sent to trollville for a reason.

You misunderstood me with regard to what I was talking about as to a Christian web site. I wasn't talking about trolling it. There are other ways to get on their nerves than trolling or flaming them. Read what I asked in this thread, and re-asked again, again. If call that trolling, that's you peregative. The person that started the post never answered the 2 questions I asked. Instead she went on with a long post explaining Pantheism. Exactly what I did not ask. As such I re-asked again. That she didn't like my "tone" is her problem. That she hsa a need to talk about her religion, and hear that I'm not interested in it, nor did I ask about it, is also her own goddamn problem. If you want to consider that as trolling, fine. I am entirely used to it, and it's exactly the sort of crap that is commonplace, and why I never did, and still don't give a shit about what anyone calls "trolling". If you don't like my answers, to fucking bad. I asked 2 VERY SIMPLE questions twice. They still remain to be answered, but obviously the thread-poster would rather attempt to avoid answering them and refer to my responses as trolling, whilst her fellow poster does the same about something else. So it goes. Frankly, I didn't expect answer to my questions as that would have been too difficult for a Pantheist to figure out. As yes... trolling again. Nope. Just telling it as it is. To damn bad if you don't like it. That's how it is.

The answer to both your questions is "I don't."

Too damn bad for you if you couldn't figure that out from what I did post, I made it clear and straightforward didn't I?

Oh wait.

You're not making any sense...

1) Pantheism is a religion.
2) Pantheism defines what "God" is.

I asked you (as you are a Pantheist), why you require both.

Now you state that you don't.

Your response is a typical example of Pantheist-speak, and EXACTLY why I have put up a number of post which clarify that Pantheists redefine the English language, AND my dislike for obfuscating commonly used words to mean something that they do not.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote: If you

Madmax958 wrote:

 If you have no reason for believing in those two questions treat2 asked, why would you believe in these ideas? The only way you can truly make a valid case for just the possibility of your pantheism is by only renaming natural laws as God. This is unscientific, though, as it is unfalsifiable given that if there is no true God as the causality of something, we would continue to find reasons for why things happen at deeper and deeper levels and you would always continue to say they work that way cause it is God that is doing this.
I gave this answer, but I still feel a bit confused about the actual details of what you specifically believe as a pantheist. I have read definitions for it, but I am confused with these definitions and things you have said, so perhaps you could be more elaborate in what you believe. Some extra effort to do this very clearly would definitely be appreciated.

 

If you are confused by certain definitions you've read, my suggestion is NOT to ask a Pantheist, as they can only survive by substituting different meanings for even the simplest and most commonly used words in ANY Dictionary.

I'd be happy to answer some definitions you are having difficulty understanding. HOWEVER, don't ask me to justify
the positions that the Pantheist in this thread has taken, as they are indeed not consistent with Pantheism. Being quite familiar with their lingo I can reliably say that I've not misunderstood or misinterpreted the actual response of the Pantheist to the 2 questions I asked once again, and finally received a response.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:...I know I

Eloise wrote:
...I know I haven't done what you've asked exactly, but I find it is usually better to start with the basic statement that what God is ...

I know you didn't originally answer my questions, by intent.
And I know it is also not because you believe I don't know what Pantheism is, but because you didn't want to answer the questions for the very reason that when you finally did answer the questions your answers were NOT the answers of a Pantheist.

I'm not interested in your own definition of Pantheism.

I'm also not interested in debating with someone that is not a Pantheist, as you can not answer my questions because you are not a Pantheist.

The "debate" is silly and over.


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Okay so you are trying to

Okay so you are trying to argue that our place in the universe deserves more of an argument for being better than we are usually assumed to be? And you argue this by saying that particles have cause and effect? That is an awful argument for a God... Why does causality mean there must be a God? I too am very grateful for causality as without it we would not exist to be able to observe the lack of causality anyways. This is the point of the anthropic principle. We exist in this universe, so everything that happens in this universe must clearly be able to give rise to the existence of our life no matter what. More succinctly, the odds of us existing in a universe where we can exist (ie: we need causality to even get close to existing) is 100%.

So explain how you get from particles having defined behavior to a God. Saying that causality must have been breeded by causality does not support the idea of a God, because this God would have needed causality for itself to have been created. Not to mention that getting God from causality is way irrational compared to just assuming there is an infinite chain of causality, rather than a God that existed for an infinite amount of time. This is not to mention that quantum particles, which are the most discrete particles we know of now, all behave without causality. They behave probabilistically, how does this at all fit in with your little idea that causality is God? In other words, if you believe causality to be God, then why is God fucking with us so much with quantum mechanics?

How do you explain the existence of black holes, the very existence of which can be attributed to causality. If this God is behind all causal relationships and has us in mind, then why is our universe so hostile to life?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Eloise

treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:

The answer to both your questions is "I don't."

Too damn bad for you if you couldn't figure that out from what I did post, I made it clear and straightforward didn't I?

Oh wait.

You're not making any sense... 1) Pantheism is a religion.

It's a belief, religion is an institution. Pantheism is not an institution, it's a belief around which an institution can be built.

treat2 wrote:

2) Pantheism defines what "God" is.

Yeah, so? This doesn't make God necessary, just extant. If you're asserting that necessity is a requirement of existence, support it.

 

 

treat2 wrote:

I asked you (as you are a Pantheist), why you require both.

And I answered you. I don't require them.

treat2 wrote:

Now you state that you don't. Your response is a typical example of Pantheist-speak, and EXACTLY why I have put up a number of post which clarify that Pantheists redefine the English language,

How about you make a decent effort to define "require" if you think I am abusing it. "Look it up in the dictionary and assume the first definition" is a cop out. Be specific or don't get shirty when people can't meet your ridiculous expectations.

treat2 wrote:

AND my dislike for obfuscating commonly used words to mean something that they do not.

That's rich, you've obfuscated in every single post you've made to this thread. Be clear or be over it for crying out loud, your sulking is laughable.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I enjoyed your responses.

I enjoyed your responses. Thanks.

(Time now for a nightcap.)


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:Okay so you

Madmax958 wrote:

Okay so you are trying to argue that our place in the universe deserves more of an argument for being better than we are usually assumed to be? And you argue this by saying that particles have cause and effect? That is an awful argument for a God... Why does causality mean there must be a God? I too am very grateful for causality as without it we would not exist to be able to observe the lack of causality anyways. This is the point of the anthropic principle. We exist in this universe, so everything that happens in this universe must clearly be able to give rise to the existence of our life no matter what. More succinctly, the odds of us existing in a universe where we can exist (ie: we need causality to even get close to existing) is 100%.

So explain how you get from particles having defined behavior to a God. Saying that causality must have been breeded by causality does not support the idea of a God, because this God would have needed causality for itself to have been created. Not to mention that getting God from causality is way irrational compared to just assuming there is an infinite chain of causality, rather than a God that existed for an infinite amount of time. This is not to mention that quantum particles, which are the most discrete particles we know of now, all behave without causality. They behave probabilistically, how does this at all fit in with your little idea that causality is God? In other words, if you believe causality to be God, then why is God fucking with us so much with quantum mechanics?

How do you explain the existence of black holes, the very existence of which can be attributed to causality. If this God is behind all causal relationships and has us in mind, then why is our universe so hostile to life?

No. No. No. Soz. You’re going way off base. Pantheists are no goddamn different than Atheists, except for their requirement for a God, a religion, and redefining the goddamn Dictionary so anyone that doesn't know squat about Pantheism will not have a clue as to what the fuck they are saying! There's good reason for the redefinition. Without it, they could not speak proper English. As to their need for God and a religion, that's the same primitive need that have Theists have for a God and a religion. No goddamn different. EXCEPT, for one person that I personally know of... Einstein... all of the rest have no reason for it, other than I just explained. As for Einstein, had he said he was an Atheist, it would have ended his career.

Spinoza "The Father of Pantheism" was another story, and he got nailed. On the other hand, he was fucking nuts, and attempted to write a book which constructed a religion based on mathematical theorems and other such shit in math.

If you want to know about Pantheism check out SEVERAL Pantheist web sites, in particular find a glossary of Pantheist terminology. Such glossaries can be found on Pantheist Web Sites and elsewhere. Find a site which has Pantheist-speak and an interpretation into REAL English.
It'll take about a day at least. After that blow your head off to cure that head ache.

Again, if you want, feel free to ask me about Pantheism and I'll give you an explanation in unadulterated English.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
There are 3 wonderfully

There are 3 wonderfully constructed Pantheist-speak quotes written by Einstein.

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck in another town in my State
and can't post them.

I grabbed them years ago, and guarantee the reader who is not a Pantheist will be utterly convinced they know what he was talking about.

The joke is that they've absolutely no clue because Pantheists have redefine English to the extent that a non-Pantheist would be clueless without having expended a significant amount of time to learn something about Pantheism.

Einstein was no fucking dummy, as I've said before.

I'll put up the quotes, but it may take me several days to get home.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:Okay so you

Madmax958 wrote:

Okay so you are trying to argue that our place in the universe deserves more of an argument for being better than we are usually assumed to be? And you argue this by saying that particles have cause and effect?

er... no.. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said at all. I wasn't the one who brought up cause as an issue, that was you, and my response was to dismiss it.  To reiterate, there is reason to believe that cause is a correlative condition not a necessary condition so finding God in cause is redundant. This goes to your argument that a God which depends on being the cause of something will be defeated by deeper scientific discovery, this god does not depend on being the cause of anything because nothing depends on cause for existence, cause dictates order not existence.

MadMax958 wrote:

That is an awful argument for a God... Why does causality mean there must be a God?

This makes it plain that you misunderstood my post. I never said causality leads to God, I argued against your contention that causality can supplant God by mentioning that it may not be essential enough to supplant God.

 

MadMax958 wrote:

So explain how you get from particles having defined behavior to a God. Saying that causality must have been breeded by causality

I said nothing of the sort and I am, frankly, speechless that you think I did.

MadMax958 wrote:

This is not to mention that quantum particles, which are the most discrete particles we know of now, all behave without causality. They behave probabilistically, how does this at all fit in with your little idea that causality is God?

Actually despite the misunderstanding here you have charged me correctly with saying that causality is God (or at least a part thereof). How quantum mechanics fits with this idea is as I have already said, causality is an order, not a precedent.

MadMax958 wrote:

In other words, if you believe causality to be God, then why is God fucking with us so much with quantum mechanics?

erm... I don't think that it is fucking with us, really. We habitually attribute causality to order, the universe has order which is not causal, this is not a fuck around, I suspect it's just reality.

MadMax958 wrote:

How do you explain the existence of black holes, the very existence of which can be attributed to causality. If this God is behind all causal relationships and has us in mind, then why is our universe so hostile to life?

Life as you are implying it to be in this statement, is very much related to what I said about our average understanding of our condition being imprecise. The existence of hostility to life depends on how you define life.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Madmax958

Eloise wrote:

Madmax958 wrote:

Okay so you are trying to argue that our place in the universe deserves more of an argument for being better than we are usually assumed to be? And you argue this by saying that particles have cause and effect?

er... no.. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said at all. I wasn't the one who brought up cause as an issue, that was you, and my response was to dismiss it.  To reiterate, there is reason to believe that cause is a correlative condition not a necessary condition so finding God in cause is redundant. This goes to your argument that a God which depends on being the cause of something will be defeated by deeper scientific discovery, this god does not depend on being the cause of anything because nothing depends on cause for existence, cause dictates order not existence.

MadMax958 wrote:

That is an awful argument for a God... Why does causality mean there must be a God?

This makes it plain that you misunderstood my post. I never said causality leads to God, I argued against your contention that causality can supplant God by mentioning that it may not be essential enough to supplant God.

 

MadMax958 wrote:

So explain how you get from particles having defined behavior to a God. Saying that causality must have been breeded by causality

I said nothing of the sort and I am, frankly, speechless that you think I did.

MadMax958 wrote:

This is not to mention that quantum particles, which are the most discrete particles we know of now, all behave without causality. They behave probabilistically, how does this at all fit in with your little idea that causality is God?

Actually despite the misunderstanding here you have charged me correctly with saying that causality is God (or at least a part thereof). How quantum mechanics fits with this idea is as I have already said, causality is an order, not a precedent.

MadMax958 wrote:

In other words, if you believe causality to be God, then why is God fucking with us so much with quantum mechanics?

erm... I don't think that it is fucking with us, really. We habitually attribute causality to order, the universe has order which is not causal, this is not a fuck around, I suspect it's just reality.

MadMax958 wrote:

How do you explain the existence of black holes, the very existence of which can be attributed to causality. If this God is behind all causal relationships and has us in mind, then why is our universe so hostile to life?

Life as you are implying it to be in this statement, is very much related to what I said about our average understanding of our condition being imprecise. The existence of hostility to life depends on how you define life.

Wow... So first off, you admitted yourself that you did not quite explain your beliefs well and then you ask me how I misunderstood you? Ummm... yeah I think you answered your own question before you even posited that question.

That first quote you used never said causality leads to God. I merely stated that you think because you see causality, that the causality must be God.

So you still failed to give me any insight whatsoever into your beliefs. I can't really argue much until you explain to me your beliefs. At this point, you seem to me to be completely devoid of any full understanding as to what you yourself believe in. So cmon... explain it a little. Maybe you are just embarrassed about it? Your dodginess seems to lead me to that conclusion. All you have told me is that you think causality is a part of God. Clearly you have not directly observed God, but you have observed the causality first. This is why I am assuming you made the assumption that causality is part of this God. I am asking what purpose you have for doing this? Were you able to come up with the existence of God through other means besides observing causality? So to sum up, if you actually want to have a debate, you must tell me what your beliefs are and why you believe in them. Then we can start talking...


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:Wow... So

Madmax958 wrote:

Wow... So first off, you admitted yourself that you did not quite explain your beliefs well and then you ask me how I misunderstood you? Ummm... yeah I think you answered your own question before you even posited that question.

I admitted that I hadn't given you exactly what you asked for, that is not a qualitative statement. I have refrained and would continue to refrain from saying you're misrepresenting my words if I had reason to believe that you were doing it accidentally, but you're, fast, eliminating that possibility.

MadMax958 wrote:

That first quote you used never said causality leads to God. I merely stated that you think because you see causality, that the causality must be God.

First, read what I wrote in response to that quote (I suspect you'll be doing so for the first time rather than again). Show me where I have charged you with saying that I think causality leads to God in that paragraph? Besides the fact that you did actually say that later in the post which makes even arguing this point utterly ludicrous and silly, you are wasting our efforts on trivial nonsense by asking me to defend things I did not say. Why?

MadMax958 wrote:

So you still failed to give me any insight whatsoever into your beliefs. I can't really argue much until you explain to me your beliefs.

Non sequitur rubbish - "I told you what you think and so you failed to provide insight into what you think" ?? What does that even mean ??

MadMax958 wrote:

At this point, you seem to me to be completely devoid of any full understanding as to what you yourself believe in.

No, I'm telling you that you do not already know what I believe. You appear to be quite adamant that you do.

MadMAx958 wrote:

So cmon... explain it a little. Maybe you are just embarrassed about it? Your dodginess seems to lead me to that conclusion. All you have told me is that you think causality is a part of God.

I've said a lot more than that.

MadMax958 wrote:

This is why I am assuming you made the assumption that causality is part of this God.

You're assuming that I have made an assumption here? Why? I clearly stated that I have reasons to believe it, not assumptions. How are you not absorbing anything I have said at all?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 Anybody else want

 

Anybody else want some?

 

 

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nah. I'm content, and to all

Nah. I'm content, and to all a goodnight.


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Lol Eloise you still fail to

Lol Eloise you still fail to provide what your beliefs are. I still have absolutely no idea what you believe. Explain it. I asked you to explain to me what you believe that caused you to start this thread in the first place. After asking said question you still failed to explain your beliefs at all. Once again you only reveal your dodginess of explaining anything that can be of use in this supposed debate (if you can even call it that yet). Go ahead and explain it. I am still waiting. You cannot even argue for your beliefs when you have failed to even explain what those beliefs are. Like I said, you're probably just embarrassed.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll take some

I'll take some popcorn.

treat2 wrote:
1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s).
2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.

Let me see if I got this right.

With these questions, treat2 was asking Eloise why God and religion were necessary. 

Since these questions were vague (actually, they were kind of incoherent), Eloise interpreted them as "what did an entity require in order to be a God or a religion." In response, treat2 didn't realize that Eloise had misinterpreted his questions and assumed that she was dodging. Eloise decided that treat2 was rude and was not trying to have a real discussion at all, so she ended the conversation. treat2 took this as further evidence that Eloise was trying to dodge his questions.

Eloise wrote:
1. The first requirement for a thing to be "God" is that it has to be in a significant way something which is consistent with the proclaimed insight about gods and God in the appropriate literature.  It needs to have relevance to the historical ideas and traditional stories that are where the concept of a god originates, or else it is not a god at all, it's an unrelated entity to which you could give any name equally meaningfully. All other requirements are really just special cases of this one such as:

a) It can be seen to be under no limitations as to its potency in our perceptible reality. It should have a valid claim to unlimited efficacy throughout the entire universe of reality which we inhabit. Why? Because it says so in the literature.

b) "God", in any language or tradition, is through and through anthropomorphic, so what a human is needs be the image of the entity, then it can be God.

What do you define pantheism to be?

Hmmm, so, you're saying that if something contains enough of the general characteristics of what humans, throughout history, have attributed to God(s), then that something, by definition, is God?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:What do

butterbattle wrote:

What do you define pantheism to be?

Hi, Butterbattle. Is that question directed at me?

Butterbattle wrote:

Hmmm, so, you're saying that if something contains enough of the general characteristics of what humans, throughout history, have attributed to God(s), then that something, by definition, is God?

 

Yeah that's more or less what I am saying. If enough of a significant correlation exists then whatever else we might call it, it's already been identified.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:Lol Eloise

Madmax958 wrote:

Lol Eloise you still fail to provide what your beliefs are. I still have absolutely no idea what you believe. Explain it.

Ok I will spell it out for you clearly.

I believe that what is, is God.

I believe this follows quite comfortably from recognising that what we are ends at the total state of the universe, rather than at the edge of our skin.

And I believe also that the above follows, among other things, from the realisation that cause is a law of order, rather than a condition of existence.

Ok?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I'll take

butterbattle wrote:

I'll take some popcorn.

treat2 wrote:
1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s).
2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.

Let me see if I got this right.

With these questions, treat2 was asking Eloise why God and religion were necessary. 

Since these questions were vague (actually, they were kind of incoherent), Eloise interpreted them as "what did an entity require in order to be a God or a religion." In response, treat2 didn't realize that Eloise had misinterpreted his questions and assumed that she was dodging. Eloise decided that treat2 was rude and was not trying to have a real discussion at all, so she ended the conversation. treat2 took this as further evidence that Eloise was trying to dodge his questions.

Eloise wrote:
1. The first requirement for a thing to be "God" is that it has to be in a significant way something which is consistent with the proclaimed insight about gods and God in the appropriate literature.  It needs to have relevance to the historical ideas and traditional stories that are where the concept of a god originates, or else it is not a god at all, it's an unrelated entity to which you could give any name equally meaningfully. All other requirements are really just special cases of this one such as:

a) It can be seen to be under no limitations as to its potency in our perceptible reality. It should have a valid claim to unlimited efficacy throughout the entire universe of reality which we inhabit. Why? Because it says so in the literature.

b) "God", in any language or tradition, is through and through anthropomorphic, so what a human is needs be the image of the entity, then it can be God.

What do you define pantheism to be?

Hmmm, so, you're saying that if something contains enough of the general characteristics of what humans, throughout history, have attributed to God(s), then that something, by definition, is God?

 

Several things...

The thread poster does not decribe herself as a Pantheist.
Frankly, I'm not interested in having a discussion or a debate with anyone "calling me", as having taken swipes at Pantheists, whom is not even a Pantheist.

Second, unless you're exceptionally dull, you would not be able to look up the word "require" in ANY Dictionary, and use the first given definition for the word.

I take it you do not have that ability.

Soz, but I'm not going to even replace the word "require" with the word "need", as that is NOT was I asked, and your more interested in trolling than iin anything else.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 treat2, you should

 treat2, you should acknowledge that there are several shades of meaning of 'require', so a dictionary will not really clarify just what you intended there. Responding as you have been is just coming across as an arrogant prick. We are not mind readers.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Eloise

treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:
...I know I haven't done what you've asked exactly, but I find it is usually better to start with the basic statement that what God is ...

I know you didn't originally answer my questions, by intent.

1. That post wasn't addressed to you, it was MadMax958 who asked me a question I did not fully attempt to address in my reply.

and

2. I did respond to your first post with exactly what I thought you expected.

 

treat2 wrote:

your answers were NOT the answers of a Pantheist.

WTF? What are you basing that on?

 

Pantheist:- someone who believes that God and the universe are the same.

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Well I do not have a problem

Well I do not have a problem then if you think the universe is God. You have just defined everything that we can see as God. What does that matter? You are just redefining the the word universe lol. That's not a religion but an attempt to give a word new meaning.

Is there perhaps something else you believe or is that just it? You just worship matter and the laws of physics? Me too, in a sense. Not really worship but definitely a big fan 

I am guessing there is something more but so far all you have described is no problem except that you for some reason wanna say everything that is is God and there is no need or reason to redefine the word God to mean those things when we can just say universe instead.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:What do

butterbattle wrote:
What do you define pantheism to be?

Eloise wrote:
Hi, Butterbattle. Is that question directed at me?

Yes.

Butterbattle wrote:
Hmmm, so, you're saying that if something contains enough of the general characteristics of what humans, throughout history, have attributed to God(s), then that something, by definition, is God?

Eloise wrote:
Yeah that's more or less what I am saying. If enough of a significant correlation exists then whatever else we might call it, it's already been identified.

Wow, that's such a refreshing way of thinking about the topic.

Eloise wrote:
a) It can be seen to be under no limitations as to its potency in our perceptible reality. It should have a valid claim to unlimited efficacy throughout the entire universe of reality which we inhabit. Why? Because it says so in the literature.

b) "God", in any language or tradition, is through and through anthropomorphic, so what a human is needs be the image of the entity, then it can be God.

Then, could you expand more on how these requirements have been fulfilled?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Second, unless

treat2 wrote:
Second, unless you're exceptionally dull, you would not be able to look up the word "require" in ANY Dictionary, and use the first given definition for the word. I take it you do not have that ability.

You are correct; I don't have that ability. Instead, I know that many words have multiple meanings, and I determine the meaning of a word based on the context. If I don't know what a person is trying to say, I will usually ask them to clarify. Assuming that it is the first meaning in the dictionary will often lead to problems with communication, which, ditto, uh..............

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:treat2

Eloise wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:
...I know I haven't done what you've asked exactly, but I find it is usually better to start with the basic statement that what God is ...

I know you didn't originally answer my questions, by intent.

1. That post wasn't addressed to you, it was MadMax958 who asked me a question I did not fully attempt to address in my reply.

and

2. I did respond to your first post with exactly what I thought you expected.

 

treat2 wrote:

your answers were NOT the answers of a Pantheist.

WTF? What are you basing that on?

 

Pantheist:- someone who believes that God and the universe are the same.

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Soz. I assumed you were a Pantheist, until I read your post
in which you described yourself is "irreligious".


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:treat2

butterbattle wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Second, unless you're exceptionally dull, you would not be able to look up the word "require" in ANY Dictionary, and use the first given definition for the word. I take it you do not have that ability.

You are correct; I don't have that ability. Instead, I know that many words have multiple meanings, and I determine the meaning of a word based on the context. If I don't know what a person is trying to say, I will usually ask them to clarify. Assuming that it is the first meaning in the dictionary will often lead to problems with communication, which, ditto, uh..............

 

 

My 2 questions were intended to a person whom I THOUGHT was a Pantheist. Later, I learned I was wrong in my assumtion.

As to my questions, they would be directed for a Pantheist to answer, and NOT to the thread-poster, nor to anyone else to answer. Moreover, they are simple questions, and even a simple-minded Pantheist would understand them. That you do not is your problem. Besides which they are NOT directed to the Forum at large, or to anyone that is NOT a Pantheist, for the very reason that they are to be answered by a Pantheist, from the perspective of a Pantheist, and NOT someone else that is NOT a Pantheist.

As to carrying on a discussion of these simple questions with a person that is NOT a Pantheist was not my intent, and my intentions have not changed.

Therefore, as there are no Pantheists here to answer the questions directed to a Pantheist, I've nothing to say to any of you that I've not clarified as to my view of Pantheism, and why I maintain my opinions of Pantheists, as they are.

At this point, given there are no Pantheists, there's nothing I've to say about the subject, until I have access to 3 quotes from Einstien, which I believe you all will fail to understand, and would be more than happy to explain
Pantheist-speak.

As to what Pantheism is... for the millionth time... I've posted EXACTLY what Panthests do, and I've spent enough time studying Pantheism is based on, including studying Spinoza, so that I have a very clear understanding of exactly what Pantheism is.

However, should any of you not understand it, as it is clear that you do not understand Pantheistm, if you have a quotation from a Pantheist which requires interpretation because it is unclear or seems to make no sense, I would be happy to shed light on the quotation. AND as I said at least TWICE before I highly recomment that if you are interested in learning about Pantheism that you refer to my earlier posts which make several helpful suggestions that I'm not going to repeatedly post.

At this point, given what has been posted I consider the subject of THIS Topic as being not worth my time discussing.
That's not to say that I would not engage myself in another post about Pantheism which is a discussion of it. Clearly, that was not the intent of this post. More importantly it was not posted by a Pantheist, and as such the viewpoint / perspective of a Pantheist whom could provide a simple answer to 2 simple questions was not even possible...

As such, I withdraw my questions, and my involvement from this thread, as it is silly, and the motivation of the thread was directed towards myself, from a non-Pantheist, whom can not and could not answer the vital questions that only a Pantheist could answer without silly remarks about not understanding what the 2 very simple questions mean, even after further simplification which was done at a time that I incorrectly assumed I was conversing with a Pantheist.

If someone wants to discuss Pantheism. Feel free. If someone wants to engage the thread-poster in a discussion or a debate feel free. However, I've no interest in doing so in this thread, with this thread-poster, given that the thread-poster is not a Pantheist, and for a variety of other reasons which are too silly to respond to.


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
:)

I, for one, am so glad we have someone like treat2 to come along and teach everyone how not to behave on a forum.

Making arguments from authority (his own) while insulting every other member's competence is quite a great way to enlighten readers.

I know I'm furthur derailing the thread... but I think Eloise fits her proclaimed role and answered most of the questions as I expected one would.  In fact I can actually get behind what she is saying (not that I agree).

-.o


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
LMAO! Thanks for all of

LMAO!

Thanks for all of your trolling, and demonstrating how a troll behaves. You and several of you fellow trolls are clearly one of the reasons that THIS topic was posted.

You've provided only insipid off-topic garbage having nothing to to with the topic and a fine example to everyone of trolling. Thanks for your example!


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Clarification:

"An Internet troll, or simply troll, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion"

My first post on the thread was a question for Eloise of her personal view on pantheism... very off topic!

My second post was simply me agreeing with Eloise responding to you being an ass. (not even a real post to be honest)

My third and recently last post admitted to being off-topic but was directly related to the way the thread was being discussed.  I also included my opinion on how the OP handled the discussion.

Look I don't care if you disagree with me, but if you go about it in the way you currently are it will just reflect poorly on yourself.

Don't you understand that acting like a jerk on the INTERNET doesn't make your points any more valid?  I just felt that someone should address how you aren't doing a good job getting your point across.

But go ahead with the manner as you see fit, just don't expect me to not raise an eyebrow to your methods.

 

(this fourth post is WAY off topic -.o )


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
treat2, I doubt that you'll

treat2, I doubt that you'll actually consider a single word in this post, but I will write it anyways. I am not a pantheist, but if you think pantheism must be religious, then you have absolutely no idea what pantheism is. Let me say that again. Based on what you've written, you do not know what pantheism is, you clearly do not understand Einstein or Spinoza, and your expertise in matters of "Pantheist-speak" is roughly equivalent to my dog's expertise in multivariate calculus.  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
:p

butterbattle wrote:

treat2 .... and your expertise in matters of "Pantheist-speak" is roughly equivalent to my dog's expertise in multivariate calculus.  

 

 

I think I've met your dog.

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Aside:treat2 wrote: Soz. I

Aside:

treat2 wrote:

 Soz. I assumed you were a Pantheist, until I read your post in which you described yourself is "irreligious".

So you're basing it on my saying that I am irreligious? Irreligious theists are quite commonplace and if you are saying that no true theist is irreligious you might be indulging a blatant no true scotsman fallacy. To be clear, can you provide the definition of "religious" that you're operating under there?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
So am I right then? You are

So am I right then? You are just redefining matter and the laws of physics as god?

You don't believe in anything else? Simply that things behaving the way they do is god?

If you want to mention einstein and god as somebody did and relate it to the views of this pantheist you and the pantheist should definitely consider the implications of quantum mechanics. Einstein had much concern over this til his dying days and with good reason too.

There's that pretty well known quote. "God does not play dice with the universe" was it?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:You are just

Madmax958 wrote:

You are just redefining the the word universe lol.

Not exactly. I'm pointing to the characteristics historically attributed to the universe, collectively reasoning an entity behind its being named God, and I am saying we can't write them off so quickly.

 

MadMax958 wrote:

Is there perhaps something else you believe or is that just it? You just worship matter and the laws of physics? Me too, in a sense. Not really worship but definitely a big fan 

Yeah, I don't believe in worshipping at all, actually, or any religious acts for that matter. I come from a Native American family and I was raised with the idea (which is still alive in tribal tradition) that religious rites are not an end unto themselves but a method of intergenerational communication, just another way to pass down stories aside from written communication, basically. My life experience and my studies of theology have reinforced that and I believe it is accurate.

So I don't worship, but like you, I guess, I'm a big fan. This universe is amazing.

 

MadMAx958 wrote:

there is no need or reason to redefine the word God to mean those things when we can just say universe instead.

I've got no investment in how the universe should be named, as far as I am concerned, and most know here, just calling it the universe instead makes no difference to me. It is the reason I call it God which matters to me, and I have a reason.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:


butterbattle wrote:
What do you define pantheism to be?



Eloise wrote:
Hi, Butterbattle. Is that question directed

at me?


Yes.



Thanks. Ok, will the definition I gave treat2 suffice? Cause that's about everything that I could say to you on that. After defining Pantheism as believing that God and
the Universe are the same the question then becomes why and how are they believed to be the same? Do you agree?

Quote:


Butterbattle wrote:
Hmmm, so, you're saying that if something contains enough of the general characteristics of what humans, throughout history, have attributed to God(s), then that something, by definition, is God?



