Theli

Testing...

Jobar

I'll be the roundabout. The words'll make you out'n'out- Yes

Well. I was severely tempted to dress up in my Zen Master costume, and jump out from behind a tree and beat Trebaxian about the head and shoulders with a stick- but I will refrain, and try to talk about something that may be inexpressible.

Pantheism equates reality- existence- with God. As many here have pointed out, this equation really tells us nothing useful about existence, or God. Our knowledge of the physical universe is not increased, and our understanding of what God is, or might be, stays at zero.

But- the concept of unity, of one-from-many and many-from-one, is profound. Look at the thrust of scientific knowledge. We start with a world of many many things, and by persistent study we discover that the vast variety is made of a few dozen elements, which interact through gravity and electromagnetic energies. With further study, the elements prove to be made up of a few simpler particles- electrons and nucleons. We discover new forces, but in time it begins to look like all these forces may reduce to four, then three, then perhaps one single force- which is also, in ways hard to understand and describe, the very matter doing the interacting. As we look at the many things of the world intensely, they seem to approach being ONE thing.

We are constantly trying to reduce the number of theories we *must* use to understand things. Right now, we have no Unified Field Theory. (Although that may be found in our lifetimes.) And after that, we will search for a TOE- a Theory of Everything. One physical theory to describe all of reality!

As we get closer to such things, they get harder and harder to understand, and useful in more and more constrained conditions. It may be that the Theory of Everything will only apply to the first quantum instant of the Big Bang! After that instant, we must use theories in which the Ultimate Force is split up into separate ones- but (assuming such a theory is possible) this one Theory will explain- everything. The entire universe. All time, all space, all matter, all energy.

I find the parallels between our scientific search, and the philosophical/theological searches of the great teachers of pantheism and mysticism, extremely striking. Our science describes a reality which, as you try to describe it, becomes harder and harder to talk about. Impossible to focus on clearly. Until, at the level of ultimate observations, ultimate understandings, it tells us- perhaps- nothing of practical, day-to-day use.

Oddly enough, throughout history the great teachers of pantheistic religion have agreed with this. The Buddha once said "I gained not one thing from unexcelled, complete awakening- and that is why I call it unexcelled, complete awakening." Lao-Tzu, the (possibly legendary) author of the Tao Te Ching, began his famous work with the statement "The way which can be spoken of is not the ultimate Way." (There have been many translations made of this. "The words which are spoken are not the ultimate Word." "Knowledge which can be understood is not ultimate Knowledge." "Force forced isn't Force." The Chinese characters are like poetry- open to many interpretations.)

I will talk more about the parallels between pantheistic and scientific thought later. Trebaxian, it may interest you to know that some of us consider ourselves to be atheists/pantheists. I do. Atheism is not a complete philosophy or worldview- it is simply the rejection of the reality of a god or gods. Pantheism, however, seems to me to provide a framework for a complete worldview- a philosophical "Theory of Everything". Which, like its scientific counterpart, is both extremely hard to understand, and of astonishingly little practical use!

Mageth

Jobar:

Your explanation makes sense. I can respect your views. I've dabbled in a little of Taoism myself, but have never considered myself a pantheist.

I do think that a ToE, while maybe not having much "practical" use, would be very philosophically satisfying.

Theli

Lack of Paint (Trebaxian Vir)...

I didn't know you could change names without creating a new account. I changed from Theli.
Anyway, over to your reply...

The god, or a god?
I assume you are reffering to the Judeo Christian god-belief.

A being of specific nature has also specific constraints. Expecially natural laws, wich are absolute.
If a being is "good" then it's decitions are influenced (or even constrained) by this. An allpowerfull being is also a being without solid attributes (and therefore nonexistent).

Presence require a space to exist in. As for natural laws, they have no presence as they are not beings themselfs. Take gravity for example, gravity is not a present independent force, but an attribute/effect of matter in our universe. It doesn't exist where matter isn't near.

Incomplete. Creator of what?

Are you still reffering to physical laws as independent forces, and beings with actual existence?
This is one of my beef's with theism. "All laws and all compexity must have an external being operating it" Horseshit!

First of all, you have yet to show that these laws can exist without matter/energy.
Secondly, what's the point in reffering to physical laws (already existing, and more fitting name) as "god". You're a few step away from picking up a pen saying, "look, a god!"

Are you reffering to "the first causer" as an actual being or a casual event?

Excacly, the universe coudn't have created itself, because that would imply that the universe existed prior to it's own creation.

Halt! Are you saying that the events that led to the creation of the universe must have been set in motion by an external/prior being?
If that would be true then the causer's actions should also be counted as an early stage of our universe's existence (and would have to be put in motion themselfs).
I would think that the only way to get out of this is to assume that an event can occur in true vacuum (without having a prior existence causing it).

I must have missed this part before, could you fill me in on it?

And this isn't?

I don't think I wan't to go into the problems of infinite regress again. All I can say is, with infinite regress, no event happening now has a source. And since specifics (natural laws, energy, complexity) exist today they can't be dependent on an infinite chain of events without a source.
Looking backward in the supposed infinite regress you will find a state of existence where no prior events has any baring on our existence today. Then you have found the source, and don't need the infinite regress anymore to explain our existence (Ockhams razor).

Again, please explain.

Ok, now you're telling me what to be?
And how do you know i'm NOT a weak atheist?

But what good does that do to me?

Yes, a definition YOU created.
The definition you got from butchering the judeo-christian god-definition and taking only the peices that fit your own theory.
But I don't see why I should change my vocabulary just for you.
Excanging the words "natural laws" to "god", and then assume they exist independent of matter/energy.
Your post wasn't THAT impressive.

Only inside your own mind.

Totalitarianist

I'm not trying to refute it. You can take something (e.g. physics) and define something else to have the same definition (e.g. your version of "god") all you want. But as has been pointed out, why? If it serves no purpose to equate physics with a particular definition of "god," then, IMO, it's silly to do so.

It's not my definition of God.

So you might say I'm equating your equating physics as "god" with "silliness." To refute my argument, you'll have to show us what possible purpose the equating provides, other than as an exercise in mental masturbation.

You're doing the bowelcruddle again. It is silly for me to bother with this. You're dancing around my questions.

Totalitarianist

The god, or a god?
I assume you are reffering to the Judeo Christian god-belief.

For the second time, NO!

I'll reply to the rest of you (and you) later. I am in a huge hurry.

Totalitarianist

Only inside your own mind.

Please refute how God is synonymous with the laws of physics. Your entire argument is refutable because you based it on a false definition. Tah.

Mageth

Lack of <Fill in the blank> said:

It's not my definition of God.

Then in response to:

The god, or a god?
I assume you are reffering to the Judeo Christian god-belief.

He said:

For the second time, NO!

SO whose god-belief are you referring to? If it's not "your" definition of god, whose is it?

(BTW, I called it "your" definition since it's the one you're using for your synonymization. Perhaps if I said "the definition you're using" you'd be happy)

You're doing the bowelcruddle again. It is silly for me to bother with this. You're dancing around my questions.

Bullshit on the bowelcruddle. What questions have you posed? I'll be damned if I've seen any. I said I wasn't trying to refute your little synonymization; I merely think it's trivial and useless.

My question stands: what purpose does your synonymization of "god" with "physics" or whatever serve? If you could provide one, it might help to untrivialize your little mental exercise.

Automaton

So modally contingent laws are all-powerful (which you really mean means universal, which is the same as all-present, and does not equate to unlimited power) and all-present, even though they belong to the universe and since this universe had a beginning, therefore began themselves. They are not all-powerful, they are not even powerful, we define physical power in terms of what physical effects we can achieve, so the laws of physics are the condition in which power exists, they are not all-powerful. In another sense, they are not all-powerful (the notion of power also seems to rest on sentience somewhat), because they only act on finite preexisting substance, they cannot make non-physical entities (I don't include abstract "entities", such as ideas, in my definition of non-physical), etc. The notion of "Creator" (capitalized meaning the creator as a person) includes the notion of will and volition and sentience. The laws of physics are not any of these, they are blind and mechanistic. Again, they do not create things themselves, matter forms things, they are simply the context in which physical things form.

So no, the laws of physics are still not God. Try harder.

Aquila ka Hecate

I thought that was obvious.
I grovel at the altar of the transendant TerriMoore, in Her manifestation of the supreme Aquila ka Hecate, Mistress of All.

My Great Plan is almost complete, and the entire world will soon be compelled to worship at their nearest Temple of Me.

But don't tell the theists.

Sorry, I know this topic is about exhausted, but I couldn't resist.

Oh, and Mageth-good one!I'm a graduate of Theoretical Godics myself.

(Acknowlegement to Adrian Barnett at The Wasteland)