-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists & Agnostics: If there is a God...
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
An excellent question, Storm.
To me, if God existed, I would be of the mind that he is a combination of a Deistic God, and something along the lines of the pantheistic view that God is in everything (including inanimate objects).
I reach my position by a process of elimination.
I find the concept of a Theistic God (especially the Judeo-Christian God) to be completely without merit.
Someone on this board said (several years ago) that "my desire to believe could not overcome my ability to reason".
That pretty much sums up my agnosticism.
To me, if God existed, I would be of the mind that he is a combination of a Deistic God, and something along the lines of the pantheistic view that God is in everything (including inanimate objects).
I reach my position by a process of elimination.
I find the concept of a Theistic God (especially the Judeo-Christian God) to be completely without merit.
Someone on this board said (several years ago) that "my desire to believe could not overcome my ability to reason".
That pretty much sums up my agnosticism.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Thank you kindly.
Very interesting. Would you care to expand on that?
What a great quote!
Personally, I think that faith is all well and good, but reason is how we determine what to have faith in.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I would support the position that God would be deistic in nature, because it is evident that He does not participate in our lives on a daily basis. I would use the analogy of a "fire and forget" missile, as opposed to one that must be steered to its destination.
As for the pantheistic aspect, if God exists, it would make sense to me that He would put a piece of Himself in all things (not just man), including the oceans, the earth, the skies, etc.
The idea that God exists, and somehow gives dominion to mankind is (to me) rather odd. It (obviously) smacks of egocentricism on our part, and appears to be unjustified (empirically speaking).
As for the pantheistic aspect, if God exists, it would make sense to me that He would put a piece of Himself in all things (not just man), including the oceans, the earth, the skies, etc.
The idea that God exists, and somehow gives dominion to mankind is (to me) rather odd. It (obviously) smacks of egocentricism on our part, and appears to be unjustified (empirically speaking).
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I concur. I would include that to say that reason also allows us to determine what NOT to place our faith in.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That, too.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Faith, by definition, means "without evidence". So, how can one reason that a particular unevidenced idea is better than another unevidenced idea?
It's just a catchphrase that sounds neat but ultimately means nothing and only exists as a way to justify believing what we have been told by others to believe in. It's not reason.
It's what we do. Well, for instance, "Faith, by definition, means without evidence" is an unevidenced idea that we reason to be better than others.
Last edited:
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
"In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God." That was quoted from Wikipedia.
Anyways, the reason I choose panentheism over pantheism is because I believe in an "animating" force which causes particles of energy to react and change. You could call this "spirit" or "consciousness" if you want. The thing is, that "vibrational" force is a form of energy itself. Therefore even pantheism can be said to be an accurate understanding of it. I also believe that even void or empty space is an existence of sorts. If that void did not exist, where would the Universe expand into? It is a form of Potential energy. I believe that all of existence is energy in one form or other. I worship existence. I don't worship deities.
Anyways, the reason I choose panentheism over pantheism is because I believe in an "animating" force which causes particles of energy to react and change. You could call this "spirit" or "consciousness" if you want. The thing is, that "vibrational" force is a form of energy itself. Therefore even pantheism can be said to be an accurate understanding of it. I also believe that even void or empty space is an existence of sorts. If that void did not exist, where would the Universe expand into? It is a form of Potential energy. I believe that all of existence is energy in one form or other. I worship existence. I don't worship deities.
Edit: I was tossing his definition back at him, but perhaps it didn't work as well as I'd hoped.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
And again.
Also, please note that this is a thought experiment. If you don't want to engage in it, that's fine - don't post. But please don't respond to the thread just to say the question is stupid. That's just rude.