Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
May 26, 2025, 06:45 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
May 26, 2025, 02:55 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
May 26, 2025, 10:25 AM

Gaza assault
May 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
May 23, 2025, 10:04 AM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
May 19, 2025, 12:00 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
May 17, 2025, 09:44 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
May 10, 2025, 10:45 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
May 10, 2025, 08:24 AM

Pope Francis Signals Rema...
May 09, 2025, 05:32 PM

Kashmir endgame
April 24, 2025, 05:12 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
March 29, 2025, 01:09 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: God is the Universe = Pantheism?

 (Read 8928 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #30 - January 21, 2011, 03:30 AM

    God is only of interest in so far as it (/he/whatever creation or creator we're discussing), poses some minute interest and possibility in the realm of all other theories and explanations we may have as humans for our existence here.

    The Abrahamic God is positively false.

    The pantheist view is obscure, vague, and to me--unnecessary as anything but the pretty doodles i like to smatter the pages of my very important calculus notes with.


    This post is like the limit to the function of my interest. My interest approaches it but it never can get there no matter how hard I try.   Tongue

    Edit: On a second read, this is terrible.  Disregard. 

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #31 - January 21, 2011, 03:39 AM

    Thanks for the clarification, allat.  So essentially (from a metaphysical point of view), your brand of pantheism is a type of monism (and obviously you're personally happy with the spiritual gratification this beings you - that was never my intention to argue against it).  Would you say that what you described ("knowing via science and intuition that everything is interconnected") is essentially materialism?  Or do you mean something else/beyond that?

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #32 - January 21, 2011, 04:41 AM

    Thanks for the clarification, allat.  So essentially (from a metaphysical point of view), your brand of pantheism is a type of monism


    Yes pantheism and monism are very closely related, I'd even venture to say, pretty much indistinguishable concepts. In both, on a foundational level, there's an underlying unity or interconnectedness of all matter and energy in the universe. It may be called anything, or nothing... Carl Jung's concept of the Collective Unconscious, Jacques Lacan's concept of "the Real", the Hindu/Buddhist/Jain concepts of Atman & Brahman, the Tao Te Ching's concept of the Tao, can all be seen to be derived from monist concepts of existence and the universe.

    As I understand it, the difference between pantheism and monism may be largely semantics. I.e. pantheists may say "everything is connected" and monists may say "everything is made of the same essence" or something along those lines. But the 2 concepts are very alike in their own essence. I may just start using "monist" actually instead of pantheist, as I don't like the "theist" part of the word pantheist myself. But as a pantheist/monist I realize it's all just semantics Wink

    (and obviously you're personally happy with the spiritual gratification this beings you - that was never my intention to argue against it).  


    No problem Smiley Yeah it's a constantly evolving phantasmagoria as far as I'm concerned. I used to call myself pagan and I still do sometimes when I'm talking to certain people who don't need me to explain that no, I don't believe literally in pagan religions. I don't see these terms as competing with each other, but rather as part of the same idea. Since I reject belief in supernatural entities, the words atheist, agnostic, pantheist, pagan, zen/taoist, existentialist, humanist all are okay with me to define myself at various times, in various situations. But I realize that's a personal preference and I try not to judge other people's choices if they're not out to harm others.

    Would you say that what you described ("knowing via science and intuition that everything is interconnected") is essentially materialism?  Or do you mean something else/beyond that?


    Yes I'd say philosophical materialism is essential to pantheism/monism. What we experience as "consciousness" is a result of very complex physical interactions, so in that sense, yes I'm a materialist pantheist/monist. But I am not a reductionist which some people think materialism has to be, as I understand that we know very little about our own brains, nevermind the universe, and to think that almost infinitely complex processes could be reduced to simplistic notions is a highly arrogant notion that's based on social privileges afforded to those who think that the universe and consciousness are reducible to their level of understanding. So there is a humility, a sense of peaceful acceptance of our smallness there in the pantheist/monist schools of thought, that I find sorely lacking in some other materialist schools of thought. However, as a fundamental concept that "matter is all that exists" well I find that to be a truism, really. I mean, that's like saying "all that exists is all that exists", isn't it? And yeah I agree with that truism.

