Abra;

Despite our differences of belief in "God" - I think we both clearly understand the nature of both concepts. I would hope that you would give me the credit for understanding the Pantheist God concept as well as I give you credit for understanding The Judeo/Christian God concept. Let's not underestimate each other. I merely asked the question concerning the flood - because the event happened. It is as difficult for me to reason out how a Pantheistic concept of God could allow this to happen - any more than a Christian God.

Within either "definition" or understanding - if you will - of the God force, exists the question of morals and ethics. What is the driving force that keeps any of us from doing whatever we want to whomever we want to get whatever we'd like?
(There's a mouthful.) Somehow - I've always had a problem with this idea within the idea of "God is in everything - everything is God". It becomes even more difficult to respond to this problem from an Atheistic stance. It's not that I need it justified by those that hold these views - I ask the question for my own understanding of justifying the view - and have yet to have anyone explain it so it makes sense. Telling me I don't understand the concept because I'm too busy trying to please my own God (as an example of a response - not a quote) just doesn't get me anywhere. This is one of the reasons I abandoned Atheism as a personal belief system (the belief to not believe) Pantheism, New Age, Buddism, Occultism, and all of the other things I've dabbled with and studied over the years. Now I would be more interested in your informing me of this - than I would be of attempting to prove "my God's bigger than your God" - which I don't think either of us really wants to do.

lj

it's so much easier if ya just delete the whole god concept in general

Eljay wrote:
“Within either "definition" or understanding - if you will - of the God force, exists the question of morals and ethics. What is the driving force that keeps any of us from doing whatever we want to whomever we want to get whatever we'd like?”

I don’t look to god for morals. I can derive good morals from pure common sense. I have no personal need to do harm to others. Nor have I ever felt a need to take from others for my personal gain. In fact, if you fully understand the essence of pantheism then you understand that to do harm to others is to do harm yourself. If you recall, the whole idea behind pantheistic is the idea is that we are all one. So why would you want to harm yourself? To do so would only show that you either don’t really believe in pantheism, or that you simply don’t truly understand it.

It’s only from a separatist egotistical point of view that you might feel that you could personally gain something by harming others. You are still thinking of yourself as a separate individual.

I’ll simply don’t look to religion for moral values and I personally feel sorry for anyone who needs religion to prevent them from being a bad person. I’ll turn to Albert Einstein’s words on this which I wholeheartedly embrace.

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” – Albert Einstein

While I’m quoting the great man I may as well include the following that also expresses my sentiment precisely.

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.” – Albert Einstein

And while I’m quoting great people,…

“It's so much easier if ya just delete the whole god concept in general” – Bl8ant

A lot of people feel this way. And many pantheists actually prefer not to call the universe “god”, they just think of it as a life force. They may not even like to use the word “universe” and may simply say that god is “everything” and just leave it at that. However, they still view this life force as being a whole, of which we are all part, and that’s the important concept to fully grasp. You are not a separate ego.

The essence of pantheism is that we are genuinely all brothers and sisters of our mother the universe. We are all one. To hurt another is to hurt god. To hurt another is to hurt yourself. It's simply a foolish thing to do on all levels.

The essence of Christianity is to be good so that you’ll get a reward on judgment day instead of being cast into the pits of hell where evidently a lot of other separate egos will be tossed. Only the good egos will be rewarded and go to heaven to live with their egotistical jealous god.

You find the idea that we are all one and that the universe is our eternal mother to be repugnant, small, and indept.

You feel that’s its more attractive to have a personal judgmental egotistical god that might cast you into the pits of hell if you are bad, or let you serve under him for eternity in heaven if you are good.

I have no desire to change your view. Believe what you will.

I prefer the all-loving non-judgmental non-egotistical god of the eternal cosmos. To me that is the most beautiful loving picture. I find nothing at all repugnant or limiting about it. It’s the ultimate picture of god as far as I’m concerned. Far above any judgmental egotistical picture of a personal god.

To each their own. I’m completely happy and confident in my relationship with the spirit. If you're happy with your's that's cool too. Peace be with you brother.

And neither can I imagine a God that gives us the weapon into our hands to destroy what he created. It is just wrong.

'How do you know if something is true?'

In my line of work I can't assume anything. That could cause me to be liable. I have physical check it out with my own senses and in some cases have another go behind me to double check. The same holds true for them, too because we each other's back. It is better for us to know.

How many different ways are there to know?

If we miss it then we usually catch hell but knowing that way isn't preferable. If one looks bad then all look bad because a chain is only as strong as the weakest link. Usually what happens is the weakest link gets replaced.

Which ways appeal to you the most?

Finding out myself or from my buddy. The buddy system can work well. Communication is the key in my line of work. Much as the strong silent type has had benefits for me in the past it sure can be problem. I have no choice but to communicate.

"how do you know if something is true?"

... You do and you don't in exactly the same proportion, and in an intermittent manner, in perfect synch with the human capabilities and limitations to observe, and the human biology that are in a wave-like, or cloud-like interwoven dance with all, and everything of the 'universe'.

Those whom claim the existence of absolute truth or truths, from a God or otherwise, simply take the easy simplification route of profound denial. The denial of the 'uncertain' essence and nature of human reality in the universe, has not and will not alter the uncertain nature of reality given by the imperfect and higly subjective nature of human perspective itself.
There is such a phenomenon as 'something true' for someone, or a 'group of some ones', at a specific point and time. The human experience inside this physical 'wave-like' or 'cloud-like' quantum world, is entirely dynamic, moving, changing constantly. Not a static condition. Not an absolute condition. Not an absolute truth. A clearly intermittent
ON/OFF condition interwoven through this mathematical equation (quantum: 1/0) or matrix or hologram across an infinite universe (empty space).


I stumbled across this article which brings Quantum physics, Heisenberg's 'uncertainty theory', philosophy and humans relation to reality (highly subjective) which kind of beings it all together to address the op question: 'How do you know something is true'.
http://www.geocities.com/arno_3/4/4-3.html


Here is a teaser of that interesting article:

"Classical physics suggests that atoms are hard, solid particles that exist independent of an observer (cf. Capra 1982: 78).

The quantum physicists, however, discovered that atoms and subatomic particles are far from being hard, solid objects. The quantum theory of Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, et al. suggests that subatomic particles are very abstract entities that have a dual nature. Depending on how we look at them, they appear sometimes as particles, sometimes as waves. But how can something be, at the same time, a particle, an entity confined to a very small space, and a wave which is spread out over a large region of space? "

Read-on, ... here's the link again: http://www.geocities.com/arno_3/4/4-3.html

Voil,

While many of Leary’s insights have merit, his view in it’s entirety is necessarily incomplete.

From Leary:
“This gives the responsibility for reality construction not to a bad-natured biblical God or to an impersonal, mechanical process of entropic devolution, or to an omniscient Marxist state, but to individual brains.”

It makes no sense at all to give individual brains complete responsibility for the construction of reality. Why not? Simply because brains themselves are physical constructs. The basis of reality necessarily must spring from beyond the physical brain.

From Leary:
“Furthermore, Leary explains that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "suggests that our observations fabricate the subject matter, i.e. realities”

Again, even our observation cannot be the basis of fabrication because all of our senses are based on upon the fabrication. While I agree with Leary’s conclusions concerning the nature of our exists “After the fact”, I cannot agree with Leary that this is the basis of our existence. There is necessarily a missing non-physical or spiritual element the gives rise to the entire illusion prior to the development of a physical brain and physical sensations which include any sort of observations.

From Leary:
“According to Leary, the "Quantum universe" that Heisenberg and the other quantum physicists define is an observer-created universe.”

I totally disagree with this. It’s not an observer-*created* universe, but rather an observer-*controlled* universe. Controlled in the sense of how it is perceived. But as I argued above, observation cannot be the essence of creation.

From Leary:
“Leary argues that out of the million signals received from the outside world per second, the human brain ignores most and organizes the rest in conformity with whatever model, or belief system, it currently holds.”

This could be argued to be true even without any reference to the ghost-like nature of our existence. This could have been true even in a purely Newtonian world. I do agree whole-heartedly with this view. All our experiences are based on our judgments and preconceptions. Much of how we experience the world has been decided for us by our own prejudices and our own expectations. We shut out what we disbelieve, and embrace what we’d like to believe.

This is what the game is all about. There is no other way to play it. It would simply be impossible to entertain every possible view and embrace every possible perspective. Many of them would logically conflict. We sort our sensations, experiences, and observations into neat little manageable categories that we can make sense of and feel comfortable with. The more narrow we define it the less open we are to the experiences and beliefs of others. The more open to it we become the more we can accept, but then we begin to lose a sense of purpose and definition. So it’s probably best to try to find some middle ground of acceptance and tolerance, yet with enough focus to give us a sense of purpose.

After all, in some very real ways it is our definition of how we perceive the universe and interact with it that give us our “identity”. If we held no specific beliefs, not underlying convictions, we’d have no “identity” nothing that we could point to and say, “This is what I stand for, this is what I am about”.

As a simple example, we can take peace versus violence. You chose, you can either side with one view and embrace it as your stance, or you can live your life being completely unpredictable. Whether you are a “good guy” or a “bad guy” is part of “who you are”. It’s a choice. It’s what you have decided to become. You’ve made a choice and embraced it.

Those who have not made a choice are viewed as “unstable”, undependable, undesirable. Yes, we must choose limitations. It’s a healthy thing to do. But it can become unhealthy too if we go too far and become extremely narrow in our choices and intolerant in the choices of others.

Well, that turned into a ramble, but that was my choice.

In short, I feel that Leary’s position is incomplete and missing a foundational element. All of existence cannot be solely observer-created based on a premise that physical reality is a mirage, because observations themselves are a physical process! The human brain cannot be awarded responsibility for having created itself. There must necessarily be more to it. I suggest a spiritual underpinning. Something that has completely eluded scientific observation, but cannot escape philosophical scrutiny.

In short, a purely “observer-created” universe as stand-alone premise holds no water for me, and is necessarily an incomplete picture. It fails as a self-sustaining explanation of creation.

OK. short answer.

I don't know and neither do you!

You know something is true when you feel at peace and in harmony with it. You just KNOW it!

People define themselves by their action it's what We do that defines Us....

follow Your instinct and intuition.

FYCK Bay area your right i sound like Dr Phil.......

amazing

Shyt...... I even empress myself some times and blow myself away.............

Hey now! Dr. Phil is incredibly sexy!

But I digress...

We're trying to have a deep, philosophical and intellectual discussion here! You are nothing but trouble, mister!

"philosophical and intellectual discussion "


thats where I come in.........

S1owhand wrote:
"I don't know and neither do you!"

If there exists an absolute truth, this is it.

Abra;

The question I posed was not necessarily asked as a personal reference to you. I can see from the many posts I've read of yours that you have a morally sound foundation - however I intended my question to be broader than that. Are prison system is bursting at the seems - and for the amound of people who abuse and take advantage of one another who will never see the inside of a prison I'm sure the number is overwhealming. It is to this part of the "pantheistic God" that I ask about - not you or Einstein. Needless to say - neither of you is an adequate representation of humanity as a whole.

As to this:

"The essence of Christianity is to be good so that you’ll get a reward on judgment day instead of being cast into the pits of hell where evidently a lot of other separate egos will be tossed. Only the good egos will be rewarded and go to heaven to live with their egotistical jealous god."

If you think that this is the essence of Christianity - then you need to hit the books again. Entrance into heaven or hell has nothing to do with how good you are - for according to the Christian God "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So - doing good - or doing bad has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity. The reward comes to those who believe in Christ - not themselves.

Abra....

Eljay wrote:
“The reward comes to those who believe in Christ - not themselves.”

Alright, I can see the sense in that.

However, you see, you are dismissing pantheism as somehow being devoid of moral substance. It’s really no differnet from what you are suggesting here. In pantheism the reward comes to those who believe in the whole – not themselves.

The reward is immediate. It’s not something that you are presented with as a gift after you leave this life.

What does it mean to “believe in Christ”? Does that mean that all a person needs to do is believe that Jesus as genuinely an incarnation of God and died on a cross for our sins? What good would such a belief do?

For me, to “believe in Christ” is to believe in the moral values that Christ taught. You see, I automatically believe in Christ from that perspective. In fact, from that perspective there is no difference between believing in Christ and believing in myself because I feel the same way. Had I actually met with Jesus I we wouldn’t have much to say to each other, other than, “Yep, I agree”.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up the idea of prison and bad people. A pantheistic view of god doesn’t condone doing bad things either. Like I said before, if you TRULY believe that everything is god then to do damage to another is to do damage to god. If you TRULY believe that everything is one, then to do damage to another is to do damage to yourself.

Pantheism (when genuinely practiced) is the epitome of saintliness. Of course, just like with any other philosophy or religion people can claim to embrace that view of things and not really believe in it at all. There are a LOT of people in prison who claim to be Christians, for example.

I just at a loss to see your connection between religion and prisons or bad behavior. Some of the most saintly people I know are atheists. Believing in a religion (or not believing in a religion) obviously has very little to do with how well people behave.

I would be a nice guy no matter what my philosophy on life is. It’s just in my nature to be nice. I do believe it was a conscious decision on my part. At a very early age I decided that I wanted to be nice and I strove to achieve that goal my entire life. I made a choice – it was a personal choice that had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any higher deity might even exist or what form it might take.

I don’t think in terms of rewards or punishments, however, I can say that being nice has already panned out in plenty of rewards during the course of my life. Being nice kept me out of prison for example. But that wasn’t why I chose to be nice. I chose to be nice because I like nice, and I want to be someone I like. It panned out for me. I highly recommend it.

>>> how do you know if something is true?

When I want to evaluate whether a claim is true, I try to first be sure I know exactly what it is that is being claimed. I often fail, I take short cuts, I get lazy, I don't even realize some of the assumptions I'm making - but generally, thats what I try to do.

What is a particle? . . . What is a wave?

When one physicist says to another physicist: "This appears to behave like a particle", there is no need to for them to explain the specific set of qualities they are referring to, no need to examine these words in detail because they both actively participate in the same discourse community, have read similar textbooks, read the same journals, have conversations with the same set extended set of other physicist, have used the same equations to solve similar sets of problems. They already know what is (and is not) being said.

Just like when Abra said 'the billiard ball model', neither of us elaborated on what he meant because we have both read (presumably) similar descriptions time and again.

Sadly, physicist often use the same exact words we use in everyday speech, and often with very specific meanings which do not map directly to our uses of the words in everyday life.

When we read any statement made by a physicist about physics (assuming we want to understand the actual meaning behind the words, from the speakers point of view) it is essential we examine what we -think- their words mean, and investigate the possibility that our everyday concepts of -the words- simply may not apply to the way physicists use the words. Especially when the words which seem simple and obvious.

-Just- as an example - in everyday life, we think of 'dust particles' as being locatable in space, capable of being motionless (relative to say, a table top), and having a defined surface between 'dust particle' and air. This is a good working model for our experience, our actual interaction with dust particles.

Physicist gave up the idea that these qualities might apply to electrons long ago (when viewing matter on the scale of the electron's region of highest probably existence).

On the other hand, electrons -do- (like dust particles) have the particle-like qualities of having mass, having momentum, being subject to forces which change their speed and direction, and of following predictable, definable trajectories (in -certain- circumstances, but not in others).

(And we aren't even talking about the wave-like qualities here...we are just refining what is (contextually) -meant- by 'particle'.)

How would a lay person know which sets of qualities the physicist is referring to when the physicist just says "behaves like a particle" ?

I'm not arguing here for or against any particular "philosophical" (sigh) interpretation of physics, I'm just urging extreme caution -in general- when interpreting the statements of physicists.

And more so when reading the statements of -others- who have already done us the 'favor' of interpreting the statements of physicist for us.

What is a particle? What is a wave?

Here are some quotes by a physicist who was heavily involved in quantum mechanics.

“We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.” – Richard Feynman

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” – Richard Feynman

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” – Richard Feynman

“I was born not knowing and have only had a little time to change that here and there.” – Richard Feynman

“I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics” – Richard Feynman

I have some video lectures of Dr. Feynman giving lectures on quantum electrodynamics. In those lectures he makes it clear that while the mathematics of quantum theory works, it doesn’t explain a thing. Feyman says in those lectures, “Nobody knows how it can be like this. It defies logic, but that’s the way it is. And you don’t like it, - tough”

He goes on to say, “If you think you don’t understand these lectures, you’re right. Nobody understands them, not even me. I’m just telling you how the universe appears to behave. I never claimed to understand it.”

He holds a Nobel Prize for helping to figure out the mathematics of Quantum Electrodynamics or QED, a precise mathematical description of how electrons behave. And he’s clearly stating that it make absolutely no sense at all. It simply works.

I delved in to the math somewhat myself. It’s all done with probabilities. There’s nothing there but smoke and mirrors. Nothing to sink your teeth into. But the answers describe the behavior of the universe to perfection. Just when you think you have it cornered it disappears and pops up somewhere else (or not) which is completely unpredictable save for assigning it a probability.

So it’s not even constructive to ask “What is a particle? What is a wave?” because sometimes it’s neither. Sometimes it’s just plain weird.