Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Technos · 06-15-2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tin Tin:
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 ]

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

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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 don't believe in any of that. I don't believe in miracles.

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:


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.

"Does it demand worship, fealty, submission, obedience... "

No, maybe only obedience. The laws of the universe are not sentient.

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael:
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.

Yes, but the universe had to be created/set into motion by laws. I don't think any non-theist denies that.

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Bah! The laws of the universe fit the definition of "God". As aforesaid, the "being" being the universe itself, or the space-time continuum.

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by 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"

Yes, "all is God". The "being" being God, which is everything.

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

The very fact that it ever existed proves its immortality.

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

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).

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.

Aquila ka Hecate · 06-15-2002, 10:31 PM

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

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Automaton:
Why? Was it created by its own laws?

It had to of been, unless you believe that God (in the conventional sense) created the universe.

Do the laws apply to God?
They apply to a non-sentient omnipresent God.

Only to us. A super-intelligent alien race is also "supreme" to us.

Only if we cannot escape its rule.

Only if we butcher the definition of "ruler" so much that it is unrecognisable. On the same token, existence would be our "ruler".

We exist because of those laws.

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.

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.

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by someone:
As others have pointed out, this makes your position panentheism which is very different from pantheism.

No, I believe that God is the laws that govern everything.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2002, 10:22 PM	#26
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Originally posted by 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"theism\, 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" Yes, "all is God". The "being" being God, which is everything. So to sum it up, the problem with pantheism is that the universe is finite in it's existence. The very fact that it ever existed proves its immortality.

06-15-2002, 10:31 PM	#28
Aquila ka Hecate Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Luna City Posts: 379	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

06-15-2002, 10:34 PM	#29
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Originally posted by Automaton: Why? Was it created by its own laws? It had to of been, unless you believe that God (in the conventional sense) created the universe. Do the laws apply to God? They apply to a non-sentient omnipresent God. Only to us. A super-intelligent alien race is also "supreme" to us. Only if we cannot escape its rule. Only if we butcher the definition of "ruler" so much that it is unrecognisable. On the same token, existence would be our "ruler". We exist because of those laws. 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. 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.

06-15-2002, 10:37 PM	#30
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Originally posted by someone: As others have pointed out, this makes your position panentheism which is very different from pantheism. No, I believe that God is the laws that govern everything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.