Theli

Ok, so you are saying that we learn that god exists through living.
That's not a very strong argument as the conclution that the earth is flat was made by just that. Knowledge and logic has always been tied together, and I see no reason to change this.
And the knowledge of life-experience is always based to a great degree on what we have been taught.
At one point we must start the search for evidence, and use logic to make sense of it.
No, but learning is.
I don't understand why you are so eager to disregard our most successfull tool for understanding our world.
If you have drawn conclutions about something you cannot rationalize about, then how can you seperate that conclution from a similar false one?
Your words earlier:
As for 'beyond words' it means divinity is mystery and mystery cannot be expressed adequately in words.
Mystery is lack of knowledge, don't you agree?

Marlowe

That depends on what you mean by "god exists". I am a pantheist, and do not believe in any personified god, so the idea of god existing as a separate entity, which seems to be what you're after disproving - well, you just need to argue with someone else about that. To me all things are god - so yes, I experience god through living every day.

Actually, knowledge and logic have not always been tied together - they have been tied together since the Greeks who developed the system we know as logic today. But observation is in there too. Modern scientific method involves as much observation, which is essentially experience, as logic. Logic is not always the best system for reaching knowledge, for example, Aristotle preferred logic to observation so much that he incorrectly concluded how many teeth people had, when he could have simply counted his own and discovered his logical deduction was incorrect. And if you want to get technical about learning - it is an interplay of experience and processing. The neural pathways in your brain are laid down primarily between birth and five years, when no child has mastered the rules of logic, and knowledge is acquired pretty much exclusively through experience at that point. Furthermore, educational research (http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/le...7/li_pers.html) shows that experience is equally as powerful as logic in human learning throughout adulthood. And depending on what is being learned - knowledge of course can be of an abstract type, or a visceral, emotional type - experience can completely override logic as in people who have post-traumatic stress disorder and experience panic attacks in situations they know logically to be non-threatening.

No, but learning isn't entirely logical, see above.

I don't understand why you think I am disregarding logic because I am saying it is not the sole tool we can use for understanding our world. I am simply adovcating using all the tools at our disposal instead of just one.

I can do it through intuitive knowledge and my own personal experience. Can I then prove it to you? No. But I don't care whether I can prove it. There is, in my humble opinion, entirely too much emphasis on what can be proven objectively in the realm of spirituality, which is essentially a subjective thing.

No, mystery cannot be expressed adequately in words. Therefore for you to try to express it in the words - lack of knowledge - is to miss the point.

Theli

I've been wondering about this, if everything is god, then god cannot be a thing. Am I right?
So, why call everything - "god"? It seems to be just a plain change of words, and serves no purpose other than confuse the issue. What is the difference between the Pantheist's "god" and the Atheist's "everything"?
Well, that depends on how you define logic. The Greeks may have refined logic by turning it into a system, but logic is used every day by people. It doesn't have to be systemized. Just like things and objects doesn't have to be named to be telled apart.
About observation... ofcourse knowledge and logic requires observations, without it the conclutions reached by logic can only be hypothetical.
Is intuitive knowledge something you haven't reached yourself, but something you have learned from others?
But even subjective opinions are based on obervations interpretations, so what observations led you to patheism?
All I've heard is "everything" and "living", but I doubt sitting at a computer and writing can lead someone to believe there is a god, so there must be something else that made you reach this conclution.
And you have made claims about god on a forum dedicated to proving/disproving and debating god(s) existence. And now you tell me you don't want to provide any evidence. So, why did you make the claims to begin with?

Marlowe

I've discovered that for many atheists there is little to no difference between what I believe and what they believe. I have discovered with other atheists, who are interested only in what can be objectively proven and rationally demonstrated, that there is a huge difference. Primarily it is in an animating of the universe. The basic definition of pantheism, developed by Spinoza is that everything is made of one substance and that substance is divine. It's generally in the "and that substance is divine" that some atheists have a problem. They are not interested in divinity, or in the realm of the sacred. I am.

Very true. But humans also use emotion to learn about the universe. I only made the distinction about the system of logic because it tends to be that which people are depending on when arguing over divinity.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this question. Intuitive knowledge I tend to think of as the flash of insight. For example, have you ever heard the story about how Einstein made the first jump about Relativity Theory? He had a dream of riding on a light beam. It then took him some time to work out his mathematical/ logical side of the argument so he could prove that his flash of insight was correct. You probably can't say that Einstein had learned this intuition from others, though it was certainly influenced by all that he had learned. Intuition is the "put it all together" moment. It comes from observation and logic. Logic is linear. Intuition is holistic. Our brains work by both systems.

Sitting at a computer and writing has nothing to do with my belief in pantheism. I can explain the observations that led me to pantheism, but they are likely not to mean a whole lot to you as you are very focused on logic. Though a vital factor in my pantheism is my study of science - from my degree in biology to my hobby of quantum physics and psychology to my recent readings in the area of Complexity Theory. Quantum physics and Chaos Theory show how things in this universe are not nearly as mechanistic and linear as is generally assumed by the rational materialism that dominates debates like this. Complexity Theory shows how all things are embedded in webs of connection and how life exists on a border of order and chaos - linearity and holism, logic and intuition.

I didn't "make claims" - you aksed a question and I answered with my subjective experience. I'm not here looking to win arguments, though I realize most other people are. I'm here to learn from others and discuss - that's why I'm debating in a forum on god's existence. Plus, science and religion are my two favorite subjects and here I can talk about both.

What do you believe, if I may ask?

Theli

Thanks for your info on Pantheism, I never really knew what it was.
But, as this thread was aimed at the christian interpretation of god, there is no reason to carry on the debate.