QUOTE (synthsin75+)
So I'll refrain from responding to this until you can sort out what conversation you wish to be having in what appropriate thread/s.
Fine.
God, you’re so picky.
Fine.
God, you’re so picky. QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Panenthiesm is universalistic supernaturalism, right? Isn’t it a sophisticated defense mechanism, or an enchanted childish dream, as well?
Do you feel that reality is the realm of potentiality from which the physical receives its form and structure?
You said that the discussion of dark energy is beyond what we currently know but so is cosmogony. Anything beyond the big bang is speculative.
Why, exactly, does the universe, or "the all", need to be tagged as God? It does imply that the totality of things requires a supreme intelligent being for structure. Why must a creator be introduced?
It is enchanting, and charming, and we all feel a sense of awe towards existence, but I don’t understand why we should call the universe God? On the surface, it seems harmless, but it’s presumptuous, and still identifies with a supreme being. Don’t you think it may be a form of self-delusion, too?
Do you feel that reality is the realm of potentiality from which the physical receives its form and structure?
You said that the discussion of dark energy is beyond what we currently know but so is cosmogony. Anything beyond the big bang is speculative.
Why, exactly, does the universe, or "the all", need to be tagged as God? It does imply that the totality of things requires a supreme intelligent being for structure. Why must a creator be introduced?
It is enchanting, and charming, and we all feel a sense of awe towards existence, but I don’t understand why we should call the universe God? On the surface, it seems harmless, but it’s presumptuous, and still identifies with a supreme being. Don’t you think it may be a form of self-delusion, too?
QUOTE ( synthsin75+)
IMO, panentheism is simply an expression of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, where pantheism is merely the sum of parts without any emergent synergy. Like pantheism, there's no necessity to view panentheism as truly theistic, and thus no needed supernatural implications.
As panentheism pertains to neoteny, I can't say I see any inherent similarities, as a wish fulfillment with a restrictive moralizing as payment. You'll have to explain to me where you see the specific wish fulfillment.
Who said anything about a "supreme intelligent being"? Or even a personified creator? It seems you fall prey to allowing Christians to define the entire scope of what may be God. Obviously if you understand pantheism, you should be aware that the supremacy of the notion of God doesn't necessitate a single being.
The only harm done is to the sensitivities of the reactionary who insists upon jumping to Abrahamic-religious conclusions based solely on that single word: God. Only within that context is the notion of God anywhere near that constrained a definition.
What’s the difference between naturalism, atheism, and panentheism? Not to be confusing, I do understand that panentheism sets itself apart from pantheism in that pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God," but what exactly is a panentheistic God?
There are different forms of panentheism. The whole is not considered a supreme entity what so ever? Is it not considered a oneness of some sort, having a conscious will, or directive? I hope you don’t mind me asking because I am curious to know what you believe.
As panentheism pertains to neoteny, I can't say I see any inherent similarities, as a wish fulfillment with a restrictive moralizing as payment. You'll have to explain to me where you see the specific wish fulfillment.
Who said anything about a "supreme intelligent being"? Or even a personified creator? It seems you fall prey to allowing Christians to define the entire scope of what may be God. Obviously if you understand pantheism, you should be aware that the supremacy of the notion of God doesn't necessitate a single being.
The only harm done is to the sensitivities of the reactionary who insists upon jumping to Abrahamic-religious conclusions based solely on that single word: God. Only within that context is the notion of God anywhere near that constrained a definition.
What’s the difference between naturalism, atheism, and panentheism? Not to be confusing, I do understand that panentheism sets itself apart from pantheism in that pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God," but what exactly is a panentheistic God?
There are different forms of panentheism. The whole is not considered a supreme entity what so ever? Is it not considered a oneness of some sort, having a conscious will, or directive? I hope you don’t mind me asking because I am curious to know what you believe.
synthsin75,
You seem to have this preconceived notion that I want to win an argument. Someone once said that people are predictable. I have never found that to be true. You would have to know every detail about a person to predict how they would respond in a given situation and even then it would be difficult. Hell, I couldn’t even predict how I would respond. To be wise is to know thyself but that’s not an easy task. I know that I can make mistakes and I’m not always right.
You can refrain from responding but I’m just asking because I’m interested. I do try to not to make errors of logic, assumptions, or even deceive myself when trying to understand the world around me. I want to learn from other people, and from my own mistakes, and hopefully, become less wrong. That’s all.
You seem to have this preconceived notion that I want to win an argument. Someone once said that people are predictable. I have never found that to be true. You would have to know every detail about a person to predict how they would respond in a given situation and even then it would be difficult. Hell, I couldn’t even predict how I would respond. To be wise is to know thyself but that’s not an easy task. I know that I can make mistakes and I’m not always right.
You can refrain from responding but I’m just asking because I’m interested. I do try to not to make errors of logic, assumptions, or even deceive myself when trying to understand the world around me. I want to learn from other people, and from my own mistakes, and hopefully, become less wrong. That’s all.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 6 2011, 04:20 PM)
What’s the difference between naturalism, atheism, and panentheism? Not to be confusing, I do understand that panentheism sets itself apart from pantheism in that pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God," but what exactly is a panentheistic God?
There are different forms of panentheism. The whole is not considered a supreme entity what so ever? Is it not considered a oneness of some sort, having a conscious will, or directive? I hope you don’t mind me asking because I am curious to know what you believe.
Thank you for clearing up what you are wanting to discuss NA. I really appreciate it. Let's start with some definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
There are different forms of panentheism. The whole is not considered a supreme entity what so ever? Is it not considered a oneness of some sort, having a conscious will, or directive? I hope you don’t mind me asking because I am curious to know what you believe.
Thank you for clearing up what you are wanting to discuss NA. I really appreciate it. Let's start with some definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
QUOTE (^+)
Naturalism is the belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
QUOTE (^+)
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
QUOTE (^+)
Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well.
So the difference would be that naturalism is compatible with both atheism and panentheism, but it is highly questionable whether atheism is compatible with panentheism (at least on purely semantic grounds).
So the difference would be that naturalism is compatible with both atheism and panentheism, but it is highly questionable whether atheism is compatible with panentheism (at least on purely semantic grounds).
QUOTE (panentheism wiki+)
God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, some versions positing the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God.
Panentheism covers a very wide scope of definition for "God". I'll follow a couple of references in the above wikis to illustrate exactly what a panentheistic God may be.
Panentheism covers a very wide scope of definition for "God". I'll follow a couple of references in the above wikis to illustrate exactly what a panentheistic God may be.
QUOTE (pantheism wiki+)
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion gave Naturalistic Pantheism increased credibility among atheists by describing it as “sexed-up atheism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_Pantheism
QUOTE (^+)
Naturalistic pantheism (also called scientific pantheism) is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards nature and the wider universe, but is realist and embraces rationalism and the scientific method. It presupposes metaphysical naturalism and as such it affirms the nonexistence of supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
QUOTE (^+)
Metaphysical naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment and having mechanical properties amenable to mathematical modeling.
So naturalistic pantheism is compatible with atheism, it just allows for very human "feelings of reverence and belonging towards nature and the wider universe". You'd have to decide for yourself whether that alone counts as a sort of wish fulfillment or just a natural appreciation of everything we have a dependence upon. Naturalistic pantheism is realist, and both admit what is "progressively revealed by the scientific method and rational interpretations of sensory information".
Anyway you may wish to view things, any realist-based philosophy inherently includes things we do not yet know, just ameliorated by the belief that it can be known. A "faith" in ourselves, which I think is warranted.
Now we know plenty of things that we can otherwise verify that are not "amenable to mathematical modeling", mostly cognitive. A cosmological singularity similarly cannot be handled with mathematics, nor can we empirically verify any alternatives. So even espousing a form of pantheism (or the similarly realist-based atheism), there are either things we know to be excluded or we assume things we do not yet know to be included.
I think it's highly naive to just refuse to believe that we can know more than we do now, so we must assume things not yet known. In that light, I just think it's more honest to take a panentheistic approach. Until we can empirically define a cosmogony, there must be things beyond what we can currently know, and that includes any "eternal animating force behind the universe", as per panentheism.
In my view, the only supernatural would be that which can potentially be found to be naturalistic. There's just no division other than arbitrary.
But since you probably won't be happy without a very simple answer, a panentheistic God could be the collection of emergent consciousnesses in the universe. The universe's collective self-awareness, so to speak. A dynamic and synergistic interaction which is greater than the sum of parts.
So naturalistic pantheism is compatible with atheism, it just allows for very human "feelings of reverence and belonging towards nature and the wider universe". You'd have to decide for yourself whether that alone counts as a sort of wish fulfillment or just a natural appreciation of everything we have a dependence upon. Naturalistic pantheism is realist, and both admit what is "progressively revealed by the scientific method and rational interpretations of sensory information".
Anyway you may wish to view things, any realist-based philosophy inherently includes things we do not yet know, just ameliorated by the belief that it can be known. A "faith" in ourselves, which I think is warranted.
Now we know plenty of things that we can otherwise verify that are not "amenable to mathematical modeling", mostly cognitive. A cosmological singularity similarly cannot be handled with mathematics, nor can we empirically verify any alternatives. So even espousing a form of pantheism (or the similarly realist-based atheism), there are either things we know to be excluded or we assume things we do not yet know to be included.
I think it's highly naive to just refuse to believe that we can know more than we do now, so we must assume things not yet known. In that light, I just think it's more honest to take a panentheistic approach. Until we can empirically define a cosmogony, there must be things beyond what we can currently know, and that includes any "eternal animating force behind the universe", as per panentheism.
In my view, the only supernatural would be that which can potentially be found to be naturalistic. There's just no division other than arbitrary.
But since you probably won't be happy without a very simple answer, a panentheistic God could be the collection of emergent consciousnesses in the universe. The universe's collective self-awareness, so to speak. A dynamic and synergistic interaction which is greater than the sum of parts.
Do you agree with Austin Cline’s definition of panentheism?
QUOTE (Austin Cline+)
It is true that both panentheists and pantheists share the view that the universe and every natural thing in it is pervaded by divinity. However, since panentheism postulates that the universe is contained within God and not God in the universe, panentheists believe in a God who is present in everything but also extends beyond the universe.
In other words, God is the universe but is also greater than the universe. Often panentheists also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally. Pantheists on the other hand believe that the universe itself is divine and do not believe in personal or creator gods.
As a result, for those who are familiar with the concept, panentheism is a "middle way" between the extremes of impersonal pantheism in which personal freedom and creativity become nullified in an impersonal world, and extremes of philosophical theism in which the divine may be personal, but is too remote to be of any comfort or interest.
According to Hartshorne, panentheism can best be understood through an analogy: just as a single organism exists both as as a collection of semiautonomous, individual cells and as an autonomous individual who is more than jut a collection of cells, God can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. Although we, along with the rest of existence, can be though of as part of God's "body," God's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes God to be more than just a collection of parts.
As parts of God, our freedom is not absolute - just as the freedom of cells in our body is not absolute. At the same time, our actions and thoughts are not dependent upon or controlled by God any more than we are able to consciously control and direct the actions of our individual cells. We may be more than our cells, but we depend upon our cells acting independently of our minds in order for us to grow and even to be in the first place.
In other words, God is the universe but is also greater than the universe. Often panentheists also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally. Pantheists on the other hand believe that the universe itself is divine and do not believe in personal or creator gods.
As a result, for those who are familiar with the concept, panentheism is a "middle way" between the extremes of impersonal pantheism in which personal freedom and creativity become nullified in an impersonal world, and extremes of philosophical theism in which the divine may be personal, but is too remote to be of any comfort or interest.
According to Hartshorne, panentheism can best be understood through an analogy: just as a single organism exists both as as a collection of semiautonomous, individual cells and as an autonomous individual who is more than jut a collection of cells, God can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. Although we, along with the rest of existence, can be though of as part of God's "body," God's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes God to be more than just a collection of parts.
As parts of God, our freedom is not absolute - just as the freedom of cells in our body is not absolute. At the same time, our actions and thoughts are not dependent upon or controlled by God any more than we are able to consciously control and direct the actions of our individual cells. We may be more than our cells, but we depend upon our cells acting independently of our minds in order for us to grow and even to be in the first place.
Overall, no. I think it is going too far to claim that "the universe and every natural thing in it is pervaded by divinity". I think it'd be more apt to say that ultimately the universe is composed of the same stuff as its origin, and/or the greater whole (whichever may be greater). I definitely don't think that "this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally", at least not in any coherent way.
I guess, according to Cline, my preferred take on panentheism is the "middle middle way". Where "personal freedom and creativity" are elevated to such a degree that there is no desire for a personal divinity.
Good analogy to an organism, but not exactly. I'd say that the material universe, including organic bodies, are the "body" of God, and the self-conscious minds are the "mind" of God. No centralized mind. I know that doesn't seem different to pantheism, but only if you believe all cognitive processes to be strictly determined by the physical organism and environment.
I simply find it a reasonable assumption that minds which can decipher the nature of the universe are ultimately greater than that which they can encompass. While individuals may not be, the collection of cognitive endeavor may be.
I guess, according to Cline, my preferred take on panentheism is the "middle middle way". Where "personal freedom and creativity" are elevated to such a degree that there is no desire for a personal divinity.
Good analogy to an organism, but not exactly. I'd say that the material universe, including organic bodies, are the "body" of God, and the self-conscious minds are the "mind" of God. No centralized mind. I know that doesn't seem different to pantheism, but only if you believe all cognitive processes to be strictly determined by the physical organism and environment.
I simply find it a reasonable assumption that minds which can decipher the nature of the universe are ultimately greater than that which they can encompass. While individuals may not be, the collection of cognitive endeavor may be.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 6 2011, 10:20 PM)
I simply find it a reasonable assumption that minds which can decipher the nature of the universe are ultimately greater than that which they can encompass. While individuals may not be, the collection of cognitive endeavor may be.
I think that is elevating humanity to a unrealistic level. I think it's rather subjective and only masquerades as being spiritual.
Pan=(all) en=(in) theos=(God)
Panentheism means “All in God”. All things are part of God but God is more than the sum of all things.
In panentheism, the universe and nature are worthy of the deepest spiritual reverence, and is in some sense numinous, and typically denies creation ex nihilo.
I can understand feeling gratitude and a sense of awe towards nature. After all, the stars died for us, not Jesus. However, not all "matter" is personal. The universe does not have attributes, which require love, respect, or worship. We respect nature for our own sake, but the universe does not require it, nor does it care about us.
We may not be able to claim that everything is separate or united, but if you do not feel that god is an overseer of the universe, and the greatest conceivable eternal existence, then your form of pathentheism is atheism in disguise.
Panemtheism itself is presumptuous. You are starting with a conclusion and saying that this is what it should be like, unlike science, which is using experimentation to figure out what it is really like. I also think that using the word God to describe the sum of all things is a form of a religious apologist.
There are a few apologists on this forum and they never realize just how condescending they can be. They are implying that they are too smart to believe in God, but the ignorant people need it. So, why not let them believe it. I’m not one who thinks that any religious concept deserves respect. There is no way around it. To say there is a God of any form is harmful. Irrationality and credulity are wasteful and destructive. If it is not the truth then there is no need for it.
Atheists simply lack belief in any type of deities. Atheists do not want to make their debate fallaciously about science. It’s just that science is the best tool to understanding the truth about reality, even if the truth hurts. I don’t think that science creates atheists. I think that freethinkers are drawn towards science because science and atheism are natural allies.
You said that you have faith in people. Well, so do atheists. We believe in people, and we believe that all people deserve to know the truth. We all have questions, but we are asking, how the universe was created, not why, or by whom.
Science and Atheism: Natural Allies
I think that is elevating humanity to a unrealistic level. I think it's rather subjective and only masquerades as being spiritual.
Pan=(all) en=(in) theos=(God)
Panentheism means “All in God”. All things are part of God but God is more than the sum of all things.
In panentheism, the universe and nature are worthy of the deepest spiritual reverence, and is in some sense numinous, and typically denies creation ex nihilo.
I can understand feeling gratitude and a sense of awe towards nature. After all, the stars died for us, not Jesus. However, not all "matter" is personal. The universe does not have attributes, which require love, respect, or worship. We respect nature for our own sake, but the universe does not require it, nor does it care about us.
We may not be able to claim that everything is separate or united, but if you do not feel that god is an overseer of the universe, and the greatest conceivable eternal existence, then your form of pathentheism is atheism in disguise.
Panemtheism itself is presumptuous. You are starting with a conclusion and saying that this is what it should be like, unlike science, which is using experimentation to figure out what it is really like. I also think that using the word God to describe the sum of all things is a form of a religious apologist.
There are a few apologists on this forum and they never realize just how condescending they can be. They are implying that they are too smart to believe in God, but the ignorant people need it. So, why not let them believe it. I’m not one who thinks that any religious concept deserves respect. There is no way around it. To say there is a God of any form is harmful. Irrationality and credulity are wasteful and destructive. If it is not the truth then there is no need for it.
Atheists simply lack belief in any type of deities. Atheists do not want to make their debate fallaciously about science. It’s just that science is the best tool to understanding the truth about reality, even if the truth hurts. I don’t think that science creates atheists. I think that freethinkers are drawn towards science because science and atheism are natural allies.
You said that you have faith in people. Well, so do atheists. We believe in people, and we believe that all people deserve to know the truth. We all have questions, but we are asking, how the universe was created, not why, or by whom.
Science and Atheism: Natural Allies
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 11 2011, 06:55 PM)
In panentheism, the universe and nature are worthy of the deepest spiritual reverence, and is in some sense numinous, and typically denies creation ex nihilo.
You seem to stay away from this conversation just long enough to forget some points I've already addressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
You seem to stay away from this conversation just long enough to forget some points I've already addressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
QUOTE (^+)
Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well.
A cosmological singularity could easy fit this description of "timelessly extends beyond", and if our universe does exist within a singularity, it would also "interpenetrates every part of nature".
So creation ex nihilo is very much within the purview of panentheism, and there is no divinity necessitated of nature itself.
So creation ex nihilo is very much within the purview of panentheism, and there is no divinity necessitated of nature itself.
I can understand feeling gratitude and a sense of awe towards nature. After all, the stars died for us, not Jesus. However, not all "matter" is personal. The universe does not have attributes, which require love, respect, or worship. We respect nature for our own sake, but the universe does not require it, nor does it care about us.
Whoever said that the universe was personal, or required any worship? I believe I already clarified that those are attributes specific to an Abrahamic God, and not universal to all religions, least of all panentheism.
Once again, that is a very narrow, Abrahamic God, sort of view. You may want to study some religions beyond what Christians may preach at you.
Once again, that is a very narrow, Abrahamic God, sort of view. You may want to study some religions beyond what Christians may preach at you.
Panemtheism itself is presumptuous. You are starting with a conclusion and saying that this is what it should be like, unlike science, which is using experimentation to figure out what it is really like. I also think that using the word God to describe the sum of all things is a form of a religious apologist.
I find panentheism to be most aligned to the concept of "the whole being greater than the sum of its parts" which is a central concept of synergy, emergence, and holism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism#Genera...ientific_status This general concept is very well founded in science. There is no inherent assumptions being made, only the necessity of taking a more generalized approach when facing computational irreducibility.
Well, if you insist upon ascribing to a notion of God that is inherently irrational, of course you will think that. Your prerogative. Isn't pantheism a natural expression of human sentiment toward the grandeur of nature? Is it wrong to hold in reverence the wonder of the natural world, for its own sake?
Well, if you insist upon ascribing to a notion of God that is inherently irrational, of course you will think that. Your prerogative. Isn't pantheism a natural expression of human sentiment toward the grandeur of nature? Is it wrong to hold in reverence the wonder of the natural world, for its own sake?
Atheist simply lack belief in any type of deities. Atheists do not want to make their debate fallaciously about science. It’s just that science is the best tool to understanding the truth about reality, even if the truth hurts. I don’t think that science creates atheists. I think that freethinkers are drawn towards science because science and atheism are natural allies.
As much as atheists may like to think otherwise, there are no scientific arguments for atheism. Oh, there is scientific evidence against an array of, at least one time, believed supernatural occurrences, but not against theism in general. BTW, freethought has its origins in religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought#History
I don't find atheism to be a natural ally to science, as it lacks the scientific skepticism to question whether there could be a form of God. It just as blindly refutes any such possibility, as the religious claim possible. Equal empirical evidence on both sides, so science is neutral in that debate.
A cosmological singularity could easy fit this description of "timelessly extends beyond", and if our universe does exist within a singularity, it would also "interpenetrate
QUOTE
In panentheism, God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge...
So creation ex nihilo is very much within the purview of panentheism, and there is no divinity necessitated of nature itself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In panentheism, God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge... |
So creation ex nihilo is very much within the purview of panentheism, and there is no divinity necessitated of nature itself.
I can understand feeling gratitude and a sense of awe towards nature. After all, the stars died for us, not Jesus. However, not all "matter" is personal. The universe does not have attributes, which require love, respect, or worship. We respect nature for our own sake, but the universe does not require it, nor does it care about us.
Whoever said that the universe was personal, or required any worship? I believe I already clarified that those are attributes specific to an Abrahamic God, and not universal to all religions, least of all panentheism.
QUOTE
We may not be able to claim that everything is separate or united, but if you do not feel that god is an overseer of the universe, and the greatest conceivable eternal existence, then your form of pathentheism is atheism in disguise.
Once again, that is a very narrow, Abrahamic God, sort of view. You may want to study some religions beyond what Christians may preach at you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We may not be able to claim that everything is separate or united, but if you do not feel that god is an overseer of the universe, and the greatest conceivable eternal existence, then your form of pathentheism is atheism in disguise. |
Once again, that is a very narrow, Abrahamic God, sort of view. You may want to study some religions beyond what Christians may preach at you.
Panemtheism itself is presumptuous. You are starting with a conclusion and saying that this is what it should be like, unlike science, which is using experimentation to figure out what it is really like. I also think that using the word God to describe the sum of all things is a form of a religious apologist.
I find panentheism to be most aligned to the concept of "the whole being greater than the sum of its parts" which is a central concept of synergy, emergence, and holism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism#Genera...ientific_status This general concept is very well founded in science. There is no inherent assumptions being made, only the necessity of taking a more generalized approach when facing computational irreducibility.
QUOTE
To say there is a God of any form is harmful. Irrationality and credulity are wasteful and destructive. If it is not the truth then there is no need for it.
Well, if you insist upon ascribing to a notion of God that is inherently irrational, of course you will think that. Your prerogative. Isn't pantheism a natural expression of human sentiment toward the grandeur of nature? Is it wrong to hold in reverence the wonder of the natural world, for its own sake?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To say there is a God of any form is harmful. Irrationality and credulity are wasteful and destructive. If it is not the truth then there is no need for it. |
Well, if you insist upon ascribing to a notion of God that is inherently irrational, of course you will think that. Your prerogative. Isn't pantheism a natural expression of human sentiment toward the grandeur of nature? Is it wrong to hold in reverence the wonder of the natural world, for its own sake?
Atheist simply lack belief in any type of deities. Atheists do not want to make their debate fallaciously about science. It’s just that science is the best tool to understanding the truth about reality, even if the truth hurts. I don’t think that science creates atheists. I think that freethinkers are drawn towards science because science and atheism are natural allies.
As much as atheists may like to think otherwise, there are no scientific arguments for atheism. Oh, there is scientific evidence against an array of, at least one time, believed supernatural occurrences, but not against theism in general. BTW, freethought has its origins in religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought#History
I don't find atheism to be a natural ally to science, as it lacks the scientific skepticism to question whether there could be a form of God. It just as blindly refutes any such possibility, as the religious claim possible. Equal empirical evidence on both sides, so science is neutral in that debate.
So, you are simply a deeply religious disbelieving theist, or agnostic, who admires the structure of our universe, no? 
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 11 2011, 09:25 PM)
So, you are simply a deeply religious disbelieving theist, or agnostic, who admires the structure of our universe, no?
No. Look, you're probably not likely to get it without expanding your horizons on, at least, comparative religion. I'm not religious in any way. I agree with panentheism because it allows for very non-Abrahamic concepts of God, and no, these concepts are not likely to fit in your black and white boxes of theism vs atheism.
No. Look, you're probably not likely to get it without expanding your horizons on, at least, comparative religion. I'm not religious in any way. I agree with panentheism because it allows for very non-Abrahamic concepts of God, and no, these concepts are not likely to fit in your black and white boxes of theism vs atheism.
QUOTE (Synthsin75+)
Well, if you insist upon ascribing to a notion of God that is inherently irrational, of course you will think that’s your prerogative. Isn't pantheism a natural expression of human sentiment toward the grandeur of nature? Is it wrong to hold in reverence the wonder of the natural world, for its own sake?
You are giving too much weight on the affect that humans will have on a grand scale.
I think that the only reason we hold any reverence to the wonder of the natural world or universe is because it has allowed for our creation. We are selfish and only strive to prolong life for as long as possible, which is only a blink in time when compare to the universe. If you like, we can use an analogy from ancient biblical text.
"They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Give us back our field.' They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them.” ~supposedly, Jesus
You are giving too much weight on the affect that humans will have on a grand scale.
I think that the only reason we hold any reverence to the wonder of the natural world or universe is because it has allowed for our creation. We are selfish and only strive to prolong life for as long as possible, which is only a blink in time when compare to the universe. If you like, we can use an analogy from ancient biblical text.
"They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Give us back our field.' They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them.” ~supposedly, Jesus
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 11 2011, 11:50 PM)
You are giving too much weight on the affect that humans will have on a grand scale.
I think that the only reason we hold any reverence to the wonder of the natural world or universe is because it has allowed for our creation.
What "weight on the affect that humans will have on a grand scale" do you think I've implied? I've already said that the reverence is exactly on the order of "wonder of the natural world or universeis because it has allowed for our creation".
I think that the only reason we hold any reverence to the wonder of the natural world or universe is because it has allowed for our creation.
What "weight on the affect that humans will have on a grand scale" do you think I've implied? I've already said that the reverence is exactly on the order of "wonder of the natural world or universe
My, my, you are contentious. I'll argue with you, if you'll agree with me. 
Humans can be greater than without necessarily being cause over. Much like the human mind is greater than the organism but cannot necessarily control mitosis.
Perhaps this will help you, NA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
QUOTE (^+)
Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere – "to remain within" – refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence, in which the divine is seen to be manifested in or encompassing of – i.e. "immanent" to – the material world. It is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the non-spiritual. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside – i.e. to "transcend" – the material world.
The spiritual is manifest as, or encompassed by, the material world, rather than a "transcendent" (separate), Abrahamic God. Also note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_presence
If "the spiritual is manifest as the material world", then it would "be capable of interacting with the natural world" and "be able to hold some influence with any human being" specifically as the material world. There's no need to postulate a non-material influence to be qualitatively greater than.
Granted, I know you have no real interest in this, but if any of it sinks in, you'll have a better well of knowledge with which to discuss.
The spiritual is manifest as, or encompassed by, the material world, rather than a "transcendent" (separate), Abrahamic God. Also note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_presence
QUOTE
Divine presence, presence of God, or simply presence is a concept in religion, spirituality, and theology that deals with the omnipotent ability of a god and/or gods to be "present" with human beings. Most gods are commonly understood to be capable of interacting with the natural world, and more important, with human beings, such that they would be able to hold some influence with any human being.
If "the spiritual is manifest as the material world", then it would "be capable of interacting with the natural world" and "be able to hold some influence with any human being" specifically as the material world. There's no need to postulate a non-material influence to be qualitatively greater than.
Granted, I know you have no real interest in this, but if any of it sinks in, you'll have a better well of knowledge with which to discuss.
A definition I find more satisfying is this:
That was obviously not Lewis' definition, or was it?
QUOTE
being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge
That was obviously not Lewis' definition, or was it?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 17 2011, 11:01 AM)
Perhaps this will help you, NA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
If "the spiritual is manifest as the material world", then it would "be capable of interacting with the natural world" and "be able to hold some influence with any human being" specifically as the material world. There's no need to postulate a non-material influence to be qualitatively greater than.
Granted, I know you have no real interest in this, but if any of it sinks in, you'll have a better well of knowledge with which to discuss.
I could provide a list of irrational panentheists, filled with metaphysical, ontological, philosophical, bullѕhit…who make big bucks off peddling their BS.
So, let us say that you are a rational panentheist or pantheist, for that matter; it is all about the word.
Give up the “God” then it’s all good.
I do not understand why pantheists have a problem with the word “universe”. The word “God” carries many connotations, and by using this word, you are contributing to the irrational usage of it.
It’s just like every other metaphysical, ontological, philosophical bullѕhit that promotes unnecessary confusion. Use the word "naure", if you like.
P.S. Just so you know, I do find it interesting, and I do appreciate your input.
Cheers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
If "the spiritual is manifest as the material world", then it would "be capable of interacting with the natural world" and "be able to hold some influence with any human being" specifically as the material world. There's no need to postulate a non-material influence to be qualitatively greater than.
Granted, I know you have no real interest in this, but if any of it sinks in, you'll have a better well of knowledge with which to discuss.
I could provide a list of irrational panentheists, filled with metaphysical, ontological, philosophical, bullѕhit…who make big bucks off peddling their BS.
So, let us say that you are a rational panentheist or pantheist, for that matter; it is all about the word.
Give up the “God” then it’s all good.
I do not understand why pantheists have a problem with the word “universe”. The word “God” carries many connotations, and by using this word, you are contributing to the irrational usage of it.
It’s just like every other metaphysical, ontological, philosophical bullѕhit that promotes unnecessary confusion. Use the word "naure", if you like.
P.S. Just so you know, I do find it interesting, and I do appreciate your input.
Cheers!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 17 2011, 03:05 PM)
It’s just like every other metaphysical, ontological, philosophical bullѕhit that promotes unnecessary confusion. Use the word "naure", if you like.
Oh crap! I meant NATURE.
As someone in here once said, "I go from know it all to spazz in one fell swoop."
Oh crap! I meant NATURE.
As someone in here once said, "I go from know it all to spazz in one fell swoop."
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 17 2011, 05:05 PM)
I could provide a list of irrational panentheists, filled with metaphysical, ontological, philosophical, bullѕhit…who make big bucks off peddling their BS.
So, let us say that you are a rational panentheist or pantheist, for that matter; it is all about the word.
Give up the “God” then it’s all good.
I do not understand why pantheists have a problem with the word “universe”. The word “God” carries many connotations, and by using this word, you are contributing to the irrational usage of it.
It’s just like every other metaphysical, ontological, philosophical bullѕhit that promotes unnecessary confusion. Use the word "naure", if you like.
P.S. Just so you know, I do find it interesting, and I do appreciate your input.
Cheers!
"The word “God” carries many connotations, and by using this word, you are contributing to the irrational usage of it."
I would probably be in error to assume you think there is anyrational use for the term God. And obviously all of the connotations you know or accept are very negative to you. You seem to heavily favor the Abrahamic connotation, which I would very much agree has been intentionally used to attempt to undermine science. You seem to assume any use of the term God requires some denial or preeminence over empirical fact.
Quite on the contrary. Whereas an atheist would call it the unknown or unknowable, a panentheist merely includes the currently unknown holistically, as a concept of the entirety whether currently known, knowable, or not.
"I do not understand why pantheists have a problem with the word “universe”."
I also wonder why atheists have such a problem with the word "God". In my panentheistic view, both are intended as identifications of an entirety, with "God" being the most inclusive.
You say that using the term God lends itself to confusion, but I would say that conceding an unknowable, without any possibility of recourse, is a condemnation of some area to confusion as well. That of which we know nothing will be confused, at best. This is the difference, as I see it. There is even some confusion over whether we can positively refer to a multi-verse, so as terminology, "universe" and "nature" may be lacking.
I think that there exists nothing that can both have influence upon our existence and also be completely beyond our eventual understanding. Science alone, as it stands, empirically states that some knowledge is completely unknowable. That is the weight I attribute to humans, that they are potentially capable of overcoming all barriers to knowledge. And since our knowledge in a future eternal universe would be eternally approaching complete knowledge, what would you call that?
Seems to be spitting hairs to greatly differentiate omniscience from an eternal approach to omniscience. We can even say that time contributes a similar light-speed limit to knowledge. Ever approaching an ever receding target. Not omniscient, but definitely displaying the potential qualitatively greater than the sum of parts.
I would be completely satisfied to replace "God" with the term of equal inherent ambiguity, "origin", as origin implies a condensed notion of the whole, but I think you'd agree that that would be superficial semantics.
So, let us say that you are a rational panentheist or pantheist, for that matter; it is all about the word.
Give up the “God” then it’s all good.
I do not understand why pantheists have a problem with the word “universe”. The word “God” carries many connotations, and by using this word, you are contributing to the irrational usage of it.
It’s just like every other metaphysical, ontological, philosophical bullѕhit that promotes unnecessary confusion. Use the word "naure", if you like.
P.S. Just so you know, I do find it interesting, and I do appreciate your input.
Cheers!
"The word “God” carries many connotations, and by using this word, you are contributing to the irrational usage of it."
I would probably be in error to assume you think there is any
Quite on the contrary. Whereas an atheist would call it the unknown or unknowable, a panentheist merely includes the currently unknown holistically, as a concept of the entirety whether currently known, knowable, or not.
"I do not understand why pantheists have a problem with the word “universe”."
I also wonder why atheists have such a problem with the word "God". In my panentheistic view, both are intended as identifications of an entirety, with "God" being the most inclusive.
You say that using the term God lends itself to confusion, but I would say that conceding an unknowable, without any possibility of recourse, is a condemnation of some area to confusion as well. That of which we know nothing will be confused, at best. This is the difference, as I see it. There is even some confusion over whether we can positively refer to a multi-verse, so as terminology, "universe" and "nature" may be lacking.
I think that there exists nothing that can both have influence upon our existence and also be completely beyond our eventual understanding. Science alone, as it stands, empirically states that some knowledge is completely unknowable. That is the weight I attribute to humans, that they are potentially capable of overcoming all barriers to knowledge. And since our knowledge in a future eternal universe would be eternally approaching complete knowledge, what would you call that?
Seems to be spitting hairs to greatly differentiate omniscience from an eternal approach to omniscience. We can even say that time contributes a similar light-speed limit to knowledge. Ever approaching an ever receding target. Not omniscient, but definitely displaying the potential qualitatively greater than the sum of parts.
I would be completely satisfied to replace "God" with the term of equal inherent ambiguity, "origin", as origin implies a condensed notion of the whole, but I think you'd agree that that would be superficial semantics.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 17 2011, 10:38 PM)
I would be completely satisfied to replace "God" with the term of equal inherent ambiguity, "origin", as origin implies a condensed notion of the whole, but I think you'd agree that that would be superficial semantics.
Nope, it's not superficial semantics, at all.
I love it... “panentheist” to “panenαρχή”, very good.
Deal!
Nope, it's not superficial semantics, at all.
I love it... “panentheist” to “panenαρχή”, very good.
Deal!
Panen-origin would still have the same context of an origin being greater than the sum of parts and that sum being the parts of the origin. If you, semantically, like the term that lends itself less to personification, fine. That is your prerogative.
Just don't expect me to alter what I think by merely altering the semantics. The semantic change only accommodates your sensitivities.
Just don't expect me to alter what I think by merely altering the semantics. The semantic change only accommodates your sensitivities.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 18 2011, 01:48 PM)
Just don't expect me to alter what I think by merely altering the semantics. The semantic change only accommodates your sensitivities.
Aww, poor little guy…tied to God’s apron strings, eh?
Perhaps, it accommodates your sensitivities and that deep need to be “special”. It allows you to hang onto God but doesn’t conflict with science. Therefore, in your mind, it must be correct.
Didn’t panentheism develop as an alternative to theism under the influence of German Idealism?
There’s no getting around the implied “supreme effect” or “divine influence”. It’s purely a metaphysical claim that there is a “being” above the natural world. It also says that God can casually influence the world and visa versa. The world can effect and change God, as well.
It’s unnecessary. I don’t think that any scientific knowledge that we have requires a reference to a higher being. Suit yourself, though.
It was nice chatting with you.
Cheers!
Aww, poor little guy…tied to God’s apron strings, eh?
Perhaps, it accommodates your sensitivities and that deep need to be “special”. It allows you to hang onto God but doesn’t conflict with science. Therefore, in your mind, it must be correct.
Didn’t panentheism develop as an alternative to theism under the influence of German Idealism?
There’s no getting around the implied “supreme effect” or “divine influence”. It’s purely a metaphysical claim that there is a “being” above the natural world. It also says that God can casually influence the world and visa versa. The world can effect and change God, as well.
It’s unnecessary. I don’t think that any scientific knowledge that we have requires a reference to a higher being. Suit yourself, though.
It was nice chatting with you.
Cheers!
Yes, just continue to doggedly stick to the Abrahamic notions of God that Christians push on you. If that's the only conception you'll countenance, it must be the only you think is valid. That's funny, an atheist insisting upon a strictly Abrahamic notion of God. Perhaps the Christians are winning without you being any the wiser, as you promote their specific notion of God when you refute any theism at all.
I'm not the one here blindly insisting upon a very narrow notion of God. It seems you may be diametrically opposed to Christianity, but such proximity has left you in an agreement of definition (as any effective debate requires agreed upon definitions). Such debate has left its mark on you, whether you like it, can see it, or not.
It really undermines the potential effectiveness of your position when confronted with the unfamiliar. I genuinely promote the making of a better argument, even by my opponents, as devil's advocacy is very useful. Especially the devil's advocacy one may be too myopic to make for oneself. Atheism would do better to stick to positive arguments of their own case rather than strictly negation of the opposition. Negation without self-assertion tends to reinforce the negated, as your concept of God illustrates.
"[H]igher being"?
By any definition, the ability for conscious thought is the highest existence we know, as it is demonstratively self-motivating. I don't make any more assumptions about a "higher being" other than that.
I'm not the one here blindly insisting upon a very narrow notion of God. It seems you may be diametrically opposed to Christianity, but such proximity has left you in an agreement of definition (as any effective debate requires agreed upon definitions). Such debate has left its mark on you, whether you like it, can see it, or not.
It really undermines the potential effectiveness of your position when confronted with the unfamiliar. I genuinely promote the making of a better argument, even by my opponents, as devil's advocacy is very useful. Especially the devil's advocacy one may be too myopic to make for oneself. Atheism would do better to stick to positive arguments of their own case rather than strictly negation of the opposition. Negation without self-assertion tends to reinforce the negated, as your concept of God illustrates.
"[H]igher being"?
QUOTE
be·ing
noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
By any definition, the ability for conscious thought is the highest existence we know, as it is demonstratively self-motivating. I don't make any more assumptions about a "higher being" other than that.
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
You should try to differentiate between panentheism as a philosophy and panentheism as utilized in conjunction with an established religion. Also, you might try to provide some links to any of these claims.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/
Instead of declaring that I have a crude misunderstanding of your definition of “God”, why not take this opportunity to clearly and concisely define it? Is panentheism so difficult to understand that an average person could not grasp it? Which author did you find most influential?
Pantheism and panentheism both seem like trite analogies to me. Stating the obvious and calling it God is not profundity. Panentheists employ a variety of terms with meanings that have a specific context, but exactly how to interpret there concept is subject to debate.
Throw in words, like nothingness, forces, energy, and it gives the illusion that you’ve discovered some deep hidden answers to the most profound questions known to mankind. Subtract the academic jargon and there’s not much to it.
Let’s use this guy for an example:
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
http://www.drwaynedyer.com/
Here’s a quote that inspired him to adorn the world with his pseudo-wisdom.
He goes on to quote famous scientists and refers to quantum mechanics frequently.
“In the universe, there is an un-measurable and indescribable force, which those who live of the source call intention…and that absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link.”
Wow! Sounds deep, eh?
Obviously, his intent was monetary gain.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/
Instead of declaring that I have a crude misunderstanding of your definition of “God”, why not take this opportunity to clearly and concisely define it? Is panentheism so difficult to understand that an average person could not grasp it? Which author did you find most influential?
Pantheism and panentheism both seem like trite analogies to me. Stating the obvious and calling it God is not profundity. Panentheists employ a variety of terms with meanings that have a specific context, but exactly how to interpret there concept is subject to debate.
Throw in words, like nothingness, forces, energy, and it gives the illusion that you’ve discovered some deep hidden answers to the most profound questions known to mankind. Subtract the academic jargon and there’s not much to it.
Let’s use this guy for an example:
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
http://www.drwaynedyer.com/
Here’s a quote that inspired him to adorn the world with his pseudo-wisdom.
He goes on to quote famous scientists and refers to quantum mechanics frequently.
“In the universe, there is an un-measurable and indescribable force, which those who live of the source call intention…and that absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link.”
Wow! Sounds deep, eh?
Obviously, his intent was monetary gain.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 21 2011, 10:33 PM)
Instead of declaring that I have a crude misunderstanding of your definition of “God”, why not take this opportunity to clearly and concisely define it?
Mmm, I think I just did that.
Mmm, I think I just did that.
QUOTE (Me+)
By any definition, the ability for conscious thought is the highest existence we know, as it is demonstratively self-motivating. I don't make any more assumptions about a "higher being" other than that.
IOW, if we define God as "higher/supreme being" we only have clear evidence of one such candidate, as humans are the highest form of being we know. I'm not making any omnipotent/omniscient assumptions here.
But if:
- our universe is eternal into the future
- humans continue to learn
- humans manage to not go extinct
They will be approaching omniscience. This an emerging God, if we define God as omniscient. Not hard to grasp at all.
IOW, if we define God as "higher/supreme being" we only have clear evidence of one such candidate, as humans are the highest form of being we know. I'm not making any omnipotent/omniscient assumptions here.
But if:
- our universe is eternal into the future
- humans continue to learn
- humans manage to not go extinct
They will be approaching omniscience. This an emerging God, if we define God as omniscient. Not hard to grasp at all.
QUOTE (NA+)
Which author did you find most influential?
None at all. I didn't come by my thoughts on this second hand. When pressed, I merely stated the closest fitting philosophy to my own.
Certainly not. I don't think it profound, merely true, and only possibly unconsidered. I don't consider myself responsible for what baggage others may affix to a word.
Certainly not. I don't think it profound, merely true, and only possibly unconsidered. I don't consider myself responsible for what baggage others may affix to a word.
God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe
The question, for the thread on Nothing, is what is this "animating force"? And no, it isn't some inherently esoteric gobbledygook.
None at all. I didn't come by my thoughts on this second hand. When pressed, I merely stated the closest fitting philosophy to my own.
QUOTE
Stating the obvious and calling it God is not profundity.
Certainly not. I don't think it profound, merely true, and only possibly unconsidered. I don't consider myself responsible for what baggage others may affix to a word.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Stating the obvious and calling it God is not profundity. |
Certainly not. I don't think it profound, merely true, and only possibly unconsidered. I don't consider myself responsible for what baggage others may affix to a word.
God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe
The question, for the thread on Nothing, is what is this "animating force"? And no, it isn't some inherently esoteric gobbledygook.
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
IOW, if we define God as "higher/supreme being" we only have clear evidence of one such candidate, as humans are the highest form of being we know. I'm not making any omnipotent/omniscient assumptions here.
But if:
- our universe is eternal into the future
- humans continue to learn
- humans manage to not go extinct
They will be approaching omniscience. This an emerging God, if we define God as omniscient. Not hard to grasp at all.
I don't think it profound, merely true, and only possibly unconsidered.
So basically, you’re saying that humans have the potential to become all knowing and this would make them like god? I think that has been considered in biblical text and by many philosophers who tried to deny our ultimate fate and transcend the world through metaphysical speculation.
And…1 John 3:2
We’re fortunate to detect evidence of the big bang but there could be other features of our universe that have already become unobservable (unknowable), eh?
And of course, religious physicists are going to disagree with you...Templeton winner...
Bernard d'Espagnat
And the non-religious.
“The observable universe contains only a finite amount of information, so information processing (and life) cannot endure forever” ~Lawrence M. Krauss
Abraham Loeb writes "As a result, there is a finite amount of information that we can collect about the distant universe," Loeb said. "Within 50 billion to 100 billion years, we will not be able to gather any new information about all extragalactic sources."
I think that your cup overfloweth with nonsensical, metaphysical BS. Why the need to transcend? Don’t you enjoy life even with its limits?
P.S. Don’t mistake atheism for nihilism...
But if:
- our universe is eternal into the future
- humans continue to learn
- humans manage to not go extinct
They will be approaching omniscience. This an emerging God, if we define God as omniscient. Not hard to grasp at all.
I don't think it profound, merely true, and only possibly unconsidered.
So basically, you’re saying that humans have the potential to become all knowing and this would make them like god? I think that has been considered in biblical text and by many philosophers who tried to deny our ultimate fate and transcend the world through metaphysical speculation.
QUOTE
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
And…1 John 3:2
We’re fortunate to detect evidence of the big bang but there could be other features of our universe that have already become unobservable (unknowable), eh?
And of course, religious physicists are going to disagree with you...Templeton winner...
Bernard d'Espagnat
And the non-religious.
“The observable universe contains only a finite amount of information, so information processing (and life) cannot endure forever” ~Lawrence M. Krauss
Abraham Loeb writes "As a result, there is a finite amount of information that we can collect about the distant universe," Loeb said. "Within 50 billion to 100 billion years, we will not be able to gather any new information about all extragalactic sources."
I think that your cup overfloweth with nonsensical, metaphysical BS. Why the need to transcend? Don’t you enjoy life even with its limits?
P.S. Don’t mistake atheism for nihilism...
Take it however you like. Notice how I specified an "approach to omniscience". As long as we cannot define an absolute end to what is available to be learned, we are making such an approach. Even a finite amount of information could still take us a near eternity to fully comprehend and possibly an actual eternity to master, including the possibility of overcoming current limits on the boundaries of our possible knowledge. Either way, there's no way to definitively constrain our capacity for knowledge.
Since you mention Krauss:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=related
Watch from about the 40min mark to the 43min mark (I won't ask you to watch the entire thing). As you've noted, my thinking on a rather panentheistic philosophy very much does have something to do with what I think of Nothing. Which is why I said: "The question, for the thread on Nothing, is what is this "animating force"?" But if you're happy thrumming your "metaphysical BS" drum, I can see why you wouldn't be interested in following that up.
I notice you've started quoting the Bible and obvious nuts. I don't know if this is an attempt to pigeonhole me in that camp or just avoid talking science. Either way, I consider it a dodge, as I'm talking rational and empirical facts. It's only your bias for my use of the term God that leads you to assume otherwise.
I mean, is there any evidence that humanity has an inherent limit on how much it can comprehend? You're going to have to spell out for me exactly where you are seeing "nonsensical, metaphysical BS", other than your simple bias for some of the words through which I present my thoughts.
And who said anything about atheists being nihilistic?
Since you mention Krauss:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=related
Watch from about the 40min mark to the 43min mark (I won't ask you to watch the entire thing). As you've noted, my thinking on a rather panentheistic philosophy very much does have something to do with what I think of Nothing. Which is why I said: "The question, for the thread on Nothing, is what is this "animating force"?" But if you're happy thrumming your "metaphysical BS" drum, I can see why you wouldn't be interested in following that up.
I notice you've started quoting the Bible and obvious nuts. I don't know if this is an attempt to pigeonhole me in that camp or just avoid talking science. Either way, I consider it a dodge, as I'm talking rational and empirical facts. It's only your bias for my use of the term God that leads you to assume otherwise.
I mean, is there any evidence that humanity has an inherent limit on how much it can comprehend? You're going to have to spell out for me exactly where you are seeing "nonsensical, metaphysical BS", other than your simple bias for some of the words through which I present my thoughts.
And who said anything about atheists being nihilistic?
Arrrg! You’re bugging me. 
Yes, I’ve seen that video many times. That’s why I asked about measuring supernovas. It’s on my liked list on my YouTube channel, along with this one.
Everything and Nothing
I’ve also read “The Void” by Frank Close.
But there is no reason to call any of this GOD.
It is what it is!
Oh, you’re so annoying but I’m not giving up.
I’ll be back when I have more time.
Yes, I’ve seen that video many times. That’s why I asked about measuring supernovas. It’s on my liked list on my YouTube channel, along with this one.
Everything and Nothing
I’ve also read “The Void” by Frank Close.
But there is no reason to call any of this GOD.
It is what it is!
Oh, you’re so annoying but I’m not giving up.
I’ll be back when I have more time.
I simply do not have any negative knee-jerk reaction to the term God and so have no compunction about using it in the sense I have described. I see similarities in the attributes of origin, universe, and the human mind which I desire a single term to encompass. This doesn't imply any metaphysics, only a relationship. As I just posted to the Nothing thread, ex nihilo origin is also the facilitator of expansion and thus dynamic freedom, within which the human mind is the highest known form of utilization.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 22 2011, 02:34 PM)
I see similarities in the attributes of origin, universe, and the human mind which I desire a single term to encompass.
..how does “Panengenesism” sound?
Sounds like [either] a fungal infection or the cream that deals with the symptoms of the infection (within 7 days (or your money back)).
QUOTE (sythsin75+)
Those who know the science won't doubt our ex nihilo origin. This doesn't require any creator, as it is a necessary and natural consequence of Nothing. Now we have found that it is the energy of the vacuum, Nothing, that accounts for the cosmological constant that drives universal expansion. Since an extent of space is necessary to dynamic freedom, Nothing, while perhaps not the direct "animating force", could easily be said to facilitate or allow for such a dynamic "animating force".
So both origin and facilitator.
Let me ask you this, usually, our universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist, right? Nothing beyond or outside of it, no empty spacetime or perfect vacuum, unless you go with a multiverse, metaverse, or omniverse type theory, correct?
Then why isn’t the word “universe” enough to describe all? It includes spacetime or vacuum, matter-energy, and physical law. The nothingness/vacuum is still within our universe, correct? So, do you believe that there is something outside of our universe? If so, what?
So both origin and facilitator.
Let me ask you this, usually, our universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist, right? Nothing beyond or outside of it, no empty spacetime or perfect vacuum, unless you go with a multiverse, metaverse, or omniverse type theory, correct?
Then why isn’t the word “universe” enough to describe all? It includes spacetime or vacuum, matter-energy, and physical law. The nothingness/vacuum is still within our universe, correct? So, do you believe that there is something outside of our universe? If so, what?
Does our universe contain its own origin? Or would an origin contain the "makings" for our universe? If the later, then obviously "universe" is not as inclusive, especially if that origin has an ongoing effect upon our universe.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 22 2011, 08:41 PM)
Does our universe contain its own origin? Or would an origin contain the "makings" for our universe? If the later, then obviously "universe" is not as inclusive, especially if that origin has an ongoing effect upon our universe.
I understand what you're saying but I don’t know. If anyone thinks they know, can they prove it?
What part of, “I’m just a housewife”, didn’t you understand?
Besides, omniscience is infinite. New answers always bring new questions.
Answers I don’t have but I have tons of questions.
What if the distant supernovae are fainter because they had a different chemical composition?
Oh, and how does “Panengenesism” sound? Good, eh?
I understand what you're saying but I don’t know. If anyone thinks they know, can they prove it?
What part of, “I’m just a housewife”, didn’t you understand?
Besides, omniscience is infinite. New answers always bring new questions.
Answers I don’t have but I have tons of questions.
What if the distant supernovae are fainter because they had a different chemical composition?
Oh, and how does “Panengenesism” sound? Good, eh?
The word god does have a lot of baggage attached to it...
Ever noticed the Merriam Webster definition of god?
"the supreme or ultimate reality"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
Ever noticed the Merriam Webster definition of god?
"the supreme or ultimate reality"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
NA, you're free to beg off, I just thought it fair to point out some possibly erroneous assumptions driving your line of reasoning that "universe" was sufficiently inclusive.
GAG, I think that definition shows the scope between "more than natural" and merely superlative. No reason to insist the superlative use requires the supernatural.
GAG, I think that definition shows the scope between "more than natural" and merely superlative. No reason to insist the superlative use requires the supernatural.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 23 2011, 10:00 AM)
NA, you're free to beg off, I just thought it fair to point out some possibly erroneous assumptions driving your line of reasoning that "universe" was sufficiently inclusive.
I agree, but it is normal to maintain illusory correlations, and very difficult to be aware of it. You presented an uncomfortable idea, which forces one to have conflicting ideas simultaneously. You were even able to point out my related but substituted questions.
It was fun…
Thanks!
I agree, but it is normal to maintain illusory correlations, and very difficult to be aware of it. You presented an uncomfortable idea, which forces one to have conflicting ideas simultaneously. You were even able to point out my related but substituted questions.
It was fun…
Thanks!
QUOTE (NA+)
..how does “Panengenesism” sound?
Sounds like [either] a fungal infection or the cream that deals with the symptoms of the infection (within 7 days (or your money back)).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.