If 'God' is perceiving itself through this human existance, as some have claimed, then why is that so? What logical construct can one use to arrive at this conclusion?

The common premise used, which supports pantheism, says if one is everything then one cannot be able to distinguish itself from itself. There can be no frame of reference, no comparitive measure... if one is all. There is no line between something and nothing. One finger cannot point at itself.

I find that supporting claim to be a detriment...

So, if 'God' is indivisible, then all things must be of 'God'. Then what factor caused the need for this separate existance? Moreover, without an ability to distinguish, how could any need be addressed as such by this 'God'?

Before creation became realized, 'God' was everything. Therefore, 'God' was no individual thing. The ability to distinguish anything as separate requires the recognition; the difference between one's self and that which is other than... one's self. It neccessitates separate cause or reason... a separate existance. Separate does not exist though, in this case.

Separate, or the illusion thereof, did not exist before creation, or the manifestation of it. Recognition requires individual experience, which requires a separate existance.

So if 'God' was all, and 'God' knew not itself. It would follow then that 'God' could not know this was the case.

Therefore, 'God' could not be the purposeful cause of it's own manifestation.



If 'God' needs a separate existance to experience and observe itself, then how does one logically conclude this need to be recognized before the manifestation of creation?

you hurt my brain

Oooops... sorry Deb...

Shall I call the backhoe to fill in the grave?



Faith...

Those who hold a belief of purposeful creation in any way, shape, or form, must depend on the same thing for substantiation...

Why ask why if you are one also...

who depends...

On faith alone...

What is not faith? in some way, shape or form?


...hands creative a cookie in the hopes of distracting him from asking her for a logical explanation ... she is far too tired today ...

You know how analytical I am during linear trains of thought...

Oatmeal Raisin???

No fair... you know my weaknesses...

"scientific pantheism", which critics claim is essentially no more than "atheism for nature lovers. This charge seems to stem from the fact that scientific pantheism is not only naturalistic, but avowedly materialistic as well, with little tolerance for any reference to traditional theological concepts. Despite a history of controversy surrounding the WPM's heterodox stance within the UPS and its eventual secession from that organization, the WPM approach has met with some acceptance, even while critics claim it may not actually constitute any strict or authentic or classical pantheism.

It must be re-emphasized that the theological concept which the term "pantheism" was originally intended to describe (the equivalence of the traditional God concept with nature) is considered to be essentially obsolete by many naturalistic pantheists. It is often maintained that the intent of such individuals in describing themselves as "pantheist" is chiefly to identify themselves as adherents of a naturalistic spirituality by using an established religious term.

Naturalistic pantheism allege that it constitutes an intentional misuse of terminology, and an attempt to justify atheism by mislabeling it as pantheism.

Naturalistic pantheism places little emphasis on the concept of God. This raises the concern that it is really no longer pantheism at all, but something more like "spiritual naturalism" or "feel-good atheism". After all, these critics ask, if you remove the concept of God from your philosophy, what is the purpose of using the term "pantheism?" It is charged that the etymology of the word reveals it is inappropriately used in describing an anti-theist philosophy. In answer to this objection, naturalistic pantheists maintain that the "pan-" prefix modifies the "-theism" suffix to such an extent that pantheism in fact has little to do with traditional theism.

Critics regard this modern pantheism as simply a more reverent and naturalistic form of atheism, since this unusual conception of God is seen as bending the traditional definition so far as to make it meaningless. In the view of some modern adherents, this objection to using the historical term "pantheism" for the naturalistic interpretation is essentially valid, and these adherents usually admit that the term is maintained only for the sake of convenience.

An argument intended to show that the term "pantheism" remains appropriate for the modern, or naturalistic interpretation of pantheism is that the contemporary pantheist sees the term "God" as a synonym for "nature". If nature is equivalent to the theological concept of God, then saying "all is God" (pan-theism) is the same as saying "all is nature". Accordingly, this is the way that many pantheists choose to view the term "pantheism" — all is nature, nature is all. Pantheism, then, is (in this view) essentially a form of spirituality based on nature rather than on supernatural entities such as deities. Accordingly, it is widely accepted that the modern interpretation of pantheism is essentially naturalistic, and therefore constitutes a form of naturalistic spirituality.

Which in a nutshell......there thinking is not how God intended.....God is, was, and always will be the creator of all things seen and not seen.....He is God and nature is nature and is not a God in any way shape of form in it's own right.

And faith is the only way to the father.....for which if you have none.....then there ya have....you either have faith in him or you don't and make up what suits you.....which again is fine and dandy......but you will be held accountable at some point so just be aware of that....And it's not to frighten because I am not scared at all...It's just a fact.

Feral,

Although I cannot agree with your personal commentary, I too feel that Pantheistic thought, when based on the concept of one-ness, is nothing more than atheism re-constructed to suit those who want to believe in a higher power but do not find personal comfort in other religious beliefs...

By it's own construction, pantheism self-destructs upon deeper logical consideration of it's own foundational premise.

It requires a notion of separate, no matter how you slice the pie. One finger cannot point at itself. Therefore, the recognition of it's own need to be separate in order to experience itself cannot be had.

I am no pantheist ... not exactly sure what that truly is as I have never studied it ... but from your commentary I ask ...

Is a blood cell separate from you? Is a neuron in your brain separate from you?




Yes ... and ... no ...

What is the consciousness of that cell?

What is your consciousness of it?

Does that cell recognize itself as separate?

Does that cell recognize itself as part of the whole?

Does it do its job based on faith ... or does it do what it is because it is?


...I don't have answers but I like the questions ...

I can’t help but laugh at this Micheal.

What is logic?

The mere fact that anything exists at all is totally illogical based on logic as we know it. Our ‘logic’ is really nothing more than our intuition gained from the experience of this world. People who think that logic actually holds any value beyond physical existence have to be nuts. Logic is nothing more than a product of the physical world.

Logic doesn’t even really exist.

Think about it Michael. It’s logical to assume that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. But why is that logical? Because we’re made of fermions, and most of what we interact with is made of fermions and fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle.

However, we now know that bosons exist which do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Boson can pass right through each other and occupy the same space at the same time with not trouble at all. Just like ghosts. Yet these particles are very real at least every bit as real as the fermions.

So there you have it. Logic shot in the butt. Bosons are illogical but they exist.

So much for logic.

The concept of ‘ONE’ is not even well defined in mathematics as much as people think that it is. On the contrary there are serious problems with the pure mathematical definition of one. I really need to publish my book on that, I’m sure you would enjoy it immensely. Maybe this summer I’ll get to it.

God is not ‘one’. God is ‘many’ in one.

The obsession and need for a single Godhead actually came mankind’s insistent that God be egotistical. The early Greeks recognized this and even though the had many Gods then still had one top dog, or top God, Zeus. When Gods are egotistical someone has to have the ultimate authority.

Biblical mythology was no different. They just started out with a single Godhead who proclaimed jealousy if any other Gods are put above him. Same principle as Zeus, expect the other Gods are given such low esteem as to not even be worthy of mention. Later when Christianity came into vogue this single Godhead fell into a trinity that is one-in-many. It’s still one God, yet it somehow became a ménage à trois.

When you say that God is “one” what do you mean?

One consciousness?

One spirit?

One mind?

One entity?

One ego?

What sense does it even make to talk about God being “one” if you don’t even know what God is?

To say that there are logical problems with pantheism is a joke. There are logical problems with any and all spiritual concepts. If you want to stick to logic become an atheist. But in truth, you’ll soon find that even that isn’t logical.

The universe in which we live isn’t even logical.

Can you explain quantum mechanics logically? If you can, you’ll be the most famous person of the new millennium!

If our universe can’t even be explained using logic what makes you think you can explain God using logic.

Don’t you think maybe you should try to explain the universe first before moving on to something so lofty as a god concept?

There is a big difference between all living things being created of God and those things being at one with God......He created it all so of course it's part of him in that respect....but as I have said a ton of times.....Nothing but God is God......What he created on earth is just that.... Earth created for us by God.....You guys get a big kick I guess out of talking in circles in does not take rocket science to grasp the concept of God, creation, man, etc. And of course they are all separate....Think about that for one second....What purpose would God have to create the earth, the stars, the sky.

You guys want to take something and put your own twist on it....be my guest....but please don't expect others to believe the nonsense you believe.

Fear not Feral. Your frustrations are unwarranted. No proselytizing here. I don’t expect anyone to believe anything I say. I just offer it as food for thought for anyone who cares to think.

They are more than welcome to come to their own conclusions.

Illogical to whom? It isn't to me at all.......I exist and that is just a fact......the reasons why I exist is also known from the the time I am in my mother's womb.....what I choose to do of course is up to me. Most of what you say is so illogical that I wonder if you confuse yourself.

Mathematically look at it like this....

God + no other = 1 now then if you add to the equation God + Son + Holy Spirit is 3 in one......But with only 1 Godhead....now if this doesn't fit your equation will ok then....But stop saying that it is not....just because you say so....Because that just is not so......It is because God says it is.

Now another way to look at it.....God is love, caring, God is not egotistical......And my friend whether you like it or not......To many he is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.


Now lets deal with this lame idea of yours that the Bible is mythology. In Genesist 1:1 does it say in the beginning God (the myth) created the heavens and the earth. NO It clearly says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now look up anywhere you lil heart wants to about Greek Mythology......well there ya go...even to look it up your having to say mythology......ok case closed.

Now onward ho to next point. Do you know why God claimed that no other Gods are to be put before him? And yes I will not answer until I see yours. as for the on in many.......no one in three does not constitute many at least for me.

And you may not know who or what God is...But don't assume that others don't....I do......And again a relationship with God is a personal walk and one that someone can not understand without the faith to do so.

Could we please begin a new thread for the bible is mythology question and/or notion?

I have yet to respond to the topic's questions which have stayed on track...

Abra.. Yahweh's name means " I am Whatever You Need Me To Be" Does that satsify what our creator is? Shalom...Miles

So let em....that is all I have ever asked.....bring you view and leave it at that....You can bring your view without throwing the sidebars of everything I believe being a myth.....do that and you will never get a response from me.....but say your beliefs on what I believe you will get a fight.

In order of response...


Artsy:



No. They are both a part of me.

Both are necessary for my existance, without these and many other physiological features of a material construct, I could not exist as I do.



It has no consciousness and no self-awareness, it does not think.



None, unless it is made known by experience, by our own observation.



Individual cells do not think. We do.



Rhetorical, I know...It does it's job because it was inherently pre-programmed to perform that task, according to it's location, while we were still in the formation process of material existance.

I fail to recognize this parallel's similarity with that of 'God' and man. Unless the claim is that 'Gods' existance is dependant upon manifestation and/or creation. That is troublesome also, because following the analogy, we would represent 'God' and individual cells would represent us. Individual cells have no individual thought processes and/or self-awareness nor the ability to create... we do. Individual cells cannot themselves be aware of their part, yet we think we do. Individual cells cannot change their mind... they do not have one.




Abra:

Hmmmm... where to start? I am dissappointed, to say the least.

While using logic throughout your post in order to support it, you claimed that I cannot use it(logic) to support mine? Perhaps we should re-define the acceptable parameters of this, or any logical discussion?

The first two paragraphs of the OP clearly define the problem Abra, based upon very common pantheistic views, all of which have been expressed here, on this forum. Have I misquoted or misrepresented pantheism in any way, or have I just accurately addressed an inherent problem within those expressions?

Regarding your comments on "one"...

Pantheism is based upon the notion of 'God' being indivisible. This comes as a result of 'God' being the only thing in existance before manifestion or creation of any kind. Before. First. Any concept of a creator-type 'God', whether it be a separate notion or not, whether it be a thinking 'God' or just the elements necessary for creation and/or manifestation,must hold to the notion that 'God' was first, by it's very definition.

Pantheism's premise inherently necessitates a purpose and/or cause which does not support itself, unless 'God' is completely thoughtless and consists of only the elements neccessary to realize what we have witnessed, which is atheism. This was logically shown to be the reality of it all, according to it's own definitions and/or parameters.

Now, Abra... I have been so kind to entertain your post, while overlooking what could have been construed as sarcastic or negative in nature. Many of the others' expressions on this forum concerning pantheistic thought were used within my examination, could you do the same while staying within the OP?

Can you logically refute my claim in the OP, as I have logically refuted the pantheistic claims of this forum, based upon those claims?

Logically.... the more I think about it... the more separate I feel.

So I don't.


I just be.

I am feeling the same thing ...

I like them macadamia nut cookies myself.