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #33 - January 21, 2011, 07:48 AM

    Quote
    But I realize that's a personal preference and I try not to judge other people's choices if they're not out to harm others.


    That should be everyone's motto for a sane and peaceful world.



    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #34 - January 21, 2011, 09:30 AM

    Cheers, allat.  I've now a much clearer picture of your world view, and I have no intellectual objections to the substance of your positions (they actually sit quite nicely with my own).  So the only problem that I would find would be semantical and, compared to the substance, rather trivial and not that big of a deal.  Though it does seem to me as if the only significant notion that links you to the more 'orthodox' notions of pantheism is your emotive reaction to the universe (and I feel that even such a reaction is not so different from mine) - sometimes I almost feel like 'worshipping' the universe, life and its beauty.  Maybe it's an innate sense that we have, otherwise this tendency wouldn't be so universal.  Or maybe not.

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #35 - January 21, 2011, 10:01 AM

    Call it god and others will take it to mean a conscious entity.

    Technically...
    • If:
      • If:
        • There are "subsets" of me that, if taken singularly, are conscious (for example, all of me minus my hair, or all of me minus my left hand)
      • Implies that:
        • I am conscious
    • Then:
      • If:
        • I am conscious
      • Implies that:
        • The "set of all that exists taken as a whole" is conscious.

    So maybe calling it "god" to imply that "everything seen as a whole" is conscious is not really a bad idea.
    Or, it's equivalently bad as considering it a single whole entity.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #36 - January 21, 2011, 10:23 AM

    tlaloc, I don't agree.

    If parts of me are conscious then I am conscious, but that doesn't mean that ALL of me is conscious...just the conscious parts.  It doesn't mean my hair is conscious, or my eyes, or my fingernails.

    So at best you could say that parts of the universe are conscious, I don't think it is correct to assert that the universe is conscious.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #37 - January 21, 2011, 11:40 AM

    If parts of me are conscious then I am conscious, but that doesn't mean that ALL of me is conscious...just the conscious parts.  It doesn't mean my hair is conscious, or my eyes, or my fingernails.

    Yeah, whats that about?  Or is it one of those things that is unsubstantiated & we need to rely on faith  whistling2

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #38 - January 21, 2011, 11:45 AM

    This post is like the limit to the function of my interest. My interest approaches it but it never can get there no matter how hard I try.   Tongue

    Edit: On a second read, this is terrible.  Disregard. 


    Cheesy

    ITS GREAT!!!

    "If intelligence is feminine... I would want that mine would, in a resolute movement, come to resemble an impious woman."
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #39 - January 21, 2011, 11:50 AM

    ...because its so bad.


    <3

    "If intelligence is feminine... I would want that mine would, in a resolute movement, come to resemble an impious woman."
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #40 - January 21, 2011, 12:32 PM

    Like I said before:
    The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.
    Well this schientific theory simply inquires that energy never dies. And since the universe is nothing but a big ball of energy (even matter is considered so), thus, in conclusion, the universe never died or will. I presume that the big bang and big crunch are just some continious sequences of life and death. A pheniox, u might say.
    And after all, science always favours the simpliest of ideas and theories. The universe, with all its beauty and wonder is great enough to be God himself. Why would we bring something far more complex and harder to grasp like Allah, Jesus or Jahuva (though sometimes they become far more silly than us   )  
     
    It os either agonistism or panthiestsm for me. It's just I dont want to do prayings and stuff  Cry . I dont have to, right ? grin12

    <AliIsAli>: in ur sharia law, am i to be killed???
    <ghutlu>: Yes sure sure u should 4 firstly Being Ex muslim
     <ghutlu>:  for leaving ISLAM
     <AliIsAli>: would u kill me if u saw me?
     <ghutlu>: yes surely
     <AliIsAli>: :(
     <ghutlu>: by the way gay is just a mental problem
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #41 - January 21, 2011, 12:45 PM

    Like I said before:
    The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

    This is not an argument against atheism

    i) Time is still going on so we might have a reversal of energy
    ii)  Closed system also includes the possibility of a multiuniverse
    iii) Energy might always have been around

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #42 - January 21, 2011, 12:47 PM

    The universe is far too amazing to be given such a derogatory name as "God" - Don't cheapen it!

