Doesn't Pantheism Make More Sense?

[void thinker]

Hello,
I'm new to RF but I've always tried to "find" what I believe in. I labeled myself christian before but I believed in Pantheism without realizing it. Now, I'm a Pantheist, (IDK about believing in Jesus Christ etc.) I started thinking about how all of this would make logical sense, so I wrote this:

"OF THE ABSOLUTE
In a completely logical point of view, the universe is made of itself. Its energy and matter are constant, always present, always creating and destroying. So the known universe maintains itself. Let’s call this universe, and all of its processes Brahm. Brahm in the Hindu religion is made out of three deities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer… all three characteristics being previously described as pertaining to our universe.

Brahm is kept going—kept creating, maintaining, and destroying itself—by the energy within it. This energy interacts with matter. Matter and energy cannot be separated into two distinct categories, there’s a fluid aspect of Brahm in relation to matter and energy. So matter and energy are essentially one, changing from one state to the other when needed. Let’s call this energy-matter substance the non-void. But where did the non-void come from? It must’ve been started by some initial force, which should logically be external, since Brahm cannot function without non-void. Let’s call this external force the God-force. If the God-force is the provider of non-void, then it exists outside of Brahm, for Brahm requires non-void to exist. Let’s call the place where the God-force exists the Exoverse, because it is outide of Brahm.

Brahm is made out of non-void, and non-void is made out of the God-force. That would mean that Brahm is part of the God-force. It is part of the non-void that is part of the God-force. The God-force dwells within the exoverse, which would mean that Brahm exists within the exoverse. If everything exists within the exoverse, and the God-force created everything (out of its void and non-void), that means the exoverse is created by the God-force. Thus, the God-force is the Absolute: everything which ‘exists’ or ‘is,’ the all encompassing, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnisentient void and non-void.

Thus Exoverse, God-force, and Brahm are all qualities of the Absolute."

Please note that I'm not using any of the names and terms here as they are traditionally used.

But then I thought of this:

"OF GOD II
Or Brahm itself could be God, the Absolute. God could be sentient but still omnipresent and pantheistic. Good could be in every cell, every atom, and every quark that exists, but still have a great ‘mind’ that IS God. Whether only our universe exists or there’s a multiverse, there’s really no need for the existence of an exoverse, for if in the end we see that God created himself, he could’ve and logically would’ve created himself as Brahm, without the use of an exoverse."

So basically, this is Pantheism vs. Panentheism. But doesn't Pantheism make more sense?

My Question: What do u thin of what I've written? Which article would u support more? and how would u criticize what i wrote?

Please help :face palm: sorry this is a long post :sorry1:

 

[Madhuri]

I'm not 100% sure I understand everything that you wrote but I personally, as a Hindu, identify as a panentheist. This means that rather than seeing every single thing as in itself being equivalent to God, I believe that each thing is a part of God. It also means that I see God as being greater than the material universe/s, as something that is all things and yet something even more.

 

[void thinker]

I totally agree with your point of view. But do you consider the spiritual part of god to be embedded/in the physical realm, or do you consider it to be located outside of our universe?

 

[Madhuri]

I totally agree with your point of view. But do you consider the spiritual part of god to be embedded/in the physical realm, or do you consider it to be located outside of our universe?

What do you mean by spiritual part?

 

[Bunyip]

I think that the major issue with Pantheism is that it is not in any meaningful way different from atheism.

It reduces to no more than different labels - an atheist may call the Universe, 'the Universe' whilst a pantheist identifies the Universe as 'god'. I see no practical difference in applying different labels, the nature and characteristics of the universe are unaffected.

So sure, I could identify as a Pantheist, but choose to identify as an atheist because I do not see Pantheism as being meanignfully different to atheism, nor do see Pantheism as being necessarily theistic and it is theism that atheism responds to.

 

[Breathe]

Personally, I think panentheism makes more sense. For the same reasons as Madhuri said.

 

[Estro Felino]

Pantheism is very interesting but it is not a Christian doctrine.

I know that God is not nature, because the wild world is chaotic and unjust.
God is exactly the opposite: He is justice, order, meaningfulness, beauty.

I give you an example; animals struggle for their survival. They are selfish and compete with each other. Competitiveness is devilish because it's the refusal of God (who says we must cooperate, not compete)

It is true that most men believe in the jungle law, also known as law of the fittest. That's why Satan rules the planet: because he wants people to hate each other and to destroy each other. Exactly what happens in the animals' world.

So God is definitely not in the natural world (which is creation).
He is the desire to put order and justice in the natural world.

 

[idav]

Pantheism makes more sense to me in that it gets away from an unnecessary dualism type of thinking. Pantheism being theistic allows for transcendence but something that rather transcends itself and the duality created by this transcendence is what confuses us into thinking there must be something "more". Where as, we are that "more" without realizing, but god himself should know it and is trying to tell us, show us, anyway possible.

 

[Willamena]

I think that the major issue with Pantheism is that it is not in any meaningful way different from atheism.

It reduces to no more than different labels - an atheist may call the Universe, 'the Universe' whilst a pantheist identifies the Universe as 'god'. I see no practical difference in applying different labels, the nature and characteristics of the universe are unaffected.

So sure, I could identify as a Pantheist, but choose to identify as an atheist because I do not see Pantheism as being meanignfully different to atheism, nor do see Pantheism as being necessarily theistic and it is theism that atheism responds to.

Where it is possible for atheism to deny pantheism, I see a significant difference between them.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hello,
I'm new to RF but I've always tried to "find" what I believe in. I labeled myself christian before but I believed in Pantheism without realizing it. Now, I'm a Pantheist, (IDK about believing in Jesus Christ etc.) I started thinking about how all of this would make logical sense, so I wrote this:

"OF THE ABSOLUTE
In a completely logical point of view, the universe is made of itself. Its energy and matter are constant, always present, always creating and destroying. So the known universe maintains itself. Let’s call this universe, and all of its processes Brahm. Brahm in the Hindu religion is made out of three deities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer… all three characteristics being previously described as pertaining to our universe.

Brahm is kept going—kept creating, maintaining, and destroying itself—by the energy within it. This energy interacts with matter. Matter and energy cannot be separated into two distinct categories, there’s a fluid aspect of Brahm in relation to matter and energy. So matter and energy are essentially one, changing from one state to the other when needed. Let’s call this energy-matter substance the non-void. But where did the non-void come from? It must’ve been started by some initial force, which should logically be external, since Brahm cannot function without non-void. Let’s call this external force the God-force. If the God-force is the provider of non-void, then it exists outside of Brahm, for Brahm requires non-void to exist. Let’s call the place where the God-force exists the Exoverse, because it is outide of Brahm.

Brahm is made out of non-void, and non-void is made out of the God-force. That would mean that Brahm is part of the God-force. It is part of the non-void that is part of the God-force. The God-force dwells within the exoverse, which would mean that Brahm exists within the exoverse. If everything exists within the exoverse, and the God-force created everything (out of its void and non-void), that means the exoverse is created by the God-force. Thus, the God-force is the Absolute: everything which ‘exists’ or ‘is,’ the all encompassing, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnisentient void and non-void.

Thus Exoverse, God-force, and Brahm are all qualities of the Absolute."

Please note that I'm not using any of the names and terms here as they are traditionally used.

But then I thought of this:

"OF GOD II
Or Brahm itself could be God, the Absolute. God could be sentient but still omnipresent and pantheistic. Good could be in every cell, every atom, and every quark that exists, but still have a great ‘mind’ that IS God. Whether only our universe exists or there’s a multiverse, there’s really no need for the existence of an exoverse, for if in the end we see that God created himself, he could’ve and logically would’ve created himself as Brahm, without the use of an exoverse."

So basically, this is Pantheism vs. Panentheism. But doesn't Pantheism make more sense?

My Question: What do u thin of what I've written? Which article would u support more? and how would u criticize what i wrote?

Please help :face palm: sorry this is a long post :sorry1:

It makes sense. Does it make 'more sense'? I don't know. I really don't need the religion references for a picture of pantheism either, I'm not really sure if you are asking this in a general way, or in the context of a specific religion. What I mean is that, I would have a specific view of the theism nature of pantheism, not some 'vague' religious reference to possible panentheistic religions.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hello,
I'm new to RF but I've always tried to "find" what I believe in. I labeled myself christian before but I believed in Pantheism without realizing it. Now, I'm a Pantheist, (IDK about believing in Jesus Christ etc.) I started thinking about how all of this would make logical sense, so I wrote this:

"OF THE ABSOLUTE
In a completely logical point of view, the universe is made of itself. Its energy and matter are constant, always present, always creating and destroying. So the known universe maintains itself. Let’s call this universe, and all of its processes Brahm. Brahm in the Hindu religion is made out of three deities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer… all three characteristics being previously described as pertaining to our universe.

Brahm is kept going—kept creating, maintaining, and destroying itself—by the energy within it. This energy interacts with matter. Matter and energy cannot be separated into two distinct categories, there’s a fluid aspect of Brahm in relation to matter and energy. So matter and energy are essentially one, changing from one state to the other when needed. Let’s call this energy-matter substance the non-void. But where did the non-void come from? It must’ve been started by some initial force, which should logically be external, since Brahm cannot function without non-void. Let’s call this external force the God-force. If the God-force is the provider of non-void, then it exists outside of Brahm, for Brahm requires non-void to exist. Let’s call the place where the God-force exists the Exoverse, because it is outide of Brahm.

Brahm is made out of non-void, and non-void is made out of the God-force. That would mean that Brahm is part of the God-force. It is part of the non-void that is part of the God-force. The God-force dwells within the exoverse, which would mean that Brahm exists within the exoverse. If everything exists within the exoverse, and the God-force created everything (out of its void and non-void), that means the exoverse is created by the God-force. Thus, the God-force is the Absolute: everything which ‘exists’ or ‘is,’ the all encompassing, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnisentient void and non-void.

Thus Exoverse, God-force, and Brahm are all qualities of the Absolute."

Please note that I'm not using any of the names and terms here as they are traditionally used.

But then I thought of this:

"OF GOD II
Or Brahm itself could be God, the Absolute. God could be sentient but still omnipresent and pantheistic. Good could be in every cell, every atom, and every quark that exists, but still have a great ‘mind’ that IS God. Whether only our universe exists or there’s a multiverse, there’s really no need for the existence of an exoverse, for if in the end we see that God created himself, he could’ve and logically would’ve created himself as Brahm, without the use of an exoverse."

So basically, this is Pantheism vs. Panentheism. But doesn't Pantheism make more sense?

My Question: What do u thin of what I've written? Which article would u support more? and how would u criticize what i wrote?

Please help :face palm: sorry this is a long post :sorry1:

why isn't this in the Hinduism DIR, anyway, "pantheism=/=Hinduism this is confusing.

 

[Bunyip]

Where it is possible for atheism to deny pantheism, I see a significant difference between them.

And where do you think that is possible? Why would atheists deny simply substituting one name for the universe with another?

 

[Sha'irullah]

To me panentheism is a more accurate assertion as it takes into account more details such as human consciousness.
Panentheism makes sense in the view that what humans being call god has always been based upon easily understood natural events(by today's standards) and that all concepts of god are so subjective they only exist in their own mental universe. There is no true Pantheism or Panentheism since they refute themselves and come up with something that is a bit of a cheat in regards to philosophy of religion.
Both position though make great sense when viewed philosophically and not in a religious or theistic sense.

 

[Willamena]

And where do you think that is possible? Why would atheists deny simply substituting one name for the universe with another?

It is possible where pantheism to the atheist is not simply substituting one name for the universe with another.

 

[Desert Snake]

To me panentheism is a more accurate assertion as it takes into account more details such as human consciousness.
Panentheism makes sense in the view that what humans being call god has always been based upon easily understood natural events(by today's standards) and that all concepts of god are so subjective they only exist in their own mental universe. There is no true Pantheism or Panentheism since they refute themselves and come up with something that is a bit of a cheat in regards to philosophy of religion.
Both position though make great sense when viewed philosophically and not in a religious or theistic sense.

That's not accurate at all, sorry man. There are religious people of both varieties, various religions. Heck I just recently learned the 'usual' deity concepts on RF. And I'm what really religious right?

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's not accurate at all, sorry man. There are religious people of both varieties, various religions. Heck I just recently learned the 'usual' deity concepts on RF. And I'm what really religious right?

What? What are you saying? I did not posit forth any claims to be refuted, disputed or debunked.

What is it you specifically find "not accurate"? I am curious now.

 

[Desert Snake]

What? What are you saying? I did not posit forth any claims to be refuted, disputed or debunked.

What is it you specifically find "not accurate"? I am curious now.

You said they are more non-religious terms, I'm saying they aren't, necessarily. That's all. My question is a joke.

they are theistic terms, for a reason.

 

[Bunyip]

It is possible where pantheism to the atheist is not simply substituting one name for the universe with another.

I know you prefer very, very short comments - but there is not enough there for me to see your point.

Would you please elaborate? What are you saying?

 

[Willamena]

I know you prefer very, very short comments - but there is not enough there for me to see your point.

Would you please elaborate? What are you saying?

My point was that pantheism and atheism are not identical to some people, even atheists. For instance, it's not too much of a stretch to acknowledge the atheist who understands the pantheistic view that the universe is composed of only one substance called "god," and reject that; or that the universe is composed of a particular substance such as energy that is identical to god, and reject that; or that the world, wholly or partially identical to god, could not exist without god, and reject that.

 

[Desert Snake]

My point was that pantheism and atheism are not identical to some people, even atheists.

Different terms different meanings. There is a reason for the 'theism' on pan and panentheism.

atheism=/=pantheism/panentheism

holy guacamole