spiritualguru Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism 1. An eternal being could never have evolved, since it does not die and reproduce, and therefore biological evolution could never have lay-ered levels of increasing complexity over its initial simplicity. The pantheistic god invalidates this argument because if god is everything, then he is also the process called evolution. It's just an unfolding of himself. 2. Secondly, we also know that consciousness is an effect of matter This is not even true, many scientists and philosophers dispute this. 3. Thirdly, omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it with-out invalidating its knowledge. From the present moment the god would also be able to see himself changing the future. From the present moment god sees all possible futures and all possible routes and is able to go down any route he chooses even simultaneously. 4.The fourth objection to the existence of deities is that an object can only rationally be defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either di-rectly, in the form of matter and/or energy, orindirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole. Very weak argument because it comes from the belief that only matter and energy exist. Einstein was a pantheist, and for good reason. He was able to see beyond his own intellect. God does exist.
greekredemption Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Could you please define 'god' as it should be understood in the OP?
spiritualguru Posted April 28, 2014 Author Posted April 28, 2014 Could you please define 'god' as it should be understood in the OP? Updated
Bastii Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 If everything that exists is "god", why should we call it "god" and not "everything that exists"?
spiritualguru Posted April 28, 2014 Author Posted April 28, 2014 Because it's one a that has consciousness, that is also everything that exists.
Pepin Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 The pantheistic god invalidates this argument because if god is everything, then he is also the process called evolution. It's just an unfolding of himself. The following is a passage from a book I am writing. The argument won't be as strong as it is based on the foundation of the previous sections, but it should still be understandable. God can be defined as a being of consciousness, and the creator of the universe. There are various religious views which claim that God is not conscious, rather God is the universe, which will be addressed. As discussed previously, perception and conceptualization requires the ability to differentiate between existents. We are capable of measuring our own independent nature through the differentiation of our properties and the properties of other existents. God is claimed to be omniscient and all powerful due to having the ability to create the universe. Though many philosophers have argued that these attributes cannot simultaneously apply to God due to contradicting each other, ie: if God is omniscient then he is powerless change anything, I am willing to ignore the issue and to accept that he is omniscient, which is to say that the deity is completely responsible for the creation of the universe and all that followed. An interesting point to make is that if God is omniscient, then his nature is ultimately linked with that of the universe. In being fully responsible for the universe, he must take on all of the features and attributes of the universe. This of course leads back to the claim that “God is the universe”, though with the addition of God being a little more. Yet, if God is the universe, how then is God capable of differentiating himself from everything else. To put another way, if God is everything since God created everything, how can God identify himself? The answer is that he cannot. If you are everything, then it is impossible to separate yourself as something independent. If you are all that exists, and the result of everything, then again it is impossible to separate yourself from what you create. If God is defined as a being that created the universe, then God is incapable of knowing that he exists, which means that God cannot exist. Another way to think about the idea is to think about God prior to his creation of the universe. How is he able to identify himself when there is nothing he can compare himself to? How can he learn of his nature or of his capabilities with nothing to act on? How can he know he exists when he cannot possibly conceive of the concept of nonexistence? Further questions can be raised, and a thought I experiment I recommend is to pretend as if you were in this situation as a baby, with the addition of being deprived of all senses. A few objections might be raised, such as “I made a painting, are you going to say that I can’t exist because I can’t differentiate myself from the painting?”. This objection is understandable, but it mistranslates the meaning of creation when in context to a deity. In the context of creating a painting, nothing is actually created; rather a consciousness is simply rearrangement an assortment of molecules in a manner which accords with their will. In the case of God, something is literally created, and this creation as argued above must be an extension of God. This is not even true, many scientists and philosophers dispute this. This isn't an argument. tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it with-out invalidating its knowledge. From the present moment the god would also be able to see himself changing the future. From the present moment god sees all possible futures and all possible routes and is able to go down any route he chooses even simultaneously. I have no clue what this means. Regardless, how do you know this to be the case? Because it resolves a contradiction? Very weak argument because it comes from the belief that only matter and energy exist. Einstein was a pantheist, and for good reason. He was able to see beyond his own intellect. God does exist. Unsupported argument which contradicts all of physics. Invalid appeal to authority. Insult against atheists. Unsupported claim. Let's say that all of the retorts to these objections were valid. Would it mean that pantheism is correct? Does the existence of god hinge upon on the validity of objections to god? Or does the existence of god hinge upon the existence of god?
spiritualguru Posted April 28, 2014 Author Posted April 28, 2014 The following is a passage from a book I am writing. The argument won't be as strong as it is based on the foundation of the previous sections, but it should still be understandable. God can be defined as a being of consciousness, and the creator of the universe. There are various religious views which claim that God is not conscious, rather God is the universe, which will be addressed. As discussed previously, perception and conceptualization requires the ability to differentiate between existents. We are capable of measuring our own independent nature through the differentiation of our properties and the properties of other existents. God is claimed to be omniscient and all powerful due to having the ability to create the universe. Though many philosophers have argued that these attributes cannot simultaneously apply to God due to contradicting each other, ie: if God is omniscient then he is powerless change anything, I am willing to ignore the issue and to accept that he is omniscient, which is to say that the deity is completely responsible for the creation of the universe and all that followed. An interesting point to make is that if God is omniscient, then his nature is ultimately linked with that of the universe. In being fully responsible for the universe, he must take on all of the features and attributes of the universe. This of course leads back to the claim that “God is the universe”, though with the addition of God being a little more. Yet, if God is the universe, how then is God capable of differentiating himself from everything else. To put another way, if God is everything since God created everything, how can God identify himself? The answer is that he cannot. If you are everything, then it is impossible to separate yourself as something independent. If you are all that exists, and the result of everything, then again it is impossible to separate yourself from what you create. If God is defined as a being that created the universe, then God is incapable of knowing that he exists, which means that God cannot exist. Another way to think about the idea is to think about God prior to his creation of the universe. How is he able to identify himself when there is nothing he can compare himself to? How can he learn of his nature or of his capabilities with nothing to act on? How can he know he exists when he cannot possibly conceive of the concept of nonexistence? Further questions can be raised, and a thought I experiment I recommend is to pretend as if you were in this situation as a baby, with the addition of being deprived of all senses. A few objections might be raised, such as “I made a painting, are you going to say that I can’t exist because I can’t differentiate myself from the painting?”. This objection is understandable, but it mistranslates the meaning of creation when in context to a deity. In the context of creating a painting, nothing is actually created; rather a consciousness is simply rearrangement an assortment of molecules in a manner which accords with their will. In the case of God, something is literally created, and this creation as argued above must be an extension of God.You're asking a lot of good questions here, I like that. And you're right in many of them, how can god know himself to exist? Well here's the answer. God spreads manifests into human form, which have limited minds and concepts. Then the humans which are part of God use their minds to create concepts of God. He's able to identify himself through the human manifestations who are able to do all the things you listed. Separation doesn't exist, but the mind can conceive of separation, believe in it, and then trick itself.This isn't an argument.How can Stef say "We all know consciousness is an effect of matter", is that an argument? That's just a giant generalization and it's false. We don't all know that. Many people think differently.I have no clue what this means. Regardless, how do you know this to be the case? Because it resolves a contradiction?Because it's logical and makes sense. Cause and effect. Present actions define the future. If you can see the future, you can also see if you will change the future. And if you can see you will change it, you could also see the future where you see the future and you change it BUT then you decide not to change it. And you can see the future where you will change it, decide not to change it because you saw the future, and decide to change it anyway. And so on into infinity. Do you understand?Unsupported argument which contradicts all of physics.Invalid appeal to authority. Insult against atheists. Unsupported claim. Let's say that all of the retorts to these objections were valid. Would it mean that pantheism is correct? Does the existence of god hinge upon on the validity of objections to god? Or does the existence of god hinge upon the existence of god?It wasn't an insult, even einstein realized his own mind was limited. And the existence of God does not hinge upon the validity of objections, but if you are going to be atheist, you might as well have better arguments than the ones Stefan presented.
greekredemption Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Because it's logical and makes sense. Cause and effect. Present actions define the future. If you can see the future, you can also see if you will change the future. And if you can see you will change it, you could also see the future where you see the future and you change it BUT then you decide not to change it. And you can see the future where you will change it, decide not to change it because you saw the future, and decide to change it anyway. And so on into infinity. Do you understand? How can Stef say "We all know consciousness is an effect of matter", is that an argument? That's just a giant generalization and it's false. We don't all know that. Many people think differently. (Emphasis mine)
Infinite Limit Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 That's just the equivalent of suggesting that the mind is superior to empirical reality. If you claim that God makes himself present first through the mind and that concepts about God can be valid because of this, then you are also claiming that the mind has logical priority over the external world, despite your claim that the mind deceives itself by separating concepts when nothing is separate and ignoring the myriad irrationalities generated by the mind. If the mind is superior to empirical reality, then there is no point in investigating empirical reality because the mind would be able to change it at will. Also, saying that separation doesn't actually exist in any way also claims that literally nothing is identifiable or differentiable, not language, theories, or even people. This rejects self ownership, which is required for any discussion, let alone your claim that you believe in your argument here, and it also implies the self contradictory belief that language is meaningless. Can you demonstrate consciousness without using your brain? If so, how? Present actions do not define the future. They only influence it. Even then, you can't know the future if you know you will change it.
spiritualguru Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 That's just the equivalent of suggesting that the mind is superior to empirical reality. If you claim that God makes himself present first through the mind and that concepts about God can be valid because of this, then you are also claiming that the mind has logical priority over the external world, despite your claim that the mind deceives itself by separating concepts when nothing is separate and ignoring the myriad irrationalities generated by the mind. If the mind is superior to empirical reality, then there is no point in investigating empirical reality because the mind would be able to change it at will.Also, saying that separation doesn't actually exist in any way also claims that literally nothing is identifiable or differentiable, not language, theories, or even people. This rejects self ownership, which is required for any discussion, let alone your claim that you believe in your argument here, and it also implies the self contradictory belief that language is meaningless.Can you demonstrate consciousness without using your brain? If so, how?Present actions do not define the future. They only influence it. Even then, you can't know the future if you know you will change it. Idk how that follows, we can know about god through the mind, we can't directly know god with just the mind though. Consciousness is demonstrated all through nature as the reason behind why things do what they do. Why does a seed grow into a tree? Why do we get old and die? The process is god.
Nathan S. Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 3. Thirdly, omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it with-out invalidating its knowledge. From the present moment the god would also be able to see himself changing the future. From the present moment god sees all possible futures and all possible routes and is able to go down any route he chooses even simultaneously. Let me see... if you could see all possible futures and you were going to go ahead with one plan while knowing that you would change it in the future, wouldn't you just be an idiot? This doesn't get you out of the woods. If he sees all possible paths, then there is one optimal path, and if he deviates from the path, as he can if he is omnipotent, then that invalidates the idea that he isn't an idiot.
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 If god is all powerful, then I must have no power. Therefore (assuming God exists) it is God's will that I am certain he doesn't exist, and I don't have the power to change my mind even if I wanted to.
Brentb Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Why would it matter if there were a God that is indistinguishable from the universe?
Jot Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 If god is all powerful, then I must have no power. Therefore (assuming God exists) it is God's will that I am certain he doesn't exist, and I don't have the power to change my mind even if I wanted to. I don't understand this.
BlackHeron Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see or hear it, is it still god?
Recommended Posts