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...


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Eloise, I appreciate you

Eloise, I appreciate you taking the time to spell so much of that out, but I don't see the connection to God at all.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that we are made up of many constituents and those are made up of constituents and so forth until you get down to dna and even beyond that there are particles and all of these particles make up the universe.

How does that make a point closer to God?

Also, Einstein's theory of relativity and its implications on time had nothing to do with what Einstein tried to do for the rest of his life. His problem was with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics destroyed direct cause and effect because we cannot truly 100% predict what a quantum particle is going to do, except in specific circumstances regarding quantum entanglement. The uncertainty principle, which applies to quantum particles states that the more precise a measurement of momentum we obtain, the less precise a measurement of position we can obtain and vice versa. So no matter what we do, we cannot be certain about a particles momentum and position at once, this is probably the biggest difference between quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics. The theory of relativity did not really have any problem incorporating cause and effect, it is quantum mechanics. Einstein wanted to find a unified theory of everything and was unable to do so because of the complete incompatibility of his theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. This is what string theorists are trying to do, unify quantum mechanics and relativity. My opinion is that it is more of a one in a million chance they are right type thing, but it is hella worth it if they do happen to be right, so it is worth the odds just in case it does work out.

Given that string theory has not yet been confirmed and may not for a long time, we can only work off of relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which have been quite accurate in modeling what each respectively tries to model.

Now, Einstein was very troubled with quantum mechanics because of the directly fundamental lack of predictability. He seemed to take this as though, if there were a God, he was alienating us.

Also I am curious why you believe it to be God and not multiple gods or even a matrix scenario where machines are controlling the behavior of particles and us.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Thanks. Ok,

Eloise wrote:

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?

Okay, then, I agree.

Eloise wrote:
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.

Hahaha!

Yes, I was being completely honest, but I can definitely understand why you would be cautious regarding my sincerity there. In fact, if you had been someone else (a Scientologist?), it probably would have been a sarcastic remark.

Eloise wrote:
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.

Thanks. I'm still digesting it, but it looks good.

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
Madmax958 wrote:Also,

Madmax958 wrote:

Also, Einstein's theory of relativity and its implications on time had nothing to do with what Einstein tried to do for the rest of his life. His problem was with quantum mechanics.

Just a quick note on this point. I tried to weave it into the post but it was slightly too much a digression to make when I was already writing a bit of a tome, however, yes I intended to expand on this point to say that Einstein probably didn't realise that his model of time had undermined the idea of cause as the prima materia this way.

Quantum experiments were where it originally became evident that the cause-effect model was in trouble and I take from the stories that Einstein felt he had bitten the hands which fed him by having helped Quantum theory get off the ground and therein lived by the hope that the damage his theories had done to the old school body of work could be minimised. I think with that mind it would have been difficult for him to let himself see that his model of time undermined the cause-effect hypothesis as well as Quantum Theory had, and I was going to wind out a little speculation it was his not seeing this that had him believe it was still a fixable problem.

So... it would have taken a pretty major aside to say all this, and that is why I left it out, but suffice it to say, I am aware that Einstein didn't attribute the problem to his own theories.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:So am I

Madmax958 wrote:

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

No!

Pantheists redefine the Dictionary.

Pantheists don't simply redefine the universe as gods. Pantheists redefine much more than that. It;s hardly an exaggeration
to note that Pntheists redefine the Dictionary.

My earliest posts recommended
how you CAN learn about Pantheism and Pasntheist-speak. You''re far from understanding a Pantheist by simply thinking they just redefine the universe as gods.

They obfuscate language itself.

As to the thread-poster, not being a Pantheist. I've not ing to debate with her. Primarily, because she founded the TREAT2 FAN CLUB!


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

Madmax958 wrote:
I think you should see my response (directly above) to one of your posts in this thread (above).

Also, don't forget my 2 questons for Pantheists if you decide to devote several hours studying Pantheism, as suuggested in one of my earliest posts.

Those 2 questions are key to understand why Pantheists ARE
like Theists, but understanding that comes only after you've independently studied Pantheism.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Well I think it's about time

Well I think it's about time we started ignoring treat. This forum will be a lot better off that way. Don't feed the trolls...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Well I

spike.barnett wrote:

Well I think it's about time we started ignoring treat. This forum will be a lot better off that way. Don't feed the trolls...

I agree.

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


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Fe Fi Fo Fum I always smell

Fe Fi Fo Fum I always smell Mods in Forums.

Would you like me to buy a nipple for you to suck, or would you like to go on
sucking your own?


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Awww, the troll's getting

Awww, the troll's getting mad. How adorable!


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Mad? At what? Your posts are

Mad? At what? Your posts are amusing. I'm enjoying myself pea-brain.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think treat2 is a good

I think treat2 is a good candidate to replace Matt

 

 

 

 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
I agree.

I agree.


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

I also agree.  Can someone draw up a legal document stating the fact?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree. He's definitely a

I agree. He's definitely a worthy replacement for Matt. In fact, I think he's a lot more annoying.

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
It's always a pleasure to

It's always a pleasure to disrupt a Borg hive.

I love you all!


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Where you get your ideas,

Where you get your ideas, I'll never know.