Skip navigation
Sidebar -

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

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 12:12 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:22 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 03:29 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
June 25, 2025, 03:06 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 23, 2025, 08:28 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
June 22, 2025, 03:34 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
June 21, 2025, 01:05 PM
New Britain
June 20, 2025, 09:26 PM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 10:20 PM
News From Syria
June 17, 2025, 05:58 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 17, 2025, 10:47 AM
ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 02, 2025, 10:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Pantheism

 (Read 15097 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #60 - February 25, 2010, 08:07 PM
    Everything. Correct me if i'm wrong, isn't pantheism the idea that everything is 'god' or exhibits a form of godliness?
    Is there a simple straightforward explanation of what pantheism is or is it just too broad to be explained in a couple sentences.
    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #61 - February 25, 2010, 09:46 PM
    Quote from: Heyjustlooking on February 25, 2010, 08:07 PM
    Everything. Correct me if i'm wrong, isn't pantheism the idea that everything is 'god' or exhibits a form of godliness?
    Is there a simple straightforward explanation of what pantheism is or is it just too broad to be explained in a couple sentences.


    Now that would require a definition of God from a pantheist point of view. If everything is God, then you as well as I are God or parts of the God. Such a God cannot be a creator God. It cannot be a personal God who is omniscient, omnipotent, demands or requires worship, or listens to prayers and responds to them.

    In short, call it God, Satan, or anything, whatever exists is part of a single reality or truth. Please don't be mislead by the word "God" wrt Pantheism.

    The moment one starts trying to understand that reality or the truth, one enters either in the realm of mysticism as I understand it, or science.

    As far as I understand, science does not ask certain types of questions e.g. philosophical or psychological. Such questions are addressed by mysticism. That is why I consider Pantheism to be a broader concept.

    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #62 - February 26, 2010, 05:52 PM
    Bit clearer now.
    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #63 - February 26, 2010, 06:39 PM
    Pantheism is bullshit. I am the way, the light, the... holy shit.. some chick with this REALLY nice ass just sat down next to me. Campus compter terminals FTW. Thanks dad!
    Formerly known as Iblis
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #64 - February 26, 2010, 07:21 PM
    Quote from: Jesus Christ on February 26, 2010, 06:39 PM
    Pantheism is bullshit. I am the way, the light, the... holy shit.. some chick with this REALLY nice ass just sat down next to me. Campus compter terminals FTW. Thanks dad!


    LOL. With a nick like that, I would have expressed myself a bit differently.
    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #65 - March 01, 2010, 09:42 AM
    Where are you, z10?
    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #66 - March 03, 2010, 12:22 AM
    So, redefine God in such a way that to say that everything is God would be true according to a rational scientific view of the world?

    The only thing I understand clearer is why Dawkins called it sexed up atheism.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #67 - March 03, 2010, 12:26 AM
    And z10 you haven't answered my question. You said:

    "I think you misunderstand my position. I am not positing something extra as a given or even as an assumption, I am deriving it from metaphysical principles, it is a deductive argument. There is no epiphenomenal consciousness in the universe, just as your consciousness is not epiphenomenal either."

    What metaphysical principles???

    If by principles you mean beliefs then what are these metaphysical beliefs that your metaphysical belief in pantheism is derived from and what did you derive these metaphysical beliefs from?

    If by principles you mean laws, then I am not aware that there are any established metaphysical laws, or even merely proposed metaphysical laws for that matter.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #68 - March 03, 2010, 02:39 AM
    hi j4, i apologise for not answering earlier

    I will outline my argument for you, the metaphysical principles I allude to are merely the premises of this argument. This is the same argument that I presented earlier in this thread:-

    1). The cosmos contains thinking subjective beings.
    2). These beings are a natural part of the cosmos.
    3). Subjectivity, the ability to have a mind, must be treated as every other natural phenomena like electricity.
    4). These natural phenomena can be studied as a whole ie the complete study of mass/ energy brought about the general theory of relativity.
    5). Subjectivity, as a whole, as a fundamental feature of the cosmos, then deserves to be called what it is, a cosmic mind.

    the metaphysical principles in this argument are as follows:-
    1. Consciousness, subjectivity, experience are real existents. This is a self-evident premise.
    2. Reality is the unfolding of a process, rather than the interaction between substances. This, perhaps, is where the problem starts. The idea here is that to take into account the unfolding, processual nature of consciousness, we must treat all of reality in the same method.
    3. The universe is a totality that can be treated as one whole. This premise is also fairly self-evident.

    As you can see, however, a metaphysical principle is not a science. It cannot be. Due to this position taking into account the subjectivity of reality, we cannot, in principle, construct objective laws about subjective reality. That is an impossibility. If you accept that there is subjective reality then you can see how it is impossible to construct a "law" about it. Once that principle has been accepted, and you follow my argument through its panpsychism you will see how the conclusion of a cosmic mind is a plausible reality.
    Ofcourse, this argument cuts both ways. I cannot give you objective evidence of the cosmic mind, I can only attempt to elucidate it through a metaphysical argument that can or cannot be accepted. However, my point has always been that I am not assuming a cosmic mind, I am deducing the mind through a metaphysical argument.
    You can accept or reject the argument, but you cannot say that the metaphysics is superfluous. To me, and perhaps to most people, subjectivity is perhaps the only thing we know with any certainty at all.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #69 - March 03, 2010, 02:40 AM
    Quote from: charlesmartel on March 01, 2010, 09:42 AM
    Where are you, z10?



    Hello charles, sorry for the late response, what did I miss?
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #70 - March 03, 2010, 02:23 PM
    Quote from: z10 on March 03, 2010, 02:39 AM
    1). The cosmos contains thinking subjective beings.
    2). These beings are a natural part of the cosmos.
    3). Subjectivity, the ability to have a mind, must be treated as every other natural phenomena like electricity.
    4). These natural phenomena can be studied as a whole ie the complete study of mass/ energy brought about the general theory of relativity.
    5). Subjectivity, as a whole, as a fundamental feature of the cosmos, then deserves to be called what it is, a cosmic mind.


    You've gone from saying that there are certain things that could be said to have a certain predicate, to saying that this predicate is a tangible object, like electricity. It's as fallacious as comparing the fact that we can say about a person that they are cruel, and therefore, cruelty is a tangible object, but it clearly isn't. Cruelty is a word that we have established and agreed upon as describing a certain way in which a given organization of material interacts with other given organizations of material, or even the material itself. But cruelty isn't a material in itself. Subjectivity is of the same order of things. It describes the way a material is, but isn't a material itself. And this doesn't involve the denial of cruelty or subjectivity.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #71 - March 04, 2010, 06:28 PM
    I am not saying that subjectivity is a material in itself, I find that such dualism only leads to a dead end. Rather, what I am saying is that consciousness is a natural aspect of reality and all aspects of reality deserve to be treated equally. If the concept of matter can incorporate within itself the idea of fields and charge and spin (which is a great improvement on the classical idea of matter just having mass and location) then why is consciousness seen as different? It is impossible to explain consciousness by stating that certain arrangements of certain particles somehow produce subjectivity, that kind of explanation misses the point of what is needed to be explained. I find that incorporating subjectivity into the fundamental nature of matter is the best way of resolving this problem but you need not have to agree with me. The mind-body problem is hundreds of years old and humanity is yet to reach a collective conclusion.
    Besides, the argument can be made that while aspects of reality that can be logically and reasonably deduced one can always be sceptical about, there is no water-tight argument to prove that reality is the way we generally perceive it to be - the belief in an outside world is always taken with some faith. However, the fact that I can experience, that no matter what my view of reality is, true or false, the fact that I can have a view cannot be doubted - that I am conscious is the only given of all reality. Again, you need not necessarily agree with me, but I hope you can see why I take the position that I do.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #72 - March 04, 2010, 07:12 PM
    Quote from: z10 on March 04, 2010, 06:28 PM
    I am not saying that subjectivity is a material in itself, I find that such dualism only leads to a dead end. Rather, what I am saying is that consciousness is a natural aspect of reality and all aspects of reality deserve to be treated equally. If the concept of matter can incorporate within itself the idea of fields and charge and spin (which is a great improvement on the classical idea of matter just having mass and location) then why is consciousness seen as different? It is impossible to explain consciousness by stating that certain arrangements of certain particles somehow produce subjectivity, that kind of explanation misses the point of what is needed to be explained. I find that incorporating subjectivity into the fundamental nature of matter is the best way of resolving this problem but you need not have to agree with me. The mind-body problem is hundreds of years old and humanity is yet to reach a collective conclusion.
    Besides, the argument can be made that while aspects of reality that can be logically and reasonably deduced one can always be sceptical about, there is no water-tight argument to prove that reality is the way we generally perceive it to be - the belief in an outside world is always taken with some faith. However, the fact that I can experience, that no matter what my view of reality is, true or false, the fact that I can have a view cannot be doubted - that I am conscious is the only given of all reality. Again, you need not necessarily agree with me, but I hope you can see why I take the position that I do.


    My gut feeling is that subjectivity will eventually be explained by science and that it merely comes accross as complex to us, but actually shares the same basic template that the universe does. But ofcourse, at this moment in time this can't be confirmed or disconfirmed. But the onus of proof is on you to show that subjectivity is something over and above the material of the brain. I'm just doubting your suggestion.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #73 - March 04, 2010, 07:17 PM
    That is also my point j4. Subjectivity is nothing above the brain, it does share the same template as everything as the universe and it is completely natural.
    However, our "template" is exactly what is lacking in explanatory power to be able to explain consciousness.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #74 - March 14, 2010, 08:01 PM
    Epilepsy and pantheism
    Pantheism entails attributing a mind, an over-mind, or diffused consciousness out there somewhere.
    The problem is that humans have a very developed brain for attributing minds, with or without evidence!
    Attributing minds to others is what humans do, and most other primates do not.
    It allows us to live closely together.
    People who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy frequently have mystic visions.
    Memories of people are stored in that part of the brain, and the mystic vision can be a arise during a fit. 
    Go to You Tube, enter 'EdLifton', and watch the clips on 'other minds' and 'brain'

    Ed

     
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #75 - July 04, 2010, 07:13 PM
    Quote from: z10 on March 04, 2010, 06:28 PM
    It is impossible to explain consciousness by stating that certain arrangements of certain particles somehow produce subjectivity[...] I find that incorporating subjectivity into the fundamental nature of matter is the best way of resolving this problem


    I'm curious why you think it is impossible to explain subjectivity of human "consciousness" by use of particles -- surely a) all the particles in question are different b) they operate in slightly different ways and c) the sensory input is different in all cases.

    Quote from: z10 on March 04, 2010, 06:28 PM
    that I am conscious is the only given of all reality.


    Aren't you forgetting the classical refutations of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"?

    Quote from: z10 on March 04, 2010, 07:17 PM
    That is also my point j4. Subjectivity is nothing above the brain, it does share the same template as everything as the universe and it is completely natural.


    I don't understand what you mean here, can you explain?

    Quote from: z10 on March 04, 2010, 07:17 PM
    However, our "template" is exactly what is lacking in explanatory power to be able to explain consciousness.


    And here. I am not sure what you mean by template. The mechanics of the brain?

    Quote from: z10 on February 02, 2010, 09:32 AM

    1). The cosmos contains thinking subjective beings.
    2). These beings are a natural part of the cosmos.
    3). Subjectivity, the ability to have a mind, must be treated as every other natural phenomena like electricity.
    4). These natural phenomena can be studied as a whole ie the complete study of mass/ energy brought about the general theory of relativity.
    5). Subjectivity, as a whole, as a fundamental feature of the cosmos, then deserves to be called what it is, a cosmic mind.



    Premise one isn't necessarily true (see Descartes comment above). Premise three doesn't make sense either -- why must consciousness be treated like energy?

    I think someone made a valid point above too, that just becasue there is consciousness in the unverse doesn't mean the universe has a consciousness, or that those consciousnesses relate to each other in the same way energy might. Please eludicate on why you take this to be the case.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #76 - July 04, 2010, 07:19 PM
    uh oh... somebody's gonna sleep on the couch soon... Tongue
    German ex-Muslim forum — My YouTube — List of Ex-Muslims —
    Wikis: en – de – fr – ar – tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #77 - July 04, 2010, 07:33 PM
    Hahah this is just a discussion, not an argument
    And even if it was an argument, that just means some good make up sex  grin12
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #78 - July 04, 2010, 07:36 PM
    Well, we've seen "it". We totally know what you mean. Cheesy
    German ex-Muslim forum — My YouTube — List of Ex-Muslims —
    Wikis: en – de – fr – ar – tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #79 - July 09, 2010, 12:37 PM
    Quote from: z10 on February 02, 2010, 12:04 AM
    I have always found it interesting how mystics from all ages and all cultures profess one form of pantheism or other. Whether it be the joyous ecstasy of a sufi like Hallaj or the powerful articulation of Spinoza there has always been this idea that somehow mankind has mistakenly searched for divinity in the other when really nature itself is divine, dazzling and beautiful.
    To my mind, pantheism is not only the truth of mystics and visionaries, but it is the only world-view that incorporates both divinity and sound reason. In fact, in some senses, it could be argued that pantheism is the only valid conclusion to be made about our cosmos.

    Please do share your thoughts on pantheism and as we progress I will try my best to show why I feel (if correct) it is such a brilliant, engaging and satisfying view of the universe.



    i had no idea what panteism was, just looked it up on wikipedia. ive had these thoughts myself once in a while, didnt know there was a name for it though. i think theres a lot of truth in this belief. i guess sometimes we cant see the forest for all the trees!
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #80 - July 13, 2010, 11:54 AM
    Funny how differently people can think. From the day I first heard about Pantheism I thought, what a fantasy-belief. Similar reaction to when I heard about the Hindu elephant god with 8 arms or whatever. Then there are other people who hear it and think it makes sense.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #81 - July 13, 2010, 12:13 PM
    What kind of pantheism James? There are some who despise the word god to describe what they think everything is, me included, to me "god" is everything in existence both "good" and "bad". I don't actually like the word god tho, as it is too emotionally charged, so therefore i just call it Nature.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #82 - July 13, 2010, 12:17 PM
    So what your saying is everything is Nature? Then I'm a Pantheist. And so is 99.999% of the whole world.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #83 - July 13, 2010, 12:20 PM
     
    Quote from: Lilyesque on July 13, 2010, 12:13 PM
    What kind of pantheism James? There are some who despise the word god to describe what they think everything is, me included, to me "god" is everything in existence both "good" and "bad". I don't actually like the word god tho, as it is too emotionally charged, so therefore i just call it Nature.


    Yeah! MOTHER NATURE, a more sensible construct than 'GOD'


    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: Pantheism
     Reply #84 - July 13, 2010, 12:22 PM
    Mother Nature is just another phrase for Nature's Way though, and Nature's Way is determined by the laws of science.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #85 - July 13, 2010, 12:27 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on July 13, 2010, 12:17 PM
    So what your saying is everything is Nature? Then I'm a Pantheist. And so is 99.999% of the whole world.


    Ah but 99.999% of the world don't reject the idea of something beyong nature, the majority believe in the super-natural. Though yes, pantheism, atheism, there's barely a difference. All pantheists have really done is replace the word 'existence' with 'god' (though many, me included, don't like to refer to it as god).
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #86 - July 13, 2010, 12:30 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on July 13, 2010, 12:22 PM
    Mother Nature is just another phrase for Nature's Way though, and Nature's Way is determined by the laws of science.


    As the great Poirot says, Exactement, mon amis.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #87 - July 13, 2010, 12:30 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on July 13, 2010, 12:27 PM
    Ah but 99.999% of the world don't reject the idea of something beyong nature, the majority believe in the super-natural. Though yes, pantheism, atheism, there's barely a difference. All pantheists have really done is replace the word 'existence' with 'god' (though many, me included, don't like to refer to it as god).

     < and me written down better, blame my dyslexia.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #88 - July 13, 2010, 12:34 PM
    And she keeps us all busy trying to unravel her mysteries. The laws of science are our tools to ferret out the truth. You need intuitive leaps to be on the right track. Not everyone can do it. Reason usually trails behind to verify and clarify things for mere mortals. But no matter how much we know, there's still a lot left to be understood. What we know,despite impressive progress of human knowledge is just the tip of the iceberg. Probably nature's idea of making life worth living for humans.The scope for the progress of human knowledge is infinite.This is mother nature's gift to mankind,and what keeps life ticking.


    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: Pantheism
     Reply #89 - July 13, 2010, 12:40 PM
    Quote from: hypocrucifier on July 13, 2010, 12:34 PM
    And she keeps us all busy trying to unravel her mysteries. The laws of science are our tools to ferret out the truth. You need intuitive leaps to be on the right track. Not everyone can do it. Reason usually trails behind to verify and clarify things for mere mortals. But no matter how much we know, there's still a lot left to be understood. What we know,despite impressive progress of human knowledge is just the tip of the iceberg. Probably nature's idea of making life worth living for humans.The scope for the progress of human knowledge is infinite.This is mother nature's gift to mankind,and what keeps life ticking.


    Everything you said here, I accept. Even the notion of Mother Nature giving us gifts, or leaving us hanging, or busying us with mysteries, but I don't believe Mother Nature has to be personal to do these things, I still don't accept Pantheism, and I don't think there is anything supernatural about existence. I'm just a bog-standard Atheist realist.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »