Adrian Selby

"Can you deny the laws of the universe?"

What are the laws of the universe? Are they the laws of physics?

Adrian

Autonemesis

Look, cut to the chase. Does it demand worship, fealty, submission, obedience... or not? If I accept pantheism as you have described it, what then? I really do not understand why anyone who is inclined to believe in a god or gods, would want to believe in one that was not (nominally) the mainstream diety in their culture.

Undercurrent

As Bill points out, "a being" can not be defined as such. Clearly, to anyone seeking a rational interpretation of the english language rather than just nihilistically chaining definitions to attept to salvage a vague point, "a being" refers to a discrete entity, rather than a quality.

Certainly. We see that there are laws of physics that we can identify. We can test their range of applicability and we can verify their accuracy. But we have no real information about why the universe seems to have these properties, so even if they were fiated in a big ledger by a god, we would not be able to know that. Hence anyone who claims to know the origin of these laws is full of shit.

I deny the first, third, and fourth sentences. Please prove them.

m.

Liquidrage

Based upon what is written above I would have to say that Pantheism could neither be proven true nor false and is therefor meaningless.

LinuxPup

It's important to remember that God is not bound to time (at least most definitions say so, including the Bible), which means God cannot be limited to the universe, as time is a property of the universe. This means the universe cannot be God. That's one of the problems I have with pantheism, at least this definition of it:

Pan"the*ism\, n. [Pan- + theism.] The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe; cosmotheism.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Pantheism gets it's meaning from "pan" and "theism", that is "all is God"... this is not to be mistaken for panentheism, which means "all *in* God"

So to sum it up, the problem with pantheism is that the universe is finite in it's existence.

Mageth

So to sum it up, the problem with pantheism is that the universe is finite in it's existence.

That is, unless the universe is not finite in its existence...

Or if you define god to be finite in time...

Based upon what is written above I would have to say that Pantheism could neither be proven true nor false and is therefor meaningless.

In addition, as I implied in my first post, equating the universe with god is meaningless in and of itself. To me, it's just substituting one word (god) for another (universe) and thus serves no useful (explantory or other) purpose.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

ishalon

We have no proof that the laws of the universe are consistent, in the first place.

Automaton

Actually, "God" does not fit "perfectly" with the laws of the universe, and is in fact in direct contradiction to them.

Your first definition of God is, "the forces and laws of the universe." So "God" is just another word for "physics", it conveys no new meaning in its own light. You might as well call physics, "the great quagauliox", it makes no difference. Then, your second definition of God is, "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe." In case you hadn't realised, the laws of physics are not perfect, not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not the originators and rulers of the universe.

Perfect in the sense of God is that of "the perfect being" (while I cringe at such a nonsensical concept, I will assume it has meaning for the sake of argument). Obviously the laws of physics are not the perfect being, infinitely more complex laws to bring about infinitely more diversity, harmony and complexity in the universe would obviously be more perfect than the simple recurring brute actions of the ones that occur now.

The laws of physics, by their very nature, are not omnipotent. They limit and guide actions, they are not subjects that can create this or that at whim. Omnipotence entails unlimited possible power, and unlimited possible power requires the subject itself to exemplify the maximal possible conditions available for power. This includes having a mind, as arbitrary action is meaningless. The laws of physics themselves obviously are not minds, nor do they convey anything close to having a mind.

Omniscience rests on being able to have all possible knowledge. This means the laws of physics would have to have a means for storing and conveying knowledge. This is not the case. Hence, the laws of physics cannot be omniscient.

According to most physicists, the laws of physics as we know them would have began at the moment of the universe's conception (and in some cases, it would be impossible for it to be otherwise.) To have created the universe, the laws of physics would have to have been their own creation, which is logically impossible.

And finally, the laws of physics do not "rule" the universe. They are the way the universe operates. Gravity does not sit above the universe in a golden throne, pulling the strings.

Therefore, this conception of pantheism is totally and utterly ridiculous.

PS, if you think you can wriggle your way out of this by using your second definition of God, "the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being", and claiming the universe is an effect of God, your position is simply theism, and not pantheism. And this definition refers to the aspect of "being Godlike" (posessing the qualities listed above for God), not a specific property or causal interaction of God.

Automaton

Why? Was it created by its own laws? Do the laws apply to God?
Only to us. A super-intelligent alien race is also "supreme" to us.
Only if we butcher the definition of "ruler" so much that it is unrecognisable. On the same token, existence would be our "ruler".
Again, do they govern God?
I have a hard time believing any God with some amount of reasonableness would govern our thoughts to write posts on this board refuting her.

Automaton

As others have pointed out, this makes your position panentheism which is very different from pantheism.