Do all Pan-ists hold "God" as a placeholder name for something beyond our reckoning, as I do?

[ChieftheCef]

I'm no physicist but it seems wrong to see quanta and nothing as equivalent. I agree that materiality isn't everything but it is something. More importantly neither atoms nor points are the building blocks of everything. Perhaps it makes no sense to ask of everything "what are the underlying parts" as if everything could be understood as caused from below.

You state your postulates but you don't show why.

 

[Whateverist]

You state your postulates but you don't show why.

Postulates are what underlie all our conclusion. Not that we need to know what they are, of course, but we all have basic beliefs about the world .. a disposition we turn toward the world. What would there be to show?

I'm not arguing everyone should think as I do; just sharing my POV.

 

[George-ananda]

I sometimes get grief from Christians for saying I do not think God can be a being in its own right or anything like a human. To my mind, doing so seeks to give honor to God but actually exalts ourselves beyond our merit.

I do use God as a placeholder sometimes but like to slash it as 'God/Brahman/Source'. The nondual (God and creation are not-two) concept is different than the nondual concept from where our cultural word 'God' originated.

 

[Whateverist]

I do use God as a placeholder sometimes but like to slash it as 'God/Brahman/Source'. The nondual (God and creation are not-two) concept is different than the nondual concept from where our cultural word 'God' originated.

I like that.