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #43 - January 21, 2011, 12:47 PM

    Quote
    Why would we bring something far more complex and harder to grasp

    Quote
    The universe, with all its beauty and wonder is great enough to be God himself.

    Or, going one simple step further: The universe, with all its beauty and wonder is great enough to be itself.

    Why taint it?

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #44 - January 21, 2011, 01:04 PM

    whatever

    "If intelligence is feminine... I would want that mine would, in a resolute movement, come to resemble an impious woman."
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #45 - January 21, 2011, 01:05 PM

    This is not an argument against atheism

    i) Time is still going on so we might have a reversal of energy
    ii)  Closed system also includes the possibility of a multiuniverse
    iii) Energy might always have been around



    i) can u explain, my little mind didnt get this one Smiley

    ii) So why Monotheism  and not Polytheism . Ur agrument disprove nothing.

    iii)  u agree with me then. Energy IS ALWAYS around.

    <AliIsAli>: in ur sharia law, am i to be killed???
    <ghutlu>: Yes sure sure u should 4 firstly Being Ex muslim
     <ghutlu>:  for leaving ISLAM
     <AliIsAli>: would u kill me if u saw me?
     <ghutlu>: yes surely
     <AliIsAli>: :(
     <ghutlu>: by the way gay is just a mental problem
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #46 - January 21, 2011, 01:28 PM

    i) can u explain, my little mind didnt get this one Smiley

    ii) So why Monotheism  and not Polytheism . Ur agrument disprove nothing.

    iii)  u agree with me then. Energy IS ALWAYS around.

    I wasnt making an argument, just clarifyng a few things up Wink

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #47 - January 21, 2011, 01:40 PM

    Quote
    A thought that has often come to my mind is that God is everything - and everything came out of God - the sun, the trees, the rocks, the, the fish and us are all bits of God dancing around with God all around.


    Ah yes. I've felt this too. Especially on that old LSD. I'm not sure if I ever felt it before, eg. as a child, but it's such a real feeling. And very beautiful. Everything is so vibrant. I imagine that some Sufis experience this, and more, spiritually. When I first read stuff like "There is nothing that does not glorify Him in praise, but you do not understand their glorification; surely He is clement, so He does not rush punishment upon you, forgiving/concealing" [17:44] I understood it in this lysergic sense.

    Quote
    As for Good and Evil - these are concepts - more or less useful in the world we live - but in the grander cosmic scale - I don't think there is such a thing as evil or even good for that matter.


    Interesting. Makes sense and I want to know more...

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #48 - January 21, 2011, 01:40 PM

    This is not an argument against atheism




    But u were disproving mine Wink

    <AliIsAli>: in ur sharia law, am i to be killed???
    <ghutlu>: Yes sure sure u should 4 firstly Being Ex muslim
     <ghutlu>:  for leaving ISLAM
     <AliIsAli>: would u kill me if u saw me?
     <ghutlu>: yes surely
     <AliIsAli>: :(
     <ghutlu>: by the way gay is just a mental problem
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #49 - January 21, 2011, 01:50 PM

    tlaloc, I don't agree.

    If parts of me are conscious then I am conscious, but that doesn't mean that ALL of me is conscious...just the conscious parts.  It doesn't mean my hair is conscious, or my eyes, or my fingernails.

    So at best you could say that parts of the universe are conscious, I don't think it is correct to assert that the universe is conscious.

    If you can say that "you are conscious as a whole" only because parts of you are conscious while other parts of you are not conscious, then you can also say that the universe as a whole is conscious if only parts of the universe are conscious.

    Being conscious "as a whole" is not logically equivalent to saying that "every component is conscious".
    Likewise, saying that "the universe is god" does not imply that every subset of the universe is, also, god. Or conscious, even.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #50 - January 21, 2011, 02:03 PM

    If you can say that "you are conscious as a whole" only because parts of you are conscious while other parts of you are not conscious, then you can also say that the universe as a whole is conscious if only parts of the universe are conscious.

