Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Pantheism

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

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Pantheism

 (Read 19863 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #90 - November 02, 2010, 01:20 AM
    Is there any dictionary definition anywhere of that understanding of transcendental?

    You can define rationality while you're at it too. Tongue
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #91 - November 02, 2010, 01:23 AM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on November 02, 2010, 01:06 AM
    I haven't studied it in detail but from what I remeber it involves an even more brazen element of non-locality i.e. the actual forces acting on a particle at one location depend instantaneously on conditions at distant locations. As far as I know his formulation makes predictions that agree fully with conventional QM  - so yeah it's also pretty cool stuff.




    Ya, I'm surprised it's not discussed more. Gives a nice spin on the determinism debate.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #92 - November 02, 2010, 01:26 AM
    the dictionary is no objective, it's just another interpretation of the word too.  Wink

    Rationality is the belief that there are true statements about the universe and that these true statements are knowable by man, in principle even if in practice we don't know them. I think rationality is a useful tool but it has so far proven itself incapable of explaining all of reality.

    I started a thread on what I felt were the shortcomings of the rational enterprise here:
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9085.0
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #93 - November 02, 2010, 01:32 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:26 AM
    the dictionary is no objective, it's just another interpretation of the word too.  Wink


    I agree, but I just assumed the word may have meant the same to at least one dictionary author.

    How did you come to this understanding of the word? Seems like the whole idea of transcendental makes it inherently unreachable. Do you consider things that are currently unreachable to our knowledge, transcendental?

    Quote
    Rationality is the belief that there are true statements about the universe and that these true statements are knowable by man, in principle even if in practice we don't know them. I think rationality is a useful tool but it has so far proven itself incapable of explaining all of reality.

    I started a thread on what I felt were the shortcomings of the rational enterprise here:
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9085.0


    Will take a look at that. Smiley
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #94 - November 02, 2010, 01:45 AM
    I think you may the answer to those questions in that thread.  Smiley
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #95 - November 02, 2010, 01:48 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 02, 2010, 01:23 AM
    Ya, I'm surprised it's not discussed more. Gives a nice spin on the determinism debate.


    I think this is because Bohmian Mechanics depends on the "hidden variables" theory. It agrees completely with experimental results but it's a lot more complicated than most other interpretations (even the many worlds interpretation of Lockwood). The problem is that most physicists are commited to the view that qm is a complete theory and the hidden variable paradigm undermines that completely.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #96 - November 02, 2010, 02:07 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:45 AM
    I think you may the answer to those questions in that thread.  Smiley


    Hmm I see. I have no qualms with that definition, just so long as you always state it in a debate. Tongue

    Coming back to the monism/pantheism differentiation, I do agree that to become pantheism, it has to have some divinity, but I consider that something the individual himself gives to the unified whole. Divine for me is a description, rather than a property.

    As for your question in that other thread, short answer is - I don't know. But I want to find out.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #97 - November 02, 2010, 02:14 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:48 AM
    I think this is because Bohmian Mechanics depends on the "hidden variables" theory. It agrees completely with experimental results but it's a lot more complicated than most other interpretations (even the many worlds interpretation of Lockwood). The problem is that most physicists are commited to the view that qm is a complete theory and the hidden variable paradigm undermines that completely.


    That's very irritating, I would like to see it pursued further. I am left unfulfilled by QM at the moment (although I barely get any of it, so maybe that's why  whistling2).
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #98 - November 02, 2010, 07:40 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:18 AM
    Well, you said you experienced "something powerful", I would call that transcendental. It's just a word but I think it fits best there. There is no more or less to the word than the fact that it symbolises all that can't be rationally explained.


    One can experience God as "something powerful" on an Immanent level. Infact the only way anyone directly experiences the "power" of God is on an Immanent level.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #99 - November 02, 2010, 08:01 AM
    I think the transcendent/ immanent dichotomy is a false one. In any case, when I mean transcendent I do not use the word in opposition to immanence but rather as a word that encompasses all that which is beyond the rational.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #100 - November 02, 2010, 08:02 AM
    Quote from: BlackDog on November 01, 2010, 10:25 PM

    Things are as I wish them to be



    How can it ever be any other way?
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #101 - November 02, 2010, 08:45 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 08:01 AM
    I think the transcendent/ immanent dichotomy is a false one. In any case, when I mean transcendent I do not use the word in opposition to immanence but rather as a word that encompasses all that which is beyond the rational.


    I don't say that Immanence is somehow an "opposite" to Transcendence. On an ultimate level God is "beyond" both. Transcendant also is neither "beyond" rational (if you mean rationality by which we make sense of the universe and what is within it) to me. Rather an understanding of the Transcendant brings rationality to everything that is required for us to percieve as properly when using rationality.

    I'm just giving my opinions(based upon my learnings of Hindu theology - which isnt expert). So don't take my word for it though.

    This to me is God as the "Transcendant"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NHJffUIIo
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #102 - November 02, 2010, 09:32 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 02, 2010, 12:28 AM
    No, you didn't. You never said if you knew something he wanted to hide.

    cant be bothered checking through the messages, but you never did press me or tell me i hadnt afterwards, so no, try again.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #103 - November 02, 2010, 12:44 PM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:08 AM
    There is nothing respectable about having a blind hatred towards anything that may include "supernatural". In fact, it is a very silly concept because the definition of what it means to be just merely "natural" is a circular idea.
    What we are concerned with is all of reality, not just that which scientists give us permission to talk about.


