Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Is Google too busy to give you directions? I don't think time is an issue for him....he invented it after all!
-
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!
What is the universal God or no God?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Is Google too busy to give you directions? I don't think time is an issue for him....he invented it after all!
Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
If you find it irrational you just don't know enough about it and how the idea was born.
siti
Well-Known Member
@shunyadragon - you are misinterpreting almost everything I wrote...e.g.
To be honest, the rest of your post is a diatribe based on misreading almost every word I wrote. I'm not buying into a tit for tat but I will make one last attempt to explain what I am saying:
In the OP you claimed that there were just two options to explain what you call "the universal" - I have shown why I don't agree - there are clearly other options and whether or not I believe in the God of Deism or pantheism or the ultimate explanatory power of philosophical naturalism is irrelevant - they are, all three, more rational explanations of "the universal" than theistic super-naturalism. (The underlined phrases are four alternatives the latter two being the "no-God" and "God" alternatives you presented and the former being the two I and others have pointed out - there may be more). You have yet to demonstrate how your particular brand of theistic super-naturalism is the better of these four (or more) possible explanatory schemes for "the universal". My argument is that theistic super-naturalism is, in fact, the worst choice because in the end it actually explains nothing, just explains it away as a mystery. If you don't agree then you are most welcome to say why.
What bias? what sarcasm? I think the deist God is more believable than Yahweh or Allah - but the whole point is that such a deity (which may be the originator of the universe for all I know) is no longer apparent to us - that's the whole point of deism - that God does not intervene or inspire prophets and messengers or move pens miraculously. And I think "absquatulating" is a wonderfully evocative word - its a pity that its popularity has waned - I was not being sarcastic at all. I am seriously considering putting up emergency exit signs in our building that say "In case of fire - absquatulate!" - I reckon they'd get more attention than the standard green "EXIT" signs that nobody notices.
To be honest, the rest of your post is a diatribe based on misreading almost every word I wrote. I'm not buying into a tit for tat but I will make one last attempt to explain what I am saying:
In the OP you claimed that there were just two options to explain what you call "the universal" - I have shown why I don't agree - there are clearly other options and whether or not I believe in the God of Deism or pantheism or the ultimate explanatory power of philosophical naturalism is irrelevant - they are, all three, more rational explanations of "the universal" than theistic super-naturalism. (The underlined phrases are four alternatives the latter two being the "no-God" and "God" alternatives you presented and the former being the two I and others have pointed out - there may be more). You have yet to demonstrate how your particular brand of theistic super-naturalism is the better of these four (or more) possible explanatory schemes for "the universal". My argument is that theistic super-naturalism is, in fact, the worst choice because in the end it actually explains nothing, just explains it away as a mystery. If you don't agree then you are most welcome to say why.
Kettle calling the pot black. You accusation of diatribe is punctuated by a lengthy wordy diatribe of your own.
I am still intrigued by your mythical and confusing use of physics and math as the ultimate, and the only two answers(?}. Neither in science are considered answers in and of themselves.
I'm glad to see you finally took off the shroud of hypocrisy to reveal you indeed are an Intelligent Design Theist.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Out of morbid curiosity.... what was it I was pretending to be?
siti
Well-Known Member
OK pot! If philosophical naturalism is the best explanation then physics is what (at least potentially) gives the most fundamental description of the physical world - yes? And the only thing (under a naturalistic scheme) that could possibly be more fundamental than that are the mathematical laws that describe what physical things are allowed (or not allowed) to do - don't you think?
I also have a question for you. If mathematics is a human invention to describe human perceptions of the physical world, who decided that 1+1=2 and why can we not change that?
Kind regards, kettle.
I also have a question for you. If mathematics is a human invention to describe human perceptions of the physical world, who decided that 1+1=2 and why can we not change that?
Kind regards, kettle.
I actually agree with the above bold. In the Baha'i Faith changes in culture and worship are not what evolves with progressive revelation. The culture and ways of worship represent the diversity of human expression of belief. What evolves are the spiritual teachings, the spiritual maturity of humanity, and the trend toward unity in the diversity of being human.The 'foundation that was laid by God.' is the evolution of life itself, and attributes of God in human nature,
For a long time you you have been describing yourself as a non-theist and non-believer, but arguing a standard theist line word for word of Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Google is not responsible for collapsing every wave function needed for realizing every quantum state across the entire Universe.
Being the best explanation for our physical existence most definitely does not translate to an ultimate explanation beyond the human descriptive perspective. You fail to understand that the sciences and math are descriptive of our physical existence and not ultimate standards in and of themselves. Simplistic 1+1=2 or even a Newtonian view of physics fails to describe the science of physics in the contemporary world. Humans have been counting since the very first evidence of human activity. Even some animals use simple counting.
The further physics and math go from the macro world to the micro world of Quantum Mechanics the more obvious it is that physics and math are most definitely descriptive and not the ultimate answers(?). Math is most definitely a descriptive tool of science and in and of it self does not provide answers except on the 'pure math' of theory, and these answers are not descriptively useful unless science uses them.
The only way the sciences may be believed to explain every thing is if when one makes the philosophical naturalist assumption there are no spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence, There is no objective verifiable evidence for this assumption, and the your problem of over stating the claim that physics and math as an ultimate explanation..
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes - but we do at least have verifiable evidence of the existence of the natural world, there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever of the existence of any "spiritual worlds" is there? So at least one option for the ultimate explanation has to be that it is all, ultimately, physical and any apparent 'spiritual' aspects are emergent phenomena - n'est-ce pas? That is the only argument I am making here. If you are complaining about unfounded assumptions and lack of evidence, theistic supernaturalism certainly has a lot more to answer for than deism, pantheism or atheism - one can take it on faith or personal experience but those are the only options - there is no possibility at all of scientific verification for theism. But there IS a real world - of that I am sure.
I never said there was. I primarily critiquing your misuse of science and math to justify an agenda. If we can et past that OK, but at present you seem to stuck with one foot nailed to the floor.
[/quote]
So at least one option for the ultimate explanation has to be that it is all, ultimately, physical and any apparent