Pantheism

[Plu]

There is no reason to believe that there ever was "nothing". Also, if there can be something that was eternal, why not just the universe itself?

[SGOS]

The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.

Perhaps, but we don't know what brought it into existence, so claiming that it was magic is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It will have to be non-created, eternal, beyond space and time so kind of like God. All you have to do is allow it to be a purposeful force which given the complex and finely balanced nature of the universe would seem somewhat likely. You can go the hog and say that the creator of the universe loves his creatures as his children and has a relationship with them which seems likely given the universal human spiritual experience. So you have a chain of good hard logical deduction there that results in the end conclusion based on the solid foundation of evidence.

Allowing for a purposeful force is a leap of faith.  A leap of faith is something you use to fill in the gaps when you don't know.  So for me, I just don't know.  I would like to know.  That would be nice, but I'm just a human.  I don't know and can't know everything.  I have to accept that.

Is the universe complex?  It seems to be.  Finely balanced?  I don't know.  It seems like a lot of chaos.  The human spiritual experience might be common, but has never been universal.  There have always been those who have wondered about and been in awe of the universe without assuming it's magic.

[St Giordano Bruno]

If one defines the pantheist "god" as just a synomym "nature" you might just as well drop that horrible word "God" altogether, that only serves to confuse people.

[frosty]

The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.

Perhaps, but we don't know what brought it into existence, so claiming that it was magic is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It will have to be non-created, eternal, beyond space and time so kind of like God. All you have to do is allow it to be a purposeful force which given the complex and finely balanced nature of the universe would seem somewhat likely. You can go the hog and say that the creator of the universe loves his creatures as his children and has a relationship with them which seems likely given the universal human spiritual experience. So you have a chain of good hard logical deduction there that results in the end conclusion based on the solid foundation of evidence. This dispels all the magic from the equation leaving you with pure reason and faith.

And yet I see absolutely no proof of anything you're saying here. You are merely mentioning subjective, personal, anecdotal information that is based on speculation. Peppering terms like "logical" and "pure reason" in your post doesn't make it contain such a value merely because you claim it does.

[Passion of Christ]

And yet I see absolutely no proof of anything you're saying here. You are merely mentioning subjective, personal, anecdotal information that is based on speculation. Peppering terms like "logical" and "pure reason" in your post doesn't make it contain such a value merely because you claim it does.

It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists. This way you avoid either an infinite regress or a universe that just exists for no reason without an explanation as to why it should ever have been brought into existence in the first place. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space, vast and old though it is as it didn't always exist and it wasn't always that big it had to grow and develop over time. We have good degree of factual knowledge about what happened when and how, though science won't stop making new discoveries. There things we can't ever know or have to take on faith but the existence of God is logically and scientifically sound as you can see when you apply the reasoning and it certainly fits with all of our scientific knowledge of the finely ordered physical laws.

[frosty]

And yet I see absolutely no proof of anything you're saying here. You are merely mentioning subjective, personal, anecdotal information that is based on speculation. Peppering terms like "logical" and "pure reason" in your post doesn't make it contain such a value merely because you claim it does.

It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists. This way you avoid either an infinite regress or a universe that just exists for no reason without an explanation as to why it should ever have been brought into existence in the first place. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space, vast and old though it is as it didn't always exist and it wasn't always that big it had to grow and develop over time. We have good degree of factual knowledge about what happened when and how, though science won't stop making new discoveries. There things we can't ever know or have to take on faith but the existence of God is logically and scientifically sound as you can see when you apply the reasoning and it certainly fits with all of our scientific knowledge of the finely ordered physical laws.

Nah.

Once again, everything you are saying is anecdotal, subjective speculation and conjecture. I need some actual data to be convinced of what you are saying. So far literally everything you have posted in this topic and on this entire forum is just your own subjective opinion. You have a good stream of words, but you don't get to dictate reality, and nobody who thinks independently will listen to anything you say unless you provide some type of data citation for your claims.

Try again, thumper.

[rex]

Pantheism is fucking retarded. Pantheists are morons.

[pioteir]

It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists. This way you avoid either an infinite regress or a universe that just exists for no reason without an explanation as to why it should ever have been brought into existence in the first place. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space, vast and old though it is as it didn't always exist and it wasn't always that big it had to grow and develop over time. We have good degree of factual knowledge about what happened when and how, though science won't stop making new discoveries. There things we can't ever know or have to take on faith but the existence of God is logically and scientifically sound as you can see when you apply the reasoning and it certainly fits with all of our scientific knowledge of the finely ordered physical laws.