    That zoomi is one lucky girl
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #104 - November 02, 2010, 12:46 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on November 02, 2010, 12:44 PM
    That zoomi is one lucky girl


    AY you have a wife and kids. Don't do it.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #105 - November 02, 2010, 01:37 PM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:48 AM
    I think this is because Bohmian Mechanics depends on the "hidden variables" theory. It agrees completely with experimental results but it's a lot more complicated than most other interpretations (even the many worlds interpretation of Lockwood). The problem is that most physicists are commited to the view that qm is a complete theory and the hidden variable paradigm undermines that completely.


    Let's say Bohm's interpretation is correct - if non-local hidden variables do exist, then is it possible we might be able to prove their existence or would we just be able to use them as an idea to describe a model in which they resolve the quantum measurement problem and provide us with a deterministic theory? If there is no way for us to gain access to the realm of hidden variables and if they are part of reality then would we class the hidden variables as something akin to 'stardust' or something akin to 'fairydust'. In fact what is the difference between the two - is it just that we have the potential and means to measure and observe 'stardust' whilst it's impossible to do this do this with 'fairydust'. Then if this were true we would have to say that 'fairydust' is as equally real as 'stardust' (they are both elements of physical reality) - it's just that human concioussness does not have the ability to measure and observe it in the same way it can with 'stardust'.  

    I think I've heard you reasoning along similar lines before? I'm not sure if the above reasoning is consistent or not - just thinking aloud
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #106 - November 02, 2010, 01:39 PM
    Quote from: BlackDog on November 02, 2010, 12:46 PM
    AY you have a wife and kids. Don't do it.


    The second one is due this saturday  mysmilie_977
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #107 - November 02, 2010, 01:44 PM
    Hi abu, and congrats on your second kid.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #108 - November 02, 2010, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on November 02, 2010, 01:39 PM
    The second one is due this saturday  mysmilie_977


    It was merely a supernatural guess Smiley

    Congrats btw.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #109 - November 02, 2010, 01:51 PM
    Quote from: Kenan on November 02, 2010, 01:44 PM
    Hi abu, and congrats on your second kid.



    Thanks mate  Smiley

    really nice to see you back
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #110 - November 02, 2010, 01:52 PM
    Quote from: BlackDog on November 02, 2010, 01:46 PM
    It was merely a supernatural guess Smiley

    Congrats btw.


    probably all that quantum entaglement stuff   Wink
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #111 - November 02, 2010, 02:20 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on November 02, 2010, 01:39 PM
    The second one is due this saturday  mysmilie_977


    Going to be there for the moment I expect. My regards and well wishes to the missus.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #112 - November 02, 2010, 02:58 PM
    Congrats Abu  Afro  Boy or girl? And the killer question (but I have to ask it because like us you believe the quran & hadith are no longer relevent), if its a boy, are you going to circumcise or not ?  Terror couch
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #113 - November 02, 2010, 03:17 PM
    Is your wife a pious muslimah, abu? Have you told her about your becoming a "non-practising Muslim"?
    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #114 - November 02, 2010, 03:52 PM
    Quote from: Logical_Mind44 on November 02, 2010, 02:20 PM
    Going to be there for the moment I expect. My regards and well wishes to the missus.


    thanks
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #115 - November 02, 2010, 04:03 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on November 02, 2010, 02:58 PM
    Congrats Abu  Afro  Boy or girl? And the killer question (but I have to ask it because like us you believe the quran & hadith are no longer relevent), if its a boy, are you going to circumcise or not ?  Terror couch


    Another boy. If I have it my way he won't be, if my wife and our parents have it their way he will be...I have a feeling I'll be outnumbered but i'm still working on persuading my wife...but let's not ruin a cool thread
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #116 - November 02, 2010, 04:18 PM
    Quote from: GodIsNotGreat on November 02, 2010, 03:17 PM
    Is your wife a pious muslimah, abu? Have you told her about your becoming a "non-practising Muslim"?


    she has liberal views so is quite understanding of my position i.e. a non-literal interprtation and no longer relevant Qur'an etc. I haven't told her the non-practicing/drinking alcohol etc. part yet - she'd probably kick my arse, hehe. Also, although I love her very much, I don't think that concerns her.

    anyways no more personal questions please.
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #117 - November 02, 2010, 04:19 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on November 02, 2010, 04:03 PM
    Another boy. If I have it my way he won't be, if my wife and our parents have it their way he will be...I have a feeling I'll be outnumbered but i'm still working on persuading my wife...but let's not ruin a cool thread

    No chance your missus is gonna take your views seriously, dont even bother wasting your breath  Afro
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #118 - November 02, 2010, 06:08 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on November 02, 2010, 09:32 AM
    cant be bothered checking through the messages, but you never did press me or tell me i hadnt afterwards, so no, try again.


    I'm telling you now.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #119 - November 02, 2010, 06:36 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on November 02, 2010, 01:52 PM
    probably all that quantum entaglement stuff   Wink


    Ok I know we've done this before, but I'm still curious. What exactly does the word 'God' mean to you?
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »