Totalitarianist

Based on these definitions:

--
Pantheism:
a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

God:
A) a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

B)the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
--

'God' fits perfectly with the laws of the universe. Can you deny the laws of the universe?

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

Undercurrent

No it doesn't. Definition (A) defines God as a "being". The "laws of the universe" are not a being.

Definition (B) defines God as the effects of this being. There is no reason to believe that the "laws of the universe" are the effects of such a being.

Rather than "fits perfectly", the correlation is strained at best, and certainly contradicts the common understanding.

m.

Mageth

If god == "laws of the universe," why bother labeling them god? Why not Ralph or George?

Totalitarianist

No it doesn't. Definition (A) defines God as a "being". The "laws of the universe" are not a being.

Wrong. "Being" can be defined as:--
1 a : the quality or state of having existence

Definition (B) defines God as the effects of this being. There is no reason to believe that the "laws of the universe" are the effects of such a being.

Please elaborate on this.

God:
1 : the creator, ruler and supreme being of the universe.

I would also like to add "omnipresent" to that.

All of those fits perfectly with the laws of the universe.
You cannot deny the following, which is attributable to God:--

The universe had to be created by laws. These laws exist everywhere. These laws are supreme. These laws are our ruler. The govern everything, including our thought.

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

Bill Snedden

Of course, but you did not use "being" in that sense. Your statements explicitly indicated a being, "a" being a qualifier indicating a thing apart from "being" itself.

In other words, by stipulating "a" being, you are stipulating both "being" and something else as well.

By doing so, you are not describing pantheism, but panentheism, the belief that the "god" contains the universe, but the universe does not contain "god."

In addition, the "laws of the universe" don't govern anything. It is the character or the nature of the universe that determines how things are. The "laws" are human descriptions of that reality.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

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

Totalitarianist

Of course, but you did not use "being" in that sense. Your statements explicitly indicated being, "a" being a qualifier indicating a thing apart from "being" itself.

In other words, by stipulating "a" being, you are stipulating both "being" and something else as well.

By doing so, you are not describing pantheism, but panentheism, the belief that the "god" contains the universe, but the universe does not contain "god."


I edited the post. Reread it.

"Supreme being" of the universe. To be supreme, it must be omnipresent.

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

Totalitarianist

Pantheism suggests an omnipresent God. Use that definition.

Bill Snedden

It still says "a".

Even "supreme" is an existential qualifier indicating something apart from being itself.

More formally, the two statements God is existence and God is supreme existence are not equal; both convey different types of information.

Is that helpful?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

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

HelenM

I think Pantheism says everything is God - not just the laws of the universe.

A tree is God; I am God; you are God.

I might be wrong though.

love
Helen

Bible Humper

If you equate God with the forces and laws of the universe, is it still possible to believe he could be omnipotent? From what I've seen, pantheists seem to believe that the "miracles" of the bible were explainable scientifically though incredibally coincidental (Moses parting the sea some sort of tidal phenomenon, the plagues of Eqypt caused by an erupting volcano, etc.) To me a truely miraculous event would be the sea parting as portrayed in The Ten Commandments, defying natural laws. If God must work within these laws, is he really omnipotent? Could he have caused the sea to grow legs and chase away the soldiers coming for Moses with equal ease?

I'm just basing this off Pantheistic people I've talked to, I'm not saying you believe this.