Doesn't Pantheism Make More Sense?

[Bunyip]

So, does atheism not respond to deism either?

Deists believe that the existence of god can be established by reason and observation. Although the early Deists were in fact referred to as atheists by the theists ofthe time, it is a label they generally reject.

So I would say that as pantheism and atheism are not meaningfully different from my perspective, deism and atheism were not meaningfully different from the perspective of theists in the 17th century when deism emerged.

 

[Desert Snake]

So I would say that as pantheism and atheism are not meaningfully different from my perspective,

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that your perspective is wrong?


pan-THEISM

 

[idav]

It feels a bit off the way you said it, similar to the fallacy of the burden of proof being put on the side questioning claims rather than claiming.

It is more of a choice to call it God, and less a choice to not call it God until there is actually a good reason to and still don't call it God.

That is a debate I have had with atheists but basically I cant fathom something from nothing and not call the ultimate source God.

What do you mean by there "is something to creation and life"? And why does that something make it reasonable to call it God?

Especially a source which is capable of life sentience and ultimately self awareness. To me an atheist universe would be the ultimate nihilism in which it wouldn't even be possible to ask these questions. Not only would there be no purpose, nothing would be able to create purpose. Something at some point is creation, the ultimate source, that is the very definition of God. This source is within all at the micro level where we have power to stop time which makes an infinite tappable potential which also deserves our awe and reverence in my view. That is what leads me to pantheism, it is within everything and the very thing that makes up our existence in the various forms of energy and matter that have existed since the beginning making all of it eternal, yet another qualifier for god. Ultimately though god is just a word and can easily become a semantical argument. I cam say all these things and atheists know what I am talking about so I dont care to let semantics get in the way. Call it ultimate source, the fundamental reality, there are more, there is a word for it.

 

[Willamena]

That is a debate I have had with atheists but basically I cant fathom something from nothing and not call the ultimate source God.

Especially a source which is capable of life sentience and ultimately self awareness. To me an atheist universe would be the ultimate nihilism in which it wouldn't even be possible to ask these questions.

But why would it not be possible for questions or purpose to arise in that nihilism, especially in a universe where something comes from nothing? That's a universe where something comes from nothing every moment (immanence of god).

 

[idav]

But why would it not be possible for questions or purpose to arise in that nihilism, especially in a universe where something comes from nothing? That's a universe where something comes from nothing every moment (immanence of god).

A reality where existence pops into existence by virtue of itself and its nature I wanna use the words creator and miraculous.

 

[idav]

But why would it not be possible for questions or purpose to arise in that nihilism, especially in a universe where something comes from nothing? That's a universe where something comes from nothing every moment (immanence of god).

Oh I guess I didnt answer the question. I would think that awareness would be some sort of zombie effect and couldn't arise to the level of sentience. Everything would truly be cause and effect, volition would never be a question.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that your perspective is wrong?


pan-THEISM

Look beyond the words, read between the lines

 

[Willamena]

Oh I guess I didnt answer the question. I would think that awareness would be some sort of zombie effect and couldn't arise to the level of sentience. Everything would truly be cause and effect, volition would never be a question.

IMO, volition would be essential. But perhaps we're talking different things.

 

[idav]

IMO, volition would be essential. But perhaps we're talking different things.

That sort of thing requires a certain amount of complexity indont believe would exist in a mundane world that just happened to be here. I think life is evidence for a god existing. Life is evidence of the creative aspect.

 

[Bunyip]

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that your perspective is wrong?


pan-THEISM

If you would be so kind as to stop trolling me from thread to thread posting pointless digs, I would very much appreciate it.