Nah.

Once again, everything you are saying is anecdotal, subjective speculation and conjecture. I need some actual data to be convinced of what you are saying. So far literally everything you have posted in this topic and on this entire forum is just your own subjective opinion. You have a good stream of words, but you don't get to dictate reality, and nobody who thinks independently will listen to anything you say unless you provide some type of data citation for your claims.

Try again, thumper.

He can't provide any evidence, it's just his versin of Craig's Kalam argument and his so-called "logic". It's garbage in, garbage out any way You see it. No point waiting for evidence.

[Shol'va]

"It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest rang the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists"

You're right, and as far as we know this universe started with the Big Bang.
Oh? I'm wrong you say? It all started with god? Okay, so if everything has a starting point, what's the starting point of god? Oh? God doesn't have one. Well that's a rather convenient, but illogical and unsupported assertion. If god doesn't have a starting point why must matter or energy? Oops!

Here's what I think is possible. The creation of this universe required god to convert itself to matter and energy. So the creation of the universe was a supernatural act that ended god. So god no longer exists. You can't prove I'm wrong.

[frosty]

Pantheism is fucking retarded. Pantheists are morons.

You seem to be quite a negative little boy. I made this thread to discuss Pantheism, not call Pantheists morons. Please go crawl into a hole or something.

[Mequa]

Worshipping/revering the natural universe, Nature, "reality", as it really is, does seem quite a rational stance. Albert Einstein wrote about the "cosmic religious feeling", which has nothing to do with a personal God.

Problems come when, as has been mentioned, the universe is viewed to have magical properties and/or moral properties in the absence of evidence. Then it becomes just another false deity.

There is a difference between naturalistic forms of pantheism and more superstitious ones. Philosophically though, the naturalist ones are not really that distinct from atheism.

Spinoza used "God" as a synonym of "Nature". That got him kicked out of the Jewish community for heresy. It's easy to see why this stance is antagonistic to belief in Yahweh. Spinoza may have been God-intoxicated but it wasn't with a religious deity, more with reverence for the natural order. There is no need to buy into Spinoza's antiquated views on metaphysics either to accept this point.

Then again, the term "God" carries a lot of baggage so may be best discarded. Even so, the distinction between the most naturalistic forms of pantheism, and full-blown atheism, is more a matter of semantics than anything else.

[stromboli]

1. It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists.

2. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space,

"It is very reasonable" is still an assumption. Lacking any specific evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of scientific inquiry are still more valid because they are based on a process of observation/testing that faith does not apply. I will go with what can be shown as observable and testable over assumption every time.

No it doesn't. The universe as a single entity does not denote either a single cause or multiple causes, multiple universes or anything else by and of itself. We cannot A Priori determine the universe's origin nor specify a cause without further evidence that can demonstrate either or both.

[Solitary]

Good points! The universe is a creation of our minds from information through our senses from reality that we only know as information. When we watch a movie or TV we create what we see from information, same with virtual reality systems. We are the creators, and the universe is just information that different events happen in, with no beginning or end. When we die, our information joins the universe, just like it was before we were born.  Deal with it! Solitary

[SGOS]

If I'm feeling patient, I respond by questioning the base assumption that one must worship anything at all.

I've met theists that don't worship God, not that I can see.  They just seem to be walking around, not going to church, and not praying.  Supposedly, they worship god "in their own way", or so I've been told.  But WTF does that mean?  The notion that someone has to "worship" something or "believe" in something doesn't seem to be based on anything logical.  It's just another popular theist pontification made without much actual thought.

[stromboli]

I've met theists that don't worship God, not that I can see.  They just seem to be walking around, not going to church, and not praying.  Supposedly, they worship god "in their own way", or so I've been told.  But WTF does that mean?  The notion that someone has to "worship" something or "believe" in something doesn't seem to be based on anything logical.  It's just another popular theist pontification made without much actual thought.

And the number of people in that category is growing. It is also a number that is hard to measure statistically. If you go door to door and survey these types they would probably identify as Christian and even wear the Roman torture device jewelry, but in any active way they aren't really Christians, at best agnostics. I have maintained on here for awhile that the actual number of agnostics is much higher than given. I know from my own experience that church rolls are padded with numbers of non attendees to make it look like there are more members than the ones that actually contribute. That is especially true in Mormonism.