    Being conscious "as a whole" is not logically equivalent to saying that "every component is conscious".
    Likewise, saying that "the universe is god" does not imply that every subset of the universe is, also, god. Or conscious, even.


    When I say "I am conscious" the "I" refers to the conscious part of me.  When I say "You are conscious" I am addressing the conscious part of you which can comprehend my statement.  This is inferred by the listener, at no point do you think "Oh, he also means his fingernails".

    But when you say "The universe is....." people infer that you mean everything.  Whether or not they erroneously exclude themself from "the universe" they still infer things like planets, stars, asteroids, etc.

    So to say "I am conscious, I am of the universe, therefore the universe is conscious" is very misleading and also I think incorrect.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #51 - January 22, 2011, 11:33 AM

    When I say "I am conscious" the "I" refers to the conscious part of me.  When I say "You are conscious" I am addressing the conscious part of you which can comprehend my statement.  This is inferred by the listener, at no point do you think "Oh, he also means his fingernails".

    But when you say "The universe is....." people infer that you mean everything.  Whether or not they erroneously exclude themself from "the universe" they still infer things like planets, stars, asteroids, etc.

    So to say "I am conscious, I am of the universe, therefore the universe is conscious" is very misleading and also I think incorrect.

    When you say "people infer", that's a logical fallacy.

    If if I say "the universe is X" you cannot assume that people infer "every single component of the universe".

    You are just saying so because YOU assumed such thing because you made the fallacy of thinking that if a property is true for "a whole" (consciousness-universe) then it must be true for its parts (consciousness-[planets/stars/atoms/whatever])

    Example of equivalent statements that you would have to imply that "people infer":
    "the universe is big" -> "a molecule of water is big"
    "the universe is cold and sparse" -> "the sun is cold and sparse"
    "the universe is a closed system" -> "my house is a closed system"

    See what I mean?

    It's not true that "the universe is X" implies or even SEEMS to imply that "everything IN the universe is X"

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #52 - January 22, 2011, 11:43 AM

    So add the word "some".  I wasn't trying to claim what everyone thinks when they hear the words "The Universe", I didn't qualify how many people will think this way nor did I intend to.  But anyway, I was trying to point out that stating the universe is conscious simply because it has conscious parts won't make sense to everyone and that there are people who will misunderstand what you mean.

    Ultimately I don't think you can say "I am conscious as a whole", you can only accurately say that some parts of you are conscious and other parts required to support the conscious parts are not.

    At best you can say that some of the universe is conscious, in which case "I think" you are right; therefore you are :-)

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #53 - January 23, 2011, 10:13 AM

    Well, if they misunderstand it, they are committing a fallacy as well.
    Cause "X is Y" does not mean "every part of X is Y".

    On a side note, I do not think you can "accurately" say that some parts of me are conscious and other parts are not.
    Because consciousness is a fuzzy concept.

    Example: you might want to say that my brain is conscious.
    Remove one molecule. It will still stay conscious, I suppose.
    Repeat, and ask the question again for each molecule removed.
    When will it stop being conscious?

    So this is a confusing subject anyway ^_^

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: God is the Universe = Pantheism?
     Reply #54 - January 24, 2011, 07:28 PM

    Technically...
    • If:
      • If:
        • There are "subsets" of me that, if taken singularly, are conscious (for example, all of me minus my hair, or all of me minus my left hand)
      • Implies that:
        • I am conscious
    • Then:
      • If:
        • I am conscious
      • Implies that:
        • The "set of all that exists taken as a whole" is conscious.

    So maybe calling it "god" to imply that "everything seen as a whole" is conscious is not really a bad idea.
    Or, it's equivalently bad as considering it a single whole entity.


    I like this ^  Afro


    On a side note, I do not think you can "accurately" say that some parts of me are conscious and other parts are not.
    Because consciousness is a fuzzy concept.

    Example: you might want to say that my brain is conscious.
    Remove one molecule. It will still stay conscious, I suppose.
    Repeat, and ask the question again for each molecule removed.
    When will it stop being conscious?

    So this is a confusing subject anyway ^_^


    Aren't you committing the continuum fallacy here?

    Edit: No you aren't, my bad....
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »