Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TOPIC OF THE WEEK: Pan(en)theism

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pantheism describes, roughly, the belief that all things are, or take part in, God. In other words, nothing is imaginable that cannot be said to be of God. In this way, pantheists believe that the universe is equivalent to God - they see no distinction between things "in God" and "outside of God". An important implication of this is that there is no part of God himself that is outside the universe, since God is merely "that which exists and all that exists", no more, no less.

Panentheism is based on the same general principle, but with a vital difference: panentheists agree with pantheists on the idea that the universe (the "real world") is part of God, but claim that the universe is not the full extent of God. The universe is an aspect of God - it is totally inseparable from Him and the universe cannot be apart from Him, but He has qualities that make Him distinct from the world.

As can be seen, the split between the two philosophies is in their conceptions of the extent of God - they both agree that the universe starts and stops within God, but pantheism posits that God only goes as far as the universe, while panentheism holds that God goes further than the universe and that the universe is but a subset of Him.

Of course, this distinction is completely dependent on one's definitions of "reality", "extension", &c. By definition, if reality is all that is real, and if all that is real is part of God, isn't the logical conclusion that God does not transcend reality (and, as such, is not distinguishable from it)? If this is denied, then God has the quality of existing outside of the realm of existence and that which is real, which seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Some questions regarding panentheism and pantheism in general:

Question One: Can a meaningful distinction be made between pantheism and panentheism?

Does it make any difference to us if a part of God transcends reality, considering that it seems that all that matters to us is the reality we are able to interact with? How would the impact of panentheism on life be any different from the impact of pantheism?

Question Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?

Assuming that it's even coherent to consider an entity that is outside of the realm of entities, could such an entity ever be proven? Surely logical arguments could not work, since logic applies to things which are real and can be conceived - anything else is illogical. Does the panentheist position introduce the necessity of faith to pantheism? If so, why should one hold panentheism on faith over any other position?

Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?

Question Three b (to Theists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than the complete lack of belief in God?


In other words, is panentheism a more reasonable alternative to the opposite extreme of your position, considering that it's almost like a middle-point between religions which claim a God totally transcendent from reality and the atheist position that nothing has such a quality?


Feedback is appreciated!
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 12:31:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe your description of Pantheism was a bit off. That is, you attributed some beliefs to it that ain't necessarily so. First and foremost, belief in the "G" word. God. LOL.

I was always under the impression that an agnostic like myself who did not believe in a theistic sort of God--a biblical, personal one, like Yahweh--and who found their spirituality in Nature, their own, deistic type of God---were Pantheists. I have called myself a Pantheist before. But will have to discontinue this if it entails required belief in a personal God.

So, yeah..I thought a pantheist was somebody who found their "god" in nature, and a Pantheniest was someone who thought, yeah, God is in nature but he is MORE than that and cannot be separated from anything, as he is in ALL.

Or am I wrong?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 12:34:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah, OK. This is a clip from altreligion.com..................

Pantheists view God as immanent and impersonal. The belief system grew out of the Scientific Revolution, and pantheists generally are strong supporters of scientific inquiry, as well as religious toleration.

An Immanent God

In being immanent, God is present in all things. He didn't make the earth or define gravity, but, rather, he is the earth and gravity and everything else in the universe.
Because God is uncreated and infinite, the universe is likewise uncreated and infinite. God did not choose one day to make the universe. Rather, it exists precisely because God exists, since the two are the same thing.

This does not need to contradict scientific theories such as the Big Bang. The changing of the universe is all part of the nature of God as well. It simply states there was something before the Big Bang, an idea that is certainly debated in scientific circles.

An Impersonal God

The pantheistic God is impersonal. He is not a being one converses with, nor is he conscious in the common sense of the term.


This is pretty much my stance as well!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 12:31:50 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I believe your description of Pantheism was a bit off. That is, you attributed some beliefs to it that ain't necessarily so. First and foremost, belief in the "G" word. God. LOL.

I was always under the impression that an agnostic like myself who did not believe in a theistic sort of God--a biblical, personal one, like Yahweh--and who found their spirituality in Nature, their own, deistic type of God---were Pantheists. I have called myself a Pantheist before. But will have to discontinue this if it entails required belief in a personal God.

So, yeah..I thought a pantheist was somebody who found their "god" in nature, and a Pantheniest was someone who thought, yeah, God is in nature but he is MORE than that and cannot be separated from anything, as he is in ALL.

Or am I wrong?

I didn't mean a personal God, just any type of God - your interpretation is correct.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 12:45:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

Question Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?


Hello ShabShoral, it is good to talk to you friend. I think this is an excellent topic. I would consider myself a Panentheist, because I believe the Scriptures. They tell us that God does all things and that all things are from Him.

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, THAT DID HE in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

His work was completed on the Sixth Day and He entered His rest on the Seventh Day. I don't see any reason that Pantheism should be any more Logical than Panentheism. If there be God, why should we deny that God would fail to communicate with His creation? Should the creator of Intelligence not be able to effectively have a reasonable conversation with His creation? God has chosen the written Word to speak to us, and now He speaks to our Conscience as His Word is written in our hearts.

Assuming that it's even coherent to consider an entity that is outside of the realm of entities, could such an entity ever be proven? Surely logical arguments could not work, since logic applies to things which are real and can be conceived - anything else is illogical. Does the panentheist position introduce the necessity of faith to pantheism? If so, why should one hold panentheism on faith over any other position?


Panentheism is a more reasonable position because of Cause and Effect. The Universe had a beginning, and since God first spoke "Let there be Light", He set into motion the Universal speed limit. Therefore Cause and Effect have taken their course to Determine all things that should happen. God must be more than consisting of only what we can physically observe. We only have five senses, which makes it unreasonable to think we can understand all things by simple observation. Whatever was before the Universe that Caused it into existence must have been outside of all physical Laws. To the Atheist, this entity is called the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. They believe this entity can Cause things to randomly happen for no apparent reason and without any such knowledge to do so. Yet this entity has brought forth all things, including Good, Evil, and Knowledge. The God of Scriptures tells us that He does all things and He only does things that He wants to do. He has the Wisdom to do these things, and He is sharing this Wisdom with us.

Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?


Traditional views of Abrahamic monotheism contradict themselves, so they are impossible to defend.

Question Three b (to Theists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than the complete lack of belief in God?

It depends on who you're talking to. If talking with someone who abhors contradictions so much that they would give up free will, it's very easy to defend. However, I have met very few people who are willing to do this.


In other words, is panentheism a more reasonable alternative to the opposite extreme of your position, considering that it's almost like a middle-point between religions which claim a God totally transcendent from reality and the atheist position that nothing has such a quality?

Of course, if we know what God is doing. He is making mankind in His Image. This required giving us the Knowledge of Good and Evil so that we could learn the Wisdom and Prudence to choose only Good. I'd be more than happy to go over the Garden of Eden if you wish to discuss this with me. Thank you my new friend and God bless you.

Outplayz
Posts: 1,264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 1:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Question One: Can a meaningful distinction be made between pantheism and panentheism?"

Aren't they both ultimately saying we are all apart of this god? Plus, i think by the definition of a god, it should be able to transcend many realities. Maybe it is doing it through are intelligence in this view. We can hack the heck out of this world.

Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?

Any belief has its leap in logic. However, i feel pantheism can make sense. The traditional look at the world around you argument is probably stronger in this belief compared to others. Maybe i don't understand this view too much, it says not a personal god and that is a bit confusing to me. Is it indicating we are the organs of a god, and this is what you get from it?

Assuming that it's even coherent to consider an entity that is outside of the realm of entities, could such an entity ever be proven? Surely logical arguments could not work, since logic applies to things which are real and can be conceived - anything else is illogical. Does the panentheist position introduce the necessity of faith to pantheism? If so, why should one hold panentheism on faith over any other position?

Maybe i still don't get the spiritual side of this theory. I always thought it meant everything is this one god. It is hard to prove or disprove that. To me it sounds like, if you kill a god...this is the universe that happens...or on a brighter note, a god that is sleeping. It is basically saying we are all one. At least this is how i understand it.
Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?

I think it is an easier concept to defend. But, to be able to prove the existence of something that takes a leap of logic is of course tricky. I personally think we should be looking at all of this differently. If we are all this one god...then, did it do this on purpose or against its will? Yet, i don't think that really is where we should be looking either. To me the question has always been, "what are the implications of being immortal" ... i basically concluded that it would be frightening; especially if you are god. Let's say we are all this one god. If everything goes back to this one god, then what? It becomes us all, so its identity would be ... "x". At this point, is it alone? That is a scary thought no? Why would it want to spend its immortality alone...so, it turns into this universe again...so, could this be why it is how it is? Idk, but i think the answers are really hidden in understanding what immortality would really mean to an intelligence. To me, it is scary...it would be scary being stuck in the same world forever. I personally think death is a creation of immortality. I put up some ideas on my question if you like to help me out there: http://www.debate.org...

I think you might have to correct me if i am thinking of this idea wrong. But, if we are all one...i would think, this one would like it to stay this way.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 1:49:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Pantheism describes, roughly, the belief that all things are, or take part in, God. In other words, nothing is imaginable that cannot be said to be of God. In this way, pantheists believe that the universe is equivalent to God - they see no distinction between things "in God" and "outside of God". An important implication of this is that there is no part of God himself that is outside the universe, since God is merely "that which exists and all that exists", no more, no less.

Panentheism is based on the same general principle, but with a vital difference: panentheists agree with pantheists on the idea that the universe (the "real world") is part of God, but claim that the universe is not the full extent of God. The universe is an aspect of God - it is totally inseparable from Him and the universe cannot be apart from Him, but He has qualities that make Him distinct from the world.

As can be seen, the split between the two philosophies is in their conceptions of the extent of God - they both agree that the universe starts and stops within God, but pantheism posits that God only goes as far as the universe, while panentheism holds that God goes further than the universe and that the universe is but a subset of Him.

Of course, this distinction is completely dependent on one's definitions of "reality", "extension", &c. By definition, if reality is all that is real, and if all that is real is part of God, isn't the logical conclusion that God does not transcend reality (and, as such, is not distinguishable from it)? If this is denied, then God has the quality of existing outside of the realm of existence and that which is real, which seems to be a contradiction in terms.

If "the universe" = "reality" = "all that is real", then the idea of a god that transcends the universe becomes incoherent. I think most of the time panentheists are really thinking of "the universe" as "this space-time universe" which is bounded and not necessarily "all that is real", merely "all that we can detect".

Some questions regarding panentheism and pantheism in general:

Question One: Can a meaningful distinction be made between pantheism and panentheism?

Does it make any difference to us if a part of God transcends reality, considering that it seems that all that matters to us is the reality we are able to interact with? How would the impact of panentheism on life be any different from the impact of pantheism?

Well, if panentheism were considered logically coherent, then that would mean the universe could cease to be, but that god wouldn't necessarily, whilst pantheism would mean that if the universe ceased to be, so would god. Also, I think it would be easier to argue for a personal god in panentheism than in pantheism.

Question Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?

Assuming that it's even coherent to consider an entity that is outside of the realm of entities, could such an entity ever be proven? Surely logical arguments could not work, since logic applies to things which are real and can be conceived - anything else is illogical. Does the panentheist position introduce the necessity of faith to pantheism? If so, why should one hold panentheism on faith over any other position?

I think it could, in theory, be proven well enough, but that the idea has to be defined coherently before it could.


Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?


All conceptions require some evidence to override the lack of prior plausibility. So I don't know whether it's "easier to defend" given that I don't think any of them have gotten over the first hurdle: Having some reason to think it's reasonable. Let along evidence issues...

Question Three b (to Theists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than the complete lack of belief in God?

In other words, is panentheism a more reasonable alternative to the opposite extreme of your position, considering that it's almost like a middle-point between religions which claim a God totally transcendent from reality and the atheist position that nothing has such a quality?

Well, most theistic positions still have elements of pantheism (the classic theist position of Christianity generally posits that god is everywhere, don't forget...omnipresence is )

It's part of what I think is an overall coherency issue that I won't get into at present since it's a broader topic than the one at hand, unless someone wants me to.


Feedback is appreciated!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 3:09:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 1:49:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

If "the universe" = "reality" = "all that is real", then the idea of a god that transcends the universe becomes incoherent. I think most of the time panentheists are really thinking of "the universe" as "this space-time universe" which is bounded and not necessarily "all that is real", merely "all that we can detect".


Well, if panentheism were considered logically coherent, then that would mean the universe could cease to be, but that god wouldn't necessarily, whilst pantheism would mean that if the universe ceased to be, so would god. Also, I think it would be easier to argue for a personal god in panentheism than in pantheism.


I think it could, in theory, be proven well enough, but that the idea has to be defined coherently before it could.


All conceptions require some evidence to override the lack of prior plausibility. So I don't know whether it's "easier to defend" given that I don't think any of them have gotten over the first hurdle: Having some reason to think it's reasonable. Let along evidence issues...

What would you consider as evidence? I've talked to several Atheist and they seem to suggest that no Scientific or Logical arguments can be made about God or Determinism. If someone could present an argument without any contradictions, and with Scientific, Philosophical, and Logical evidence, would that help you get over the first hurdle?


Well, most theistic positions still have elements of pantheism (the classic theist position of Christianity generally posits that god is everywhere, don't forget...omnipresence is )

It's part of what I think is an overall coherency issue that I won't get into at present since it's a broader topic than the one at hand, unless someone wants me to.

I would love if you could explain this better. I believe the Scriptural understanding of Fundamental Christianity is very flawed. How can they claim that God is Omnipresent, yet we still have free will? My mind abhors contradictions. I believe in the God of Scriptures, and I believe that He is the Determiner of all things. Thank you friend and God Bless you.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 5:21:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 3:09:51 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/3/2015 1:49:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

If "the universe" = "reality" = "all that is real", then the idea of a god that transcends the universe becomes incoherent. I think most of the time panentheists are really thinking of "the universe" as "this space-time universe" which is bounded and not necessarily "all that is real", merely "all that we can detect".


Well, if panentheism were considered logically coherent, then that would mean the universe could cease to be, but that god wouldn't necessarily, whilst pantheism would mean that if the universe ceased to be, so would god. Also, I think it would be easier to argue for a personal god in panentheism than in pantheism.


I think it could, in theory, be proven well enough, but that the idea has to be defined coherently before it could.


All conceptions require some evidence to override the lack of prior plausibility. So I don't know whether it's "easier to defend" given that I don't think any of them have gotten over the first hurdle: Having some reason to think it's reasonable. Let along evidence issues...

What would you consider as evidence? I've talked to several Atheist and they seem to suggest that no Scientific or Logical arguments can be made about God or Determinism. If someone could present an argument without any contradictions, and with Scientific, Philosophical, and Logical evidence, would that help you get over the first hurdle?

Probably not, for several reasons, not the least of which is that I don't believe there is a good argument (and there's more than just "without contradictions", but I'm assuming you know that). I'd be happy to discuss it, but I'd rather not hijack ShabShoral's thread to do so.



Well, most theistic positions still have elements of pantheism (the classic theist position of Christianity generally posits that god is everywhere, don't forget...omnipresence is )

It's part of what I think is an overall coherency issue that I won't get into at present since it's a broader topic than the one at hand, unless someone wants me to.

I would love if you could explain this better. I believe the Scriptural understanding of Fundamental Christianity is very flawed. How can they claim that God is Omnipresent, yet we still have free will? My mind abhors contradictions. I believe in the God of Scriptures, and I believe that He is the Determiner of all things. Thank you friend and God Bless you.

I'd be happy to explain more, except that I'm worried about hijacking Shab's thread.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 5:23:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 5:21:59 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Be my guest - it's perfectly relevant discussion.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 5:26:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Pantheism describes, roughly, the belief that all things are, or take part in, God. In other words, nothing is imaginable that cannot be said to be of God. In this way, pantheists believe that the universe is equivalent to God - they see no distinction between things "in God" and "outside of God". An important implication of this is that there is no part of God himself that is outside the universe, since God is merely "that which exists and all that exists", no more, no less.

Panentheism is based on the same general principle, but with a vital difference: panentheists agree with pantheists on the idea that the universe (the "real world") is part of God, but claim that the universe is not the full extent of God. The universe is an aspect of God - it is totally inseparable from Him and the universe cannot be apart from Him, but He has qualities that make Him distinct from the world.

As can be seen, the split between the two philosophies is in their conceptions of the extent of God - they both agree that the universe starts and stops within God, but pantheism posits that God only goes as far as the universe, while panentheism holds that God goes further than the universe and that the universe is but a subset of Him.

Of course, this distinction is completely dependent on one's definitions of "reality", "extension", &c. By definition, if reality is all that is real, and if all that is real is part of God, isn't the logical conclusion that God does not transcend reality (and, as such, is not distinguishable from it)? If this is denied, then God has the quality of existing outside of the realm of existence and that which is real, which seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Some questions regarding panentheism and pantheism in general:

Question One: Can a meaningful distinction be made between pantheism and panentheism?

Does it make any difference to us if a part of God transcends reality, considering that it seems that all that matters to us is the reality we are able to interact with? How would the impact of panentheism on life be any different from the impact of pantheism?

Question Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?

Assuming that it's even coherent to consider an entity that is outside of the realm of entities, could such an entity ever be proven? Surely logical arguments could not work, since logic applies to things which are real and can be conceived - anything else is illogical. Does the panentheist position introduce the necessity of faith to pantheism? If so, why should one hold panentheism on faith over any other position?

Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?

Question Three b (to Theists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than the complete lack of belief in God?


In other words, is panentheism a more reasonable alternative to the opposite extreme of your position, considering that it's almost like a middle-point between religions which claim a God totally transcendent from reality and the atheist position that nothing has such a quality?



Feedback is appreciated!


Pantheism sounds more rational than panentheism.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:19:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 5:21:59 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/4/2015 3:09:51 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/3/2015 1:49:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

If "the universe" = "reality" = "all that is real", then the idea of a god that transcends the universe becomes incoherent. I think most of the time panentheists are really thinking of "the universe" as "this space-time universe" which is bounded and not necessarily "all that is real", merely "all that we can detect".


Well, if panentheism were considered logically coherent, then that would mean the universe could cease to be, but that god wouldn't necessarily, whilst pantheism would mean that if the universe ceased to be, so would god. Also, I think it would be easier to argue for a personal god in panentheism than in pantheism.


I think it could, in theory, be proven well enough, but that the idea has to be defined coherently before it could.


All conceptions require some evidence to override the lack of prior plausibility. So I don't know whether it's "easier to defend" given that I don't think any of them have gotten over the first hurdle: Having some reason to think it's reasonable. Let along evidence issues...

What would you consider as evidence? I've talked to several Atheist and they seem to suggest that no Scientific or Logical arguments can be made about God or Determinism. If someone could present an argument without any contradictions, and with Scientific, Philosophical, and Logical evidence, would that help you get over the first hurdle?

Probably not, for several reasons, not the least of which is that I don't believe there is a good argument (and there's more than just "without contradictions", but I'm assuming you know that). I'd be happy to discuss it, but I'd rather not hijack ShabShoral's thread to do so.

Yes I agree that an absence of contradictions doesn't necessarily make an argument true, but can we agree that if a contradiction arises, then the idea must be false. Two opposite things cannot be true at the same time. Similar things can be true, but not complete opposites. God cannot know the future, and then not know what choice we will make because it is free. Those are opposing statements, like saying 'that is a fork, that is a spoon, both of these statements are true'.



Well, most theistic positions still have elements of pantheism (the classic theist position of Christianity generally posits that god is everywhere, don't forget...omnipresence is )

It's part of what I think is an overall coherency issue that I won't get into at present since it's a broader topic than the one at hand, unless someone wants me to.

I would love if you could explain this better. I believe the Scriptural understanding of Fundamental Christianity is very flawed. How can they claim that God is Omnipresent, yet we still have free will? My mind abhors contradictions. I believe in the God of Scriptures, and I believe that He is the Determiner of all things. Thank you friend and God Bless you.

I'd be happy to explain more, except that I'm worried about hijacking Shab's thread.

I hope you decide to. I look forward to hearing how you would reconcile these things. This thread is about pantheism and panentheism, which I think is an excellent and very unexpected Topic of the Month. I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you friend.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 12:25:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 5:23:14 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/4/2015 5:21:59 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Be my guest - it's perfectly relevant discussion.

If you say so...I rather think it'll just turn into the "standard" theism/atheism debate, but if you're cool w/ it, then a'ight.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 12:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 10:19:14 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

What would you consider as evidence? I've talked to several Atheist and they seem to suggest that no Scientific or Logical arguments can be made about God or Determinism. If someone could present an argument without any contradictions, and with Scientific, Philosophical, and Logical evidence, would that help you get over the first hurdle?

Probably not, for several reasons, not the least of which is that I don't believe there is a good argument (and there's more than just "without contradictions", but I'm assuming you know that). I'd be happy to discuss it, but I'd rather not hijack ShabShoral's thread to do so.

Yes I agree that an absence of contradictions doesn't necessarily make an argument true, but can we agree that if a contradiction arises, then the idea must be false. Two opposite things cannot be true at the same time. Similar things can be true, but not complete opposites. God cannot know the future, and then not know what choice we will make because it is free. Those are opposing statements, like saying 'that is a fork, that is a spoon, both of these statements are true'.

Well, ignoring for the moment the free will debate which isn't entirely accurately represented here (a lot depends on definitions), the point is: An argument is either good, or it isn't. It was arbitrary to talk about contradictions; there's lots of other factors that make an argument good. It's not a big deal, per se, but it was worth noting that internal consistency is not the arbiter of a good argument.

Well, most theistic positions still have elements of pantheism (the classic theist position of Christianity generally posits that god is everywhere, don't forget...omnipresence is )

It's part of what I think is an overall coherency issue that I won't get into at present since it's a broader topic than the one at hand, unless someone wants me to.

I would love if you could explain this better. I believe the Scriptural understanding of Fundamental Christianity is very flawed. How can they claim that God is Omnipresent, yet we still have free will? My mind abhors contradictions. I believe in the God of Scriptures, and I believe that He is the Determiner of all things. Thank you friend and God Bless you.

I'd be happy to explain more, except that I'm worried about hijacking Shab's thread.

I hope you decide to. I look forward to hearing how you would reconcile these things. This thread is about pantheism and panentheism, which I think is an excellent and very unexpected Topic of the Month. I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you friend.

I don't have to reconcile the arguments of people who put forth conceptions of god--I'm an atheist. My point was that generally speaking, the idea being put forward is either incoherent for lack of sense, or it's contradictory, or it's not defined enough to be meaningful.

To draw it back to pantheism, since that was the original topic and I think I can work it in, pantheism says god = all of reality. Okay then, what distuinguishes "god" from "not god"? In what way is that established? How could you distinguish it from a situation wherein there's the absence of god? You have to be able to distinguish your concept from a fantasy, otherwise it's not a meaningful concept in reference to reality, it's basically a "Gee-whiz" thought.

Obviously, I don't think you're a pantheist, so I don't expect you to be responsible for answering these questions, or the many more I could raise on pantheism depending on how someone explained their position. If you want to present your own position, that's fine, but do recognize that odds are I will have seen your argument before and find it lacking; I say that because I've encountered many people over my time here and elsewhere in discussions who think they've got a slam dunk. I've yet to see a "new" argument presented by one of these folks. But, hey, far be it from me to think it's impossible!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 4:56:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Pantheism describes, roughly, the belief that all things are, or take part in, God. In other words, nothing is imaginable that cannot be said to be of God. In this way, pantheists believe that the universe is equivalent to God - they see no distinction between things "in God" and "outside of God". An important implication of this is that there is no part of God himself that is outside the universe, since God is merely "that which exists and all that exists", no more, no less.

Panentheism is based on the same general principle, but with a vital difference: panentheists agree with pantheists on the idea that the universe (the "real world") is part of God, but claim that the universe is not the full extent of God. The universe is an aspect of God - it is totally inseparable from Him and the universe cannot be apart from Him, but He has qualities that make Him distinct from the world.

As can be seen, the split between the two philosophies is in their conceptions of the extent of God - they both agree that the universe starts and stops within God, but pantheism posits that God only goes as far as the universe, while panentheism holds that God goes further than the universe and that the universe is but a subset of Him.

Of course, this distinction is completely dependent on one's definitions of "reality", "extension", &c. By definition, if reality is all that is real, and if all that is real is part of God, isn't the logical conclusion that God does not transcend reality (and, as such, is not distinguishable from it)? If this is denied, then God has the quality of existing outside of the realm of existence and that which is real, which seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Some questions regarding panentheism and pantheism in general:

Question One: Can a meaningful distinction be made between pantheism and panentheism?

Does it make any difference to us if a part of God transcends reality, considering that it seems that all that matters to us is the reality we are able to interact with? How would the impact of panentheism on life be any different from the impact of pantheism?
I would say that panentheism promises a God which is better than our world, while pantheism promises a perfect world because it is the extent of God.

The difference, then, would be our outlook on the world.
Question Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?

Assuming that it's even coherent to consider an entity that is outside of the realm of entities, could such an entity ever be proven? Surely logical arguments could not work, since logic applies to things which are real and can be conceived - anything else is illogical. Does the panentheist position introduce the necessity of faith to pantheism? If so, why should one hold panentheism on faith over any other position?
I would say they both require faith, since both are unfalsifiable.

Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?

I would say so, it seems to make less claims when opposed to accounts from these religions.
Question Three b (to Theists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than the complete lack of belief in God?

In other words, is panentheism a more reasonable alternative to the opposite extreme of your position, considering that it's almost like a middle-point between religions which claim a God totally transcendent from reality and the atheist position that nothing has such a quality?



Feedback is appreciated!
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 12:17:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 12:40:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/4/2015 10:19:14 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

Yes I agree that an absence of contradictions doesn't necessarily make an argument true, but can we agree that if a contradiction arises, then the idea must be false. Two opposite things cannot be true at the same time. Similar things can be true, but not complete opposites. God cannot know the future, and then not know what choice we will make because it is free. Those are opposing statements, like saying 'that is a fork, that is a spoon, both of these statements are true'.

Well, ignoring for the moment the free will debate which isn't entirely accurately represented here (a lot depends on definitions), the point is: An argument is either good, or it isn't. It was arbitrary to talk about contradictions; there's lots of other factors that make an argument good. It's not a big deal, per se, but it was worth noting that internal consistency is not the arbiter of a good argument.

Yes I know that I didn't just offer a good argument against free will there, but I have many, many objections, and hopefully we can discuss these things. I hope I can offer you a Logical argument for God and the Scriptural position that He alone has created and Determined all things. We're going to have to discuss things like the Uncertainty Principle and Particle-Wave Duality of Quantum Mechanics, because I deny both of these things.

I hope you decide to. I look forward to hearing how you would reconcile these things. This thread is about pantheism and panentheism, which I think is an excellent and very unexpected Topic of the Month. I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you friend.

I don't have to reconcile the arguments of people who put forth conceptions of god--I'm an atheist. My point was that generally speaking, the idea being put forward is either incoherent for lack of sense, or it's contradictory, or it's not defined enough to be meaningful.

I see what you're saying. I knew you was an Atheist but I thought you was going to attempt to rationalize the Christian postition. I don't know why I thought that.

To draw it back to pantheism, since that was the original topic and I think I can work it in, pantheism says god = all of reality. Okay then, what distuinguishes "god" from "not god"? In what way is that established? How could you distinguish it from a situation wherein there's the absence of god? You have to be able to distinguish your concept from a fantasy, otherwise it's not a meaningful concept in reference to reality, it's basically a "Gee-whiz" thought.

No I can't answer these questions because I don't think pantheism makes any sense. But I do believe in panentheism, or whatever you want to call it. I believe in God outside and beyond physical reality, but everything that exist has its Origin in Him. That is why He is able to Cause all things into existence, because He is above all things.

Obviously, I don't think you're a pantheist, so I don't expect you to be responsible for answering these questions, or the many more I could raise on pantheism depending on how someone explained their position. If you want to present your own position, that's fine, but do recognize that odds are I will have seen your argument before and find it lacking; I say that because I've encountered many people over my time here and elsewhere in discussions who think they've got a slam dunk. I've yet to see a "new" argument presented by one of these folks. But, hey, far be it from me to think it's impossible!

I will offer my argument. It is a long one. I will start with if there is God, and then we can move to free will later. How can you believe in Determinism without first believing in the Determiner? First I want to show you an article from Stephen Hawkings.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

In this article, Mr. Hawkings tells us that the most Logical conclusion since the discovery of the microwave background radition is that the entire Universe was condensed into what we call a singularity. The Singularity was composed of all things that would ever exist. He then goes on to use the Uncertainty Principle to try an refute the Singularity, but as we will see later, the Uncertainty Principle is the new Scientists excuse for whatever nonsense they wish to say. So here are my questions,

Where does Love, Good, Evil, and Intelligence come from? Were they present within the Singularity? Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence? If the Singularity contained Intelligence, did it contain the means by which to use that Intelligence? If it contained the means by which to use Intelligence, did it use this Intelligence to Cause the universe into existence? If the following statements are True, then is this verse accurate,

""He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding." Jeremiah 51:15

I'm not trying to make this a debate about whether there is God or not, but this thread is about panetheism, so I hope to defend this postition the best that I can, if God should so will it to be. Thank you my friend.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 8:50:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 12:17:31 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 12:40:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/4/2015 10:19:14 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

Yes I agree that an absence of contradictions doesn't necessarily make an argument true, but can we agree that if a contradiction arises, then the idea must be false. Two opposite things cannot be true at the same time. Similar things can be true, but not complete opposites. God cannot know the future, and then not know what choice we will make because it is free. Those are opposing statements, like saying 'that is a fork, that is a spoon, both of these statements are true'.

Well, ignoring for the moment the free will debate which isn't entirely accurately represented here (a lot depends on definitions), the point is: An argument is either good, or it isn't. It was arbitrary to talk about contradictions; there's lots of other factors that make an argument good. It's not a big deal, per se, but it was worth noting that internal consistency is not the arbiter of a good argument.

Yes I know that I didn't just offer a good argument against free will there, but I have many, many objections, and hopefully we can discuss these things. I hope I can offer you a Logical argument for God and the Scriptural position that He alone has created and Determined all things. We're going to have to discuss things like the Uncertainty Principle and Particle-Wave Duality of Quantum Mechanics, because I deny both of these things.

Well, unfortunately, you don't have evidence on your side there.

I hope you decide to. I look forward to hearing how you would reconcile these things. This thread is about pantheism and panentheism, which I think is an excellent and very unexpected Topic of the Month. I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you friend.

I don't have to reconcile the arguments of people who put forth conceptions of god--I'm an atheist. My point was that generally speaking, the idea being put forward is either incoherent for lack of sense, or it's contradictory, or it's not defined enough to be meaningful.

I see what you're saying. I knew you was an Atheist but I thought you was going to attempt to rationalize the Christian postition. I don't know why I thought that.

To draw it back to pantheism, since that was the original topic and I think I can work it in, pantheism says god = all of reality. Okay then, what distuinguishes "god" from "not god"? In what way is that established? How could you distinguish it from a situation wherein there's the absence of god? You have to be able to distinguish your concept from a fantasy, otherwise it's not a meaningful concept in reference to reality, it's basically a "Gee-whiz" thought.

No I can't answer these questions because I don't think pantheism makes any sense. But I do believe in panentheism, or whatever you want to call it. I believe in God outside and beyond physical reality, but everything that exist has its Origin in Him. That is why He is able to Cause all things into existence, because He is above all things.

Obviously, I don't think you're a pantheist, so I don't expect you to be responsible for answering these questions, or the many more I could raise on pantheism depending on how someone explained their position. If you want to present your own position, that's fine, but do recognize that odds are I will have seen your argument before and find it lacking; I say that because I've encountered many people over my time here and elsewhere in discussions who think they've got a slam dunk. I've yet to see a "new" argument presented by one of these folks. But, hey, far be it from me to think it's impossible!

I will offer my argument. It is a long one. I will start with if there is God, and then we can move to free will later. How can you believe in Determinism without first believing in the Determiner?

That's not really a valid point. Determinism expressly ignores will. You're basically arguing for a first cause, but there's no reason whatsoever to presume that first cause would be "god".

First I want to show you an article from Stephen Hawkings.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

In this article, Mr. Hawkings tells us that the most Logical conclusion since the discovery of the microwave background radition is that the entire Universe was condensed into what we call a singularity. The Singularity was composed of all things that would ever exist. He then goes on to use the Uncertainty Principle to try an refute the Singularity, but as we will see later, the Uncertainty Principle is the new Scientists excuse for whatever nonsense they wish to say.

No, it isn't. You can't just handwave away things. The uncertainty principle has been an accepted theory for nearly 100 years, and all of our findings support it. Don't get me wrong, obviously folks are constantly exploring it, but you can't just say "nope", you'd have to present an argument that was in keeping with the findings.

So here are my questions,

Where does Love, Good, Evil, and Intelligence come from? Were they present within the Singularity?

Well, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist. That said, the singularity held all of the matter and energy of the universe. It wasn't necessarily conscious. Love is a state of consciousness, and good and evil are descriptors given by consciousness to acts done by consciousness. So those things didn't "exist" yet. But neither did many of the elements that exist now because of stars.

Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence?

No.

If the Singularity contained Intelligence, did it contain the means by which to use that Intelligence? If it contained the means by which to use Intelligence, did it use this Intelligence to Cause the universe into existence? If the following statements are True, then is this verse accurate,

""He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding." Jeremiah 51:15

No.

It is, of course, POSSIBLE for this to be the case; i can't prove it's not true. That doesn't make it the case. Lots of things are possibly true, and we generally require people to have better arguments than "you can't prove this is impossible" for their claims to accept them as valid.

I'm not trying to make this a debate about whether there is God or not, but this thread is about panetheism, so I hope to defend this postition the best that I can, if God should so will it to be. Thank you my friend.

Well, you had said you had an argument for the existence of god, and Shab said he was okay with the side-track, so if you wanted to present it, feel free.

I would argue that what you've presented here falls into the "gee-whiz" category. You've come up with an idea (that the singularity had some kind of consciousness) for which there's no evidence, but that doesn't necessarily contradict what we know about the universe (notwithstanding your strange points about quantum physics). There are an infinite number of ideas that could not contradict what we know, you'd have to come up with a reason why your idea is true.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 10:51:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 8:50:07 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/5/2015 12:17:31 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 12:40:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/4/2015 10:19:14 AM, anonymouswho wrote:


Well, unfortunately, you don't have evidence on your side there.

Thanks for the reply my friend. I have a very important question. What is evidence? I hear this term a lot, and I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Google says that Evidence is the available body of facts or information INDICATING whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Merriam-Webster says that Evidence is something which SHOWS that something else exists or is true:

Wikipedia says that Evidence, broadly construed, is ANYTHING presented in SUPPORT of an ASSERTION. This support may be strong or weak.

I need to know if these are valid definitions of Evidence, otherwise you can just deny anything I say by asserting that I have no evidence. That wouldn't be very fair given the definitions above. I'd really appreciate if we can come to an agreement on this term. Thank you.

I see what you're saying. I knew you was an Atheist but I thought you was going to attempt to rationalize the Christian postition. I don't know why I thought that.



That's not really a valid point. Determinism expressly ignores will. You're basically arguing for a first cause, but there's no reason whatsoever to presume that first cause would be "god".

I don't believe Determinism ignores will. I believe we all have a will, it's just not free from the unfathomable amount of Causes working against it. It was my will to reply to this thread, but there are several external and internal reasons why my will was directed to reply here.

Yes I am arguing for a first Cause, and if it is true that there was a first Cause, then this first Cause must have contained everything that exist. Things don't just randomly pop out of nowhere. Where is nowhere? Why else would hydrogen and oxygen come together to make water? Why are these things natural occurences? Where does Knowledge come from? Does the fact that Knowledge exists and the world is governed by Laws not "indicate" that there was a first Cause that must have had the potential to bring about Knowledge? If It had the potential to bring about Knowledge, why is it unreasonable to assert that it contained Knowledge?


No, it isn't. You can't just handwave away things. The uncertainty principle has been an accepted theory for nearly 100 years, and all of our findings support it. Don't get me wrong, obviously folks are constantly exploring it, but you can't just say "nope", you'd have to present an argument that was in keeping with the findings.

Pilot-Wave Theory for Determinism, Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment for Fatalism. Here is a few articles about them.

Pilot Wave Theory:

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://www.wired.com...

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

http://fqxi.org...

http://plato.stanford.edu...

So which is it? Uncertainty, Pilot-Wave, or neither because the Delayed Choice experiment suggests that the past is Caused by the Future (Fatalism)?

Well, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist. That said, the singularity held all of the matter and energy of the universe. It wasn't necessarily conscious. Love is a state of consciousness, and good and evil are descriptors given by consciousness to acts done by consciousness. So those things didn't "exist" yet. But neither did many of the elements that exist now because of stars.

So what is Consciousness? Is it not energy contained within matter (brain)? Besides Michio Kaku, a lot of Neuroscientists believe in Determinism. Professor Patrick Haggard says you have to believe in Determinism to be a Neuroscientists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

From source "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'. It's richness of the action that you do make, acting smart rather than acting dumb, which is free will."


Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence?

No.

I disagree.


No.

It is, of course, POSSIBLE for this to be the case; i can't prove it's not true. That doesn't make it the case. Lots of things are possibly true, and we generally require people to have better arguments than "you can't prove this is impossible" for their claims to accept them as valid.

Yes, but we're not looking for a mere possibility here. We are looking for the most Logical conclusion. I'm quite aware that this cannot be proven, but I hope to provide a very logical argument.


Well, you had said you had an argument for the existence of god, and Shab said he was okay with the side-track, so if you wanted to present it, feel free.

I am presenting it, but I only have 8,000 letters to type.

I would argue that what you've presented here falls into the "gee-whiz" category. You've come up with an idea (that the singularity had some kind of consciousness) for which there's no evidence, but that doesn't necessarily contradict what we know about the universe (notwithstanding your strange points about quantum physics). There are an infinite number of ideas that could not contradict what we know, you'd have to come up with a reason why your idea is true.

You can argue that. I'm simply providing evidence that indicates that my proposition is true. Whether you believe it is not up to neither you nor me. God has Determined all things for His own Purpose.

I have to go to bed now, but I'll be back on tonight. Thank you for having this conversation with me and I hope you are enjoin it. God bless you my friend.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:29:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 10:51:50 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

Google says...

In general, when I've encountered someone who demands we begin by getting the definition of things like this, I've found that their argument is just absurdly bad and a waste of my time. Now, I'm not saying yours is, I'm saying that spending a great deal of time on the definition of a word like evidence is only useful in this particular discussion inasmuch as there's something to discuss about it. If, for example, you say "My evidence is my gut feeling", then the time we'll have spent hammering out the definition of "evidence" is going to be a waste of time. Definitions require varying degrees of precision. Yes, those definitions you listed are generally okay, but it's not as though it's impossible to attempt to twist semantics to get them to apply to nonsense. When we say "you don't have evidence" we usually mean "you don't have any acceptable evidence that properly supports your point". For example, gut feelings could technically be called "evidence", but no one would accept them as such in support of a proposition, because then anybody's "gut feeling" would be accepted and that would never be practical.

That's not really a valid point. Determinism expressly ignores will. You're basically arguing for a first cause, but there's no reason whatsoever to presume that first cause would be "god".

I don't believe Determinism ignores will. I believe we all have a will, it's just not free from the unfathomable amount of Causes working against it. It was my will to reply to this thread, but there are several external and internal reasons why my will was directed to reply here.

If you believe in what most consider "free will", then you aren't a "true" determinist--that is, you believe something exists independently of determinism, namely your will. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but it's worthwhile to point it out. Determinism is about things being determined--it's causation. So if your will is not "caused" by anything (or at least, if there's a part of it that is not "caused" by anything), then your will is non-deterministic.

Yes I am arguing for a first Cause, and if it is true that there was a first Cause, then this first Cause must have contained everything that exist. Things don't just randomly pop out of nowhere. Where is nowhere? Why else would hydrogen and oxygen come together to make water? Why are these things natural occurences? Where does Knowledge come from? Does the fact that Knowledge exists and the world is governed by Laws not "indicate" that there was a first Cause that must have had the potential to bring about Knowledge? If It had the potential to bring about Knowledge, why is it unreasonable to assert that it contained Knowledge?

This is what's known as the "appeal to ignorance". You're arguing that you can't think of an answer except the one you thought of, therefore it's true. That's not a valid argument, and is a pretty well-known fallacy. It's also worth noting that "First cause" arguments are special pleading--"The universe can't have had no cause, because everything needs a cause, therefore there must have been a cause, that cause is god, god doesn't need a cause" is contradictory. And creation ex nihilo is a topic unto itself. Suffice to say, you'd have to prove that true "nothing" was even possible to exist, which I don't think you can. Under current cosmological models, we don't know what the state of things pre-singularity was--the singularity is the point at which everything we know breaks down. It's not that scientists have said "There was true nothingness, then a singularity", because that doesn't even make sense since even the time we experience itself seems to have come from the expansion of the singularity.

So which is it? Uncertainty, Pilot-Wave, or neither because the Delayed Choice experiment suggests that the past is Caused by the Future (Fatalism)?

Well, generally speaking, we don't throw out well-established theories based on experiments that have yet to be extensively replicated.

Suffice to say, none of those actually defeat the uncertainty principle itself--your retrocausality article even notes that the Uncertainty principle could be a reflection of the retrocausality, thus still a part of their theory.

So what is Consciousness? Is it not energy contained within matter (brain)? Besides Michio Kaku, a lot of Neuroscientists believe in Determinism. Professor Patrick Haggard says you have to believe in Determinism to be a Neuroscientists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

From source "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'. It's richness of the action that you do make, acting smart rather than acting dumb, which is free will."

I thought you said you believed in free will? Do you not? Because that's the point he was making, so if you're using it, and accepting it, then you're accepting you don't have free will.

Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence?

No.

I disagree.

You can feel free to disagree if you'd like. The fact is that it's not necessary to explain the points you raise, so it wouldn't "mean" that. It COULD "mean" that, but you can't just assert it.

Yes, but we're not looking for a mere possibility here. We are looking for the most Logical conclusion. I'm quite aware that this cannot be proven, but I hope to provide a very logical argument.

You're going beyond things that we know, and then trying to construct a case using logic divorced from reality. As pretty a syllogism as that may produce, it won't necessarily accurately reflect reality. Given that we have no evidence of God, at present God is an entity that violates Occam's Razor and, coupled with having no prior plausibility, cannot possibly be the "most logical conclusion". You may as well argue that "universe creating pixies" is the most logical conclusion. You can't prove they don't exist, to be sure, and you can give me all these attributes you've thought of for the pixies that totally make them so logical to you. It won't make them exist, though.

I would argue that what you've presented here falls into the "gee-whiz" category. You've come up with an idea (that the singularity had some kind of consciousness) for which there's no evidence, but that doesn't necessarily contradict what we know about the universe (notwithstanding your strange points about quantum physics). There are an infinite number of ideas that could not contradict what we know, you'd have to come up with a reason why your idea is true.

You can argue that. I'm simply providing evidence that indicates that my proposition is true.

I disagree. You've presented evidence, to be sure, but you haven't linked it in any reasonable way to the truth of your proposition such that it supports it in any meaningful sense. Assserting something doesn't make it so, and thus far I've seen a lot of assertions.

How about this: rather than responding point-by-point, give me a syllogism that you believe to be sound that justifies an assertion that God is real. We'll work off that.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:41:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And just to expand a bit more on my points regarding your links:

"Quantum physics says that particles can behave like waves, and vice versa. Researchers have now shown that this 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum uncertainty principle in disguise. "

That's from your article.

Please don't confuse wave-particle duality with the uncertainty principle itself.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:53:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:29:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:51:50 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

Google says...

In general, when I've encountered someone who demands we begin by getting the definition of things like this, I've found that their argument is just absurdly bad and a waste of my time. Now, I'm not saying yours is, I'm saying that spending a great deal of time on the definition of a word like evidence is only useful in this particular discussion inasmuch as there's something to discuss about it. If, for example, you say "My evidence is my gut feeling", then the time we'll have spent hammering out the definition of "evidence" is going to be a waste of time. Definitions require varying degrees of precision. Yes, those definitions you listed are generally okay, but it's not as though it's impossible to attempt to twist semantics to get them to apply to nonsense. When we say "you don't have evidence" we usually mean "you don't have any acceptable evidence that properly supports your point". For example, gut feelings could technically be called "evidence", but no one would accept them as such in support of a proposition, because then anybody's "gut feeling" would be accepted and that would never be practical.

That is acceptable and understandable. However, I am in a similar situation. I have found that when one asks for evidence, then no matter how much Scientific and Philosophical evidence I provide, they can just claim that it is not "acceptable". So they therefore are not looking for evidence, they are looking for proof. It is impossible to prove anything, the only exception being mathematics. Now mathematics cannot prove a proposition is true, but math cannot be false. 1+2=3 will always be true no matter what. I will get into this later, but for now I hope we can both agree that I am not trying to prove that God exists, I am simply giving my argument for why I believe it is true. As long as my evidence is relevant and does not contradict what I'm saying, then there should be no reason to deny that I have provided evidence.


If you believe in what most consider "free will", then you aren't a "true" determinist--that is, you believe something exists independently of determinism, namely your will. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but it's worthwhile to point it out. Determinism is about things being determined--it's causation. So if your will is not "caused" by anything (or at least, if there's a part of it that is not "caused" by anything), then your will is non-deterministic.

I think there has been a massive misunderstanding. I wholehearted deny free will. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I believe in it. I believe all is of God and He works all things after the council of His own will. I do not, however, deny that I have a will. My will is whatever I want to do, and because I want to do things, I have a will. I'm saying that the things I will and the choices I make are by no means "free". I want to do things because something Caused me to desire it. The person I've turned out to be was Determined at the moment God said let there be Light. I will discuss this more when I give you my syllogism. But please reread what I wrote knowing that I deny free will. Hopefully it will make more sense.

This is what's known as the "appeal to ignorance". You're arguing that you can't think of an answer except the one you thought of, therefore it's true. That's not a valid argument, and is a pretty well-known fallacy. It's also worth noting that "First cause" arguments are special pleading--"The universe can't have had no cause, because everything needs a cause, therefore there must have been a cause, that cause is god, god doesn't need a cause" is contradictory. And creation ex nihilo is a topic unto itself. Suffice to say, you'd have to prove that true "nothing" was even possible to exist, which I don't think you can. Under current cosmological models, we don't know what the state of things pre-singularity was--the singularity is the point at which everything we know breaks down. It's not that scientists have said "There was true nothingness, then a singularity", because that doesn't even make sense since even the time we experience itself seems to have come from the expansion of the singularity.

Well, generally speaking, we don't throw out well-established theories based on experiments that have yet to be extensively replicated.

Suffice to say, none of those actually defeat the uncertainty principle itself--your retrocausality article even notes that the Uncertainty principle could be a reflection of the retrocausality, thus still a part of their theory.

So what is Consciousness? Is it not energy contained within matter (brain)? Besides Michio Kaku, a lot of Neuroscientists believe in Determinism. Professor Patrick Haggard says you have to believe in Determinism to be a Neuroscientists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

From source "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'. It's richness of the action that you do make, acting smart rather than acting dumb, which is free will."

I thought you said you believed in free will? Do you not? Because that's the point he was making, so if you're using it, and accepting it, then you're accepting you don't have free will.



You can feel free to disagree if you'd like. The fact is that it's not necessary to explain the points you raise, so it wouldn't "mean" that. It COULD "mean" that, but you can't just assert it.


You're going beyond things that we know, and then trying to construct a case using logic divorced from reality. As pretty a syllogism as that may produce, it won't necessarily accurately reflect reality. Given that we have no evidence of God, at present God is an entity that violates Occam's Razor and, coupled with having no prior plausibility, cannot possibly be the "most logical conclusion". You may as well argue that "universe creating pixies" is the most logical conclusion. You can't prove they don't exist, to be sure, and you can give me all these attributes you've thought of for the pixies that totally make them so logical to you. It won't make them exist, though.

I disagree. You've presented evidence, to be sure, but you haven't linked it in any reasonable way to the truth of your proposition such that it supports it in any meaningful sense. Assserting something doesn't make it so, and thus far I've seen a lot of assertions.

How about this: rather than responding point-by-point, give me a syllogism that you believe to be sound that justifies an assertion that God is real. We'll work off that.

I will address everything you wrote later tonight. I'm going to start from the beginning now that you know I deny free will. Also, please tell me which article I provided that says Particle-Wave Duality is the Uncertainty Principle in disguise. I tried to find it but was unable. I've read an article about that before, but I don't know why that would be in my sources, unless I sent the wrong link. Thank you my friend. I will get started on my proposal soon.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 12:12:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:53:53 PM, anonymouswho wrote:

I will address everything you wrote later tonight. I'm going to start from the beginning now that you know I deny free will. Also, please tell me which article I provided that says Particle-Wave Duality is the Uncertainty Principle in disguise. I tried to find it but was unable. I've read an article about that before, but I don't know why that would be in my sources, unless I sent the wrong link. Thank you my friend. I will get started on my proposal soon.

I'll wait for the full response. However, I think I need to apologize--I may have gotten my sources/links confused, because I'm not immediately seeing that quote, and I straight-up copy/pasted it, so it may have been that I accidentally was looking at a different page at the time. I'll look again later with fresher eyes, but I think I erred, and that's my fault: sorry.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 1:06:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 12:12:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:53:53 PM, anonymouswho wrote:

I will address everything you wrote later tonight. I'm going to start from the beginning now that you know I deny free will. Also, please tell me which article I provided that says Particle-Wave Duality is the Uncertainty Principle in disguise. I tried to find it but was unable. I've read an article about that before, but I don't know why that would be in my sources, unless I sent the wrong link. Thank you my friend. I will get started on my proposal soon.

I'll wait for the full response. However, I think I need to apologize--I may have gotten my sources/links confused, because I'm not immediately seeing that quote, and I straight-up copy/pasted it, so it may have been that I accidentally was looking at a different page at the time. I'll look again later with fresher eyes, but I think I erred, and that's my fault: sorry.

Not a problem my friend. I will write my proposal soon, but I have to write a few other people first because they only require small responses. I do want to ask though, does what I say make a little more sense now that you know I deny free will? If you see me contradict myself, please rebuke me immediately. Thank you.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 8:22:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
/2015 12:12:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:53:53 PM, anonymouswho wrote:

Hello my good friend. Im sorry for the delay but had some things I had to do. I want to start out by clearly laying out my conclusions so that there's no confusion, and so you can test everything I say against my overall proposal. Remember that I am not saying this is nessesary or absolute. I'm also not claiming that I alone possess this Knowledge; I have learned it from many men such as Paul, John, Peter, the Prophets, and of course the Man and Son of God, Messiah Yeshua.

I believe that the Universe has not always existed based on the microwave radiation background and the expansion of the Universe. I believe Cause and Effect is a universal Law (described by Newton's Laws of Motion) that can never be broken within the physical Universe. I believe we have a will, but I deny that it is in any way "free", based on physical determinism and neuroscience. I believe that we make choices, but I deny that we are "free" to make any other choice than the one we decide upon, based on Determinism and our cognitive inability to know all available consequences that might arise from our decisions.

So with that said, I will now attempt to provide a reasonable argument for the existence of God.

Proposition 1: I believe that the Initial Cause is God, and that He has the Knowledge to know every variable that is hidden from of our limited capacity, as well as the Knowledge of what each of these subsequent Causes will bring into Effect. This is why God says

"Remember the former things of old: for I"am"God, and"there is"none else;"I am"God, and"there is"none like me,
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times"the things"that are not"yet"done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" Isaiah 46:9

Evidence: The Universe had a beginning. This is proven by the microwave radiation background and the expansion of the Universe. Because the Universe had a beginning, there must have been something that exists before the Universe. Otherwise there was no-thing, and then some-thing. This breaks the First Law of Motion which states that an object at rest will remain at rest until an external force Causes it to move. Therefore, if there was no-thing, then there was nothing external to act upon it; no-thing would have remained in an eternal state of no-thing.

So there must have been an Initial Cause. This Cause couldn't be completely Random because randomness is not something we observe in the physical Universe. Our limited cognitive capacity is the reason we experience uncertainty and randomness in our day to day lives, but if all variables are accounted for, then every subsequent event can be Determined by Cause and Effect.

Proposition 2: God has all Wisdom and Knowledge, and He used this Wisdom to Cause the Universe into existence. That is why the Scriptures say,

"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Proverbs 3:19

"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion." Jeremiah 10:12

"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding." Jeremiah 51:15

Evidence: Before the Uncertainty Principle was used as an excuse for whatever nonsense a man wished to claim, the only Logical conclusion about the Origin of the Universe was that infinite matter and infinite energy existed in an infinitely dense Singularity. Since the brain is matter and it uses energy to produce Consciousness, then the required ingredients to bring about Consciousness must have existed within the Singularity. Because the Singularity existed in an eternal state with the required ingredients of Conciousness, and then at some point "decided" to bring forth the Universe, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Singularity had both a Will and a Purpose.

Proposition 3: God has Determined all things from the very beginning. He was finished with His work on the Sixth Day, and now we patiently wait for His work to unfold. There is no free will because we all do according to what God has purposed. The final outcome of His work is perfect and good, because God is Love. That is why the Scriptures say,

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased,"that"DID he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of HIS OWN WILL" Ephesians 1:11

"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed,so"shall it stand" Isaiah 14:24

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the WORKS WERE FINISHED from the foundation of the world." Hebrews 4:3

Evidence: After the Big Bang, Causality took its course to bring about all things. First there was Light, just as the Scriptures tell us. This Light is the Universal Speed Limit of all things, so that an Effect can never precede it's Cause. Therefore everything that happens is Caused by its preceding Effect, and all Effects are Caused by The Initial Cause of the Big Bang. So, once the Big Bang occured, everything that has ever happened was already finished because the Big Bang determined it to be.

Now I will tell you what I actually believe.

There was no Singularity nor a Big Bang. There was only God and He desired to make Mankind because He was alone and He wanted to reproduce Himself for the sake of Love. He gave us Earth and He gave us His living Spirit when Adam breathed the breath of Life and became a living soul (spirit and flesh combined). Man was an empty vessel with no Knowledge. God gave man the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because this is a requirement to be like God, and He is "making" man in His Image. This involves the Experience of Evil so that we can develop the Wisdom and Prudence to choose only Good. God has successfully brought about all that He desires, and when He raised His Son Yeshua from the dead (who was never overcome by Evil and chose only Good), He confirmed to us that His Plan is right on schedule. He has chosen some to believe and spread the Good News of what He has done for mankind. Whosoever believes has "eternal life".

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

Besides the fact that there is no Koine Greek term for "eternal" and Yeshua actually said "Aionios Zoe", which literally translates to "concerning the age Life", eternal life is nothing more than knowing God and knowing our Lord and Elder Brother, Yeshua the Messiah (I say nothing more to indicate that this does not imply a literal eternal life, however it is so much more than anything could ever provide to us!)

God has created all, and He will not lose one thing that He has made. There is no pagan hell or some silly character named Lucifer that is battling God for souls. God is willing and able to bring all of mankind to Himself, and nothing can stop Him. We will all be called Children of the Most High. And that is the True Gospel (Good News) that God has revealed to us.

So, is any of this true? I don't know, but it sounds pretty solid to me. However, I'm only 25 years old so I'm sure I have a lot of learning to do. Is any of this false? Who cares, I'm going to die one day so everything is meaningless anyways. But I have hope, and hope brings me joy, and joy brings me contentment, so that I never have to worry about anything because I know God is in complete control. God loves you, and whether you believe Him or not, His love is still true.

Thank you my friend and God bless you.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 11:20:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 1:06:43 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/6/2015 12:12:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:53:53 PM, anonymouswho wrote:

I will address everything you wrote later tonight. I'm going to start from the beginning now that you know I deny free will. Also, please tell me which article I provided that says Particle-Wave Duality is the Uncertainty Principle in disguise. I tried to find it but was unable. I've read an article about that before, but I don't know why that would be in my sources, unless I sent the wrong link. Thank you my friend. I will get started on my proposal soon.

I'll wait for the full response. However, I think I need to apologize--I may have gotten my sources/links confused, because I'm not immediately seeing that quote, and I straight-up copy/pasted it, so it may have been that I accidentally was looking at a different page at the time. I'll look again later with fresher eyes, but I think I erred, and that's my fault: sorry.

Not a problem my friend. I will write my proposal soon, but I have to write a few other people first because they only require small responses. I do want to ask though, does what I say make a little more sense now that you know I deny free will? If you see me contradict myself, please rebuke me immediately. Thank you.

I still will point out that the things you pointed out don't invalidate the uncertainty principle. That said, the uncertainty principle doesn't directly link to will/free will, so yes, I do understand your position somewhat better knowing you believe in a deterministic universe.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 11:23:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 8:22:44 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

I believe that the Universe has not always existed based on the microwave radiation background and the expansion of the Universe.

You have to be careful here. We know with reasonable certainty that all of the energy of the universe as we understand it came from the singularity--but we don't (and to some extent can't) know what happened at the singularity. So you can't just say "that's the beginning of all that is", rather, "that's the beginning of our space-time".

So with that said, I will now attempt to provide a reasonable argument for the existence of God.

Proposition 1: I believe that the Initial Cause is God, and that He has the Knowledge to know every variable that is hidden from of our limited capacity, as well as the Knowledge of what each of these subsequent Causes will bring into Effect. This is why God says

Evidence: The Universe had a beginning. This is proven by the microwave radiation background and the expansion of the Universe. Because the Universe had a beginning, there must have been something that exists before the Universe.

As far as we can tell, time itself started at the big bang. Everything breaks down at the singularity, including time itself. There isn't "before" the universe in the same was as there is, say "the day before yesterday".

Otherwise there was no-thing, and then some-thing.

Not really, given the time issue.

This breaks the First Law of Motion which states that an object at rest will remain at rest until an external force Causes it to move.

No it doesn't. If there isn't an object, it's not "at rest".

I think you might be thinking of the law of conservation of energy?

Therefore, if there was no-thing, then there was nothing external to act upon it; no-thing would have remained in an eternal state of no-thing.

So there must have been an Initial Cause. This Cause couldn't be completely Random because randomness is not something we observe in the physical Universe.

We do observe randomness, however. The decay of nuclear elements is random.

Our limited cognitive capacity is the reason we experience uncertainty and randomness in our day to day lives, but if all variables are accounted for, then every subsequent event can be Determined by Cause and Effect.

You can't prove that, though. As far as we can tell, there IS randomness at the quantum level. That's the whole point of quantum physics.

Proposition 2: God has all Wisdom and Knowledge, and He used this Wisdom to Cause the Universe into existence. That is why the Scriptures say,

Evidence: Before the Uncertainty Principle was used as an excuse for whatever nonsense a man wished to claim, the only Logical conclusion about the Origin of the Universe was that infinite matter and infinite energy existed in an infinitely dense Singularity. Since the brain is matter and it uses energy to produce Consciousness, then the required ingredients to bring about Consciousness must have existed within the Singularity. Because the Singularity existed in an eternal state with the required ingredients of Conciousness, and then at some point "decided" to bring forth the Universe, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Singularity had both a Will and a Purpose.

I would argue that it is unreasonable to assert it. I can have all the ingredients to a cake in my cabinet, but if I were to argue that I therefore have a cake in the cabinet, it wouldn't really be "reasonable" to do so. Maybe I have a cake in my cabinet, maybe I don't, but merely having the ingredients does not mean I have a cake necessarily. To the best of our experience, consciousness exists in living brains. The singularity wasn't a living brain, as far as we can tell, so I would argue the most reasonable conclusion is that it didn't have consciousness.

Evidence: After the Big Bang, Causality took its course to bring about all things.... once the Big Bang occured, everything that has ever happened was already finished because the Big Bang determined it to be.

That's determinism, and it's a fine position, but on its own doesn't really support anything about a god. That there's determinism doesn't mean there must have been a plan.

Now I will tell you what I actually believe.

There was no Singularity nor a Big Bang.

If you believe that, however, then some of your points which are based on them become invalid.

There was only God and He desired to make Mankind ....

Your arguments don't really support the conception your provide here.

So, is any of this true? I don't know, but it sounds pretty solid to me. However, I'm only 25 years old so I'm sure I have a lot of learning to do. Is any of this false? Who cares, I'm going to die one day so everything is meaningless anyways. But I have hope, and hope brings me joy, and joy brings me contentment, so that I never have to worry about anything because I know God is in complete control. God loves you, and whether you believe Him or not, His love is still true.

Of course, you're free to believe what you want. Personally, I feel like we should only believe things for good reason, and that there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I don't know what or whether something created the singularity. Someday we may find out more, but in the meantime, people making claims about it do so without sufficient evidence to warrant their claim.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 11:55:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:32:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Question One: Can a meaningful distinction be made between pantheism and panentheism?

By definition, yes. Panthiests as you described believe God is the universe, so there would be nothing more. This to me is nothing more than atheists pretending to be theists.

Penenthiests believe God is the universe plus more. This always makes me wonder... why not just forget about the universe part and talk about the "something more"? Seems to me more like an excuse to focus on the universe (which we all agree exists) and hide away from discussing this "something more" that is rarely defined and I have yet to see supported.

Question Two: Is there any way to validate panentheism/is pantheism less demanding of a belief system to hold in terms of the leaps in logic needed to justify it when compared to panentheism?

I think Pantheism is definitely simpler, although asserting that there is nothing beyond the universe is still as unjustified as asserting that there is more.

Question Three a (to Atheists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than traditional conceptions of religion (such as Abrahamic monotheism)?

Perhaps to those who are not well versed on philosophy and logic. It does not come with the same level of baggage so that makes it easier to accept for many but those of us who understand how rational argument works see that they both have zero evidence and no valid argument to support the conclusion.

Question Three b (to Theists/Agnostics): Is panentheism easier to defend than the complete lack of belief in God?

As an atheist I would of course say no.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:09:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 11:23:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/6/2015 8:22:44 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

I believe that the Universe has not always existed based on the microwave radiation background and the expansion of the Universe.

You have to be careful here. We know with reasonable certainty that all of the energy of the universe as we understand it came from the singularity--but we don't (and to some extent can't) know what happened at the singularity. So you can't just say "that's the beginning of all that is", rather, "that's the beginning of our space-time".

I can say with very good confidence that nothing existed before the Singularity based on the fact that it is impossible to observe before Planck time after the Big Bang. To ascribe anything else before the Singularity is impossible to prove. However, I believe rather than philosophically deny the Singularity, we should instead spend our time trying to understand It. That us why I said I don't actually believe in the Singularity. Nothing about the Singularity contradicts with God, so I believe It is merely misunderstood.

So with that said, I will now attempt to provide a reasonable argument for the existence of God.


As far as we can tell, time itself started at the big bang. Everything breaks down at the singularity, including time itself. There isn't "before" the universe in the same was as there is, say "the day before yesterday".

I believe the same about God. He neither "was" nor "will He be". He simply IS.

Otherwise there was no-thing, and then some-thing.

Not really, given the time issue.

Are you suggesting Imaginary Time? I just wrote somebody about this, but I want to make sure this is what you're talking about.

This breaks the First Law of Motion which states that an object at rest will remain at rest until an external force Causes it to move.

No it doesn't. If there isn't an object, it's not "at rest".

If the Universe is not an object, how can it contain mass and energy? What was it?

I think you might be thinking of the law of conservation of energy?

Therefore, if there was no-thing, then there was nothing external to act upon it; no-thing would have remained in an eternal state of no-thing.

No, this is where I'm talking about the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is what Stephen Hawking says about the Second Law of Therodynamics:

"But if"your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. inning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time."

He then goes on a rant about the Uncertainty Principle, like all Philosophical Scientists do.


We do observe randomness, however. The decay of nuclear elements is random.

I agree that "we" observe randomness, but the more we learn about a particular event (Effect), the more "hidden variables" we find that accommodate the Cause of that event. However, we are limited in what we are able to know, and this is obvious and true. That is why we can only take the Universe in probabilities, even though the Laws of the Universe show us that all things have Causes that are ultimately Determined. Such as the roulette wheel.

http://m.phys.org...


You can't prove that, though. As far as we can tell, there IS randomness at the quantum level. That's the whole point of quantum physics.

Of course, I can't prove anything. But all the Laws of Physics explicitly show this to be true, and there are valid interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that account for the randomness.


I would argue that it is unreasonable to assert it. I can have all the ingredients to a cake in my cabinet, but if I were to argue that I therefore have a cake in the cabinet, it wouldn't really be "reasonable" to do so. Maybe I have a cake in my cabinet, maybe I don't, but merely having the ingredients does not mean I have a cake necessarily. To the best of our experience, consciousness exists in living brains. The singularity wasn't a living brain, as far as we can tell, so I would argue the most reasonable conclusion is that it didn't have consciousness.

I thought of this exact anology after I wrote you, cake and all. I thought "well I can have the ingredients to anything in a single area, but that doesn't necessarily make the final outcome", and that is true. However, there are a few things missing from this anology. First, the Singularity was infinitely dense, so we must first imagine that all the ingredients are mixed together rather than in the cupboard. This still doesn't give us a cake however. That is, until you put it in the oven and add heat (Energy). Our brains use 20% of our bodies total energy, that is why a hearty breakfast is so important. So I believe this assertion is reasonable.


That's determinism, and it's a fine position, but on its own doesn't really support anything about a god. That there's determinism doesn't mean there must have been a plan.

I agree, but again, it is definitely not unreasonable to believe there is a plan that Determinism is working towards. Determinism leads us to the Singularity, Who is the Single God, Determiner of all things.

Now I will tell you what I actually believe.

There was no Singularity nor a Big Bang.

If you believe that, however, then some of your points which are based on them become invalid.

I addressed this above. The Singularity is simply misunderstood because Science tries to deny It rather than understand It.

There was only God and He desired to make Mankind ....

Your arguments don't really support the conception your provide here.

I'm only telling you what I believe. This assertion has nothing to do with Science, but with the Philosophy of the purpose of Life.

Of course, you're free to believe what you want. Personally, I feel like we should only believe things for good reason, and that there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I don't know what or whether something created the singularity. Someday we may find out more, but in the meantime, people making claims about it do so without sufficient evidence to warrant their claim.

I agree that plenty of evidence is lacking, just as an innumerable amount of evidence is lacking for most of the Philosophical ideas of new Science. I also don't believe we will ever aquire the unlimited amount of knowledge it would take to understand everything, but I feel that my proposition is reasonable, and that the ancient Scriptures are Logical and Reasonably True. That is why Yeshua is called the Logos (Greek- Logic, Reason, Word). The Logic of God is without contradictions and

Thank you my friend.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 10:38:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 9:09:31 AM, anonymouswho wrote:

I can say with very good confidence that nothing existed before the Singularity based on the fact that it is impossible to observe before Planck time after the Big Bang.

That would be why you can't say that nothing existed before the Singularity. You're describing the boundary of our knowledge. We don't know.

As far as we can tell, time itself started at the big bang. Everything breaks down at the singularity, including time itself. There isn't "before" the universe in the same was as there is, say "the day before yesterday".

I believe the same about God. He neither "was" nor "will He be". He simply IS.

Okay. But there's no reason to suppose that other than that you thought of it. (Or that someone did, I'm not saying you originated the idea).


Otherwise there was no-thing, and then some-thing.

Not really, given the time issue.

Are you suggesting Imaginary Time? I just wrote somebody about this, but I want to make sure this is what you're talking about.

I'm saying that it's incoherent to, where our conception of time breaks down, to say there was X, then not-X. You're using temporal terms here, where you can't because even time breaks down. Change, as far as we can conceive, requires time.

This breaks the First Law of Motion which states that an object at rest will remain at rest until an external force Causes it to move.

No it doesn't. If there isn't an object, it's not "at rest".

If the Universe is not an object, how can it contain mass and energy? What was it?

I didn't say that. I said "not existing" is not the same as "at rest".

No, this is where I'm talking about the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Which is not the First Law of Motion, which was my point.

You ARE talking about the Thermodynamics, not Motion, which is where "object at rest tends to stay at rest" comes from. The Second Law is entropy, which isn't relevant to your point.

We do observe randomness, however. The decay of nuclear elements is random.

I agree that "we" observe randomness, but the more we learn about a particular event (Effect), the more "hidden variables" we find that accommodate the Cause of that event. However, we are limited in what we are able to know, and this is obvious and true. That is why we can only take the Universe in probabilities, even though the Laws of the Universe show us that all things have Causes that are ultimately Determined. Such as the roulette wheel.

No, it doesn't.

You can't just assert that there is a hidden variable. You have to demonstrate it. As of now, there is no hidden variable for the decay of radioactive elements. So until you can demonstrate there is, you're making a bare assertion.

You can't prove that, though. As far as we can tell, there IS randomness at the quantum level. That's the whole point of quantum physics.

Of course, I can't prove anything. But all the Laws of Physics explicitly show this to be true, and there are valid interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that account for the randomness.

By accepting it, yes.

I would argue that it is unreasonable to assert it. I can have all the ingredients to a cake in my cabinet, but if I were to argue that I therefore have a cake in the cabinet, it wouldn't really be "reasonable" to do so. Maybe I have a cake in my cabinet, maybe I don't, but merely having the ingredients does not mean I have a cake necessarily. To the best of our experience, consciousness exists in living brains. The singularity wasn't a living brain, as far as we can tell, so I would argue the most reasonable conclusion is that it didn't have consciousness.

I thought of this exact anology after I wrote you, cake and all. I thought "well I can have the ingredients to anything in a single area, but that doesn't necessarily make the final outcome", and that is true. However, there are a few things missing from this anology. First, the Singularity was infinitely dense, so we must first imagine that all the ingredients are mixed together rather than in the cupboard. This still doesn't give us a cake however. That is, until you put it in the oven and add heat (Energy). Our brains use 20% of our bodies total energy, that is why a hearty breakfast is so important. So I believe this assertion is reasonable.

Then you are mistaken. A cake, to continue the analogy, requires a precise amount of energy. Too much and I don't have a cake, I have a charcoal briquette. It requires the ingredients to be combined a certain way, as well.

In the singularity, we don't have any evidence that either of those was the case. If I have the ingredients to a cake, and a bunch of bags of chips, and cereal, and cans of beans, in my pantry, and I throw the entire contents in the oven and crank it to its highest setting, I don't have a cake. I have a very messy oven.

I agree, but again, it is definitely not unreasonable to believe there is a plan that Determinism is working towards. Determinism leads us to the Singularity, Who is the Single God, Determiner of all things.

It is unreasonable to simply assert somethign without having cause to do so.

If you believe that, however, then some of your points which are based on them become invalid.

I addressed this above. The Singularity is simply misunderstood because Science tries to deny It rather than understand It.

You have no evidence of this, however.

There was only God and He desired to make Mankind ....

Your arguments don't really support the conception your provide here.

I'm only telling you what I believe. This assertion has nothing to do with Science, but with the Philosophy of the purpose of Life.

Okay. But you said you had an argument for god. Thus far, you've proposed a god, but you haven't actually supported the conception you've proposed.

Of course, you're free to believe what you want. Personally, I feel like we should only believe things for good reason, and that there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I don't know what or whether something created the singularity. Someday we may find out more, but in the meantime, people making claims about it do so without sufficient evidence to warrant their claim.

I agree that plenty of evidence is lacking, just as an innumerable amount of evidence is lacking for most of the Philosophical ideas of new Science. I also don't believe we will ever aquire the unlimited amount of knowledge it would take to understand everything, but I feel that my proposition is reasonable, and that the ancient Scriptures are Logical and Reasonably True. That is why Yeshua is called the Logos (Greek- Logic, Reason, Word). The Logic of God is without contradictions and

Your statement was cut off there at the end. I would disagree with what's there, as well, but getting into a long discussion about the veracity of scripture is definitely off-topic.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2015 8:27:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That would be why you can't say that nothing existed before the Singularity. You're describing the boundary of our knowledge. We don't know.

I know we don't know, and it's inconceivable how we could know. Is God not the boundary of our knowledge? When we know Him, what else can we know?

I believe the same about God. He neither "was" nor "will He be". He simply IS.

Okay. But there's no reason to suppose that other than that you thought of it. (Or that someone did, I'm not saying you originated the idea).

Actually I think Plato thought of this....Yeah I found it:

"They"are all parts of time, and the past and future are created"species"of time,"which we unconsciously"but wrongly transfer to the aidion essence; for"we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone"
is properly attributed to him,"and that "was" and "will be" only to be"spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is"immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did" or has become, or"hereafter"will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all" to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of" which generation is the cause."These are the forms of time, which"imitates the eon"and revolves according to a law of number."

http://www.city-data.com...


Are you suggesting Imaginary Time? I just wrote somebody about this, but I want to make sure this is what you're talking about.

I'm saying that it's incoherent to, where our conception of time breaks down, to say there was X, then not-X. You're using temporal terms here, where you can't because even time breaks down. Change, as far as we can conceive, requires time.

If change requires time, and the Universe is eternal, then "when" did it change?

No it doesn't. If there isn't an object, it's not "at rest".

If the Universe is not an object, how can it contain mass and energy? What was it?

I didn't say that. I said "not existing" is not the same as "at rest".

So if nothing existed, from where did existence come from? I'm having a hard time understanding this concept.

No, this is where I'm talking about the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Which is not the First Law of Motion, which was my point.

You ARE talking about the Thermodynamics, not Motion, which is where "object at rest tends to stay at rest" comes from. The Second Law is entropy, which isn't relevant to your point.

I'm sorry perhaps I'm not communicating very well. I'm talking about both Laws. First, if there was nothing and then something, that is impossible. If there was only the Singularity and it was eternal, then no Time had ever passed, and there was nothing else to push it into motion (First Law of Motion). Also, under this same premise, if the Singularity existed for eternity, then it would have used up all of its entropy and there would be no Universe (Second Law of Therodynamics).

No, it doesn't.

You can't just assert that there is a hidden variable. You have to demonstrate it. As of now, there is no hidden variable for the decay of radioactive elements. So until you can demonstrate there is, you're making a bare assertions.

You can't prove that, though. As far as we can tell, there IS randomness at the quantum level. That's the whole point of quantum physics.

By accepting it, yes.

Radioactive decay is a Quantum phenomenon, so therefore, if you believe it's random then you agree with Copenhagen's interpretation. If you believe it is only random because we are limited in our knowledge, then you agree with De Broglie or any other interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. One interpretation gives you zombie cats, magical spontaneity, virtual reality, and the acceptance of contradictions. The latter gives you a bunch of dead cats, but in return we get a solid reality, no mysticism, the moon exists even if we're not looking, and most importantly, no contradictions. The Pilot Wave interpretation is a completely acceptable theory that shows the same outcomes as the Standard Model. Here's a good course if you're interested.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Then you are mistaken. A cake, to continue the analogy, requires a precise amount of energy. Too much and I don't have a cake, I have a charcoal briquette. It requires the ingredients to be combined a certain way, as well.

In the singularity, we don't have any evidence that either of those was the case. If I have the ingredients to a cake, and a bunch of bags of chips, and cereal, and cans of beans, in my pantry, and I throw the entire contents in the oven and crank it to its highest setting, I don't have a cake. I have a very messy oven.

Yes of course, but we don't have a very messy oven. We have a nice and tidy oven, and God is the Baker, who has made a perfect cake, called the Universe; and He topped it off with some delicious frosting called Life. That is why I believe in panenthesim rather than pantheism. Pantheism says there a cake that's edible, but it baked itself. Panentheism says there is a Baker who made a Perfect Cake; and in the End, we all get Ice Cream.


It is unreasonable to simply assert somethign without having cause to do so.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is unreasonable to assert that the Universe, Quantum Mechanics, and radioactive decay behave without having Cause to do so.

You have no evidence of this, however.

I do have evidence that Scientist do not want to understand the Singularity though.

"This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past." Stephen Hawking

Why do they need to get around this conclusion? And why are they unable to provide evidence for a valid alternative? What is their only excuse?

"The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct. But one might raise the question, of whether General Relativity really is correct. It certainly agrees with all the observational tests that have been carried out. However these test General Relativity, only over fairly large distances. We know that General Relativity can not be quite correct on very small distances, because it is a classical theory. This means, it doesn't take into account, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, which says that an object can not have both a well defined position, and a well defined speed: the more accurately one measures the position, the less accurately one can measure the speed, and vice versa." Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Okay. But you said you had an argument for god. Thus far, you've proposed a god, but you haven't actually supported the conception you've proposed.

Your statement was cut off there at the end. I would disagree with what's there, as well, but getting into a long discussion about the veracity of scripture is definitely off-topic.

Well that's fine. Whether Scripture is valid or not I'll leave to Apologetics, just don't believe everything they tell you. Either way, you see how much I hate contradictions, and that is why I deny the trinity, a god-man, hell, some pre-trib rapture, heaven in the clouds, some Prometheus copy named Lucifer, and free will. All of this nonsense has its origin in free will. That's how far one bad idea can lead us away from Truth.

ShabShoral, I'm interested to know what you think about all of this my friend. Thank you and God bless you both.