FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Reload this Page Please tell me how Pantheism is untrue
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM
Search

 
Page 4 of 12 « First 23 4 56 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-15-2002, 10:41 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,234
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquila ka Hecate:
<strong>No, maybe only obedience. The laws of the universe are not sentient

Whoops!

Did I miss something?

A non-sentient 'ruler and creator'???



Godless Blessings

Terri</strong>
Yes, exactly.
Totalitarianist is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:43 PM   #32
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,234
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Technos:
<strong>Hehehe... HAHAHAHAHAHA! Whew! Thanx. Funny stuff. Not all theist believe in a perfect god/goddess, and the universe (and the "laws" of the universe) do not think, or act on it a will of it's own, the universe simply is. That was funny though, thanx for the laugh </strong>
Please tell me how the laws of physics are not omnipresent and omnipotent. Any thing that posseses these two characteristics can be considered God.
Totalitarianist is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:46 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Tin Tin:
<strong>"Does it demand worship, fealty, submission, obedience... "

No, maybe only obedience. The laws of the universe are not sentient.</strong>
That's what I thought. It can be ignored.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:46 PM   #34
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Luna City
Posts: 379
Post
Tin Tin,

OK, so you are proposing a non-sentient Ruler, Lord and Creator of All.

I'm being dense again I suppose, because I have no idea why such would be an object of veneration.

I am awe-struck by the universe,certainly.
But I see no need to give up any of my processing time to actually worship it.

I'm going shopping this morning.Will check in again this evening.

More Godless Blessings

Terri
Aquila ka Hecate is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:46 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
Post
Quote:
Okay, okay. The above is based on the definition of a non-omnipresent God. I believe in an omnipresent God, being the laws of physics. You're criticising my "God" based on a false definition (my fault).
Alright, so you no longer believe in "God". All you believe in is the laws of physics (hint: us naturalists believe in them too), and you are simply arbitrarily shifting the words "laws of physics" with something else. This is not pantheism.
Quote:
There has been cultures that subsribe to an omnipresent God. There is such a belief as an omnipresent God. The definition of an omnipresent God (and not omniscient) fits perfectly with the laws of the universe.
Yes, there's Taoism and such, but this is not your belief. You are a naturalist (you only believe in the Universe and its interactions), but for some reason are not willing to admit it.
Automaton is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:53 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
Post
Quote:
It had to of been, unless you believe that God (in the conventional sense) created the universe.
Well, this is a logical contradiction. It is impossible to create oneself.
Quote:
They apply to a non-sentient omnipresent God.
Wait a minute. I thought the laws were God now?
Quote:
Only if we cannot escape its rule.
Assume this. I don't see how subjective "supremacy" equates to a god of any sort.
Quote:
We exist because of those laws.
We also exist because of our parents, and an incredible string of coincidences that lead to their meeting. By your logic, our parents and these coincidences themselves would be our "ruler". Give it up.
Quote:
The laws of physics govern our thought. You think the way you do because of science, and all kinds of science comes down to the laws of physics.
Science studies of the laws of physics, it is an epistemic exercise.
Automaton is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:53 PM   #37
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,234
Post
I believe that the laws of physics might as well be called "God".
Totalitarianist is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:55 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
Post
Quote:
No, I believe that God is the laws that govern everything.
Maybe if you stopped being so (deliberately?) ambiguous and didn't jump and equivocate between various beliefs so much, there wouldn't be this problem of confusion.
Automaton is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 10:58 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
Post
Quote:
I believe that the laws of physics might as well be called "God".
You can call the laws of physics whatever you want, but they will still be just the laws of physics.
Automaton is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 11:02 PM   #40
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,234
Post
Originally posted by sdfasdf
Well, this is a logical contradiction. It is impossible to create oneself.

Well, then, I can very well say that both atheism and theism are logical contradictions. Atheism can't be true on account of the first cause thing that I'm sure you know all about, and theism can't be true because of the first cause theory as well. God had to be caused by something, and the universe had to be caused by something. Every belief is contradicted (including pantheism) equaly.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>
Totalitarianist is offline  
 
Page 4 of 12 « First 23 4 56 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:18 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.