Eloise wrote:
Yeah that's more or less what I am saying. If enough of a significant correlation exists then whatever else we might call it, it's already been identified.


Wow, that's such a refreshing way of thinking about the topic.



I'm a little worried that you mean this with a hint of sarcasm, but by the rest of your post it doesn't look like it.  Inflection is so hard to gauge in these forums sometimes.

Quote:


Eloise wrote:
a) It can be seen to be under no limitations as to its potency in our perceptible reality. It should have a valid claim to unlimited efficacy throughout the entire universe of reality which we inhabit. Why? Because it says so in the literature.

b) "God", in any language or tradition, is through and through anthropomorphic, so what a human is needs be the image of the entity, then it can be God.

Then, could you expand more on how these requirements have been fulfilled?



Absolutely. Got a few years to spare?

Kidding, mostly. Yeah I will expand as much as I can for you.

I usually begin with (b) because (a) presupposes an anthropomorphic agency which is established by consideration of what modern science suggests about the human condition. So basically, as I often say, the shortest path to making my argument is to address the belief that the essence of our being is biological.

Now by that I don't mean to suggest that biology is not relevant to what we are, this is not a dualism, and I'm not going to introduce an intangible 'soul' essence to
supplant our existence in biological terms. The issue I would raise is that even as we define human being as limited to a cycle of growth and decline for a set of
integrated biological systems over an interval organised by the system's infinitesimal variations (we call this interval, time) we are aware that we are not such a closed system, moreover, that no such an insular system even exists in reality.

Since we started on that, a little on the cause-effect model because it is relevant. The cause and effect hypothesis presupposes this ordering of variations, time, in a particular form. Specifically what is supposed is that a time entity of finite length exists and at one end of it there is a region of undefined potential. The initial length is cause and the region of potential is the logical consequence of absolute time. Both of these are necessary preconditions of the cause-effect relationship model.

So causality essentially states that there is 'room' in which effect has potential to exist and it is time. This concept of time best matches the Newtonian model. In that, it is undermined, a necessary prerequisite of believing cause is fundamental to existence is defunct. Einstein tried for the rest of his life to salvage the idea of cause-effect as the Prima materia, his forebears had believed it was, and it seemed to be all that could hold the promise of truly understanding the universe.  But after relativity the universe was no longer a succession of small events tumbling out into a long stream no longer made sense, in this new universe, it seemed, everything that was and ever will be is laced together in a web work that crosses dimensions we find difficult to conceive. Where we had thought every moment in time could be neatly joined by cause, we have found that it is just one of possibly infinitely many relationships that can exist between two points in spacetime, and that is essentially only characteristic of organisation at certain orders of magnitude, not of others.

The definition of our being as biological rests on an assumption of insularity. Insularity rests on, among other things, the idea that cause is the fundamental order that exists in the universe. That effects aren't there until cause has passed and is gone, and so, that humans succeed the role of human genes, and genes succeed the role of the molecules that comprise them. The model of cause rests in the idea that a mechanism by which the role of a predecessor entity transfers to a new emergent entity passes in and then quickly out of existence at some point on a timelike interval. Such a model makes predictions like - there exists a time (t) at which point the activity of self-replicating chemical strands ends and the activity of a biological organism begins such that the activity in the chemical strand has now 'caused' the emergent entity to exist. Evolution scientists, generally, don't take this idea very seriously any more. It becomes fairly obvious just from looking at that statement that no such actual mechanism for discerning the two entities exists, you could draw any line any where on the process of differentiation between these forms with equal meaning.


What we do realise, moreover, is that the randomly flipping chemical chains never actually stop being and they continue to do what they've always done, as the essence of the emergent entity, not distinct from it. So what you have there is a continuum of being. I've arbitrarily started it at primordial life so that we might say that the continuum is the being of primordial life, although this is not strictly true.

There is no point (t) at which primordial life stops being what it always was. What changes is the environment in which it continues to be that. And note, that, primordial life changes that environment itself, not unlike we do on this order of magnitude. In terms of the order of magnitude in which the existence of primordial life has continued for millions of years, the human biological form, and other biological forms, are its built environment.

So this is how the requirement that we are made in the image of the universe starts to look fulfilled. The biologically organised hub of activity, our body, is a universe in which another ages old creative entity, our genetics, operates.    
 
I must go now, I have a birthday party to attend. I know it took a lot to make one small part of the point, but as I said, this is a package of reasoning that could take a long time to fully disseminate. I'll leave you with this much to at least respond to for now. 

Freehugs I promise to write a reply for you just as soon as I get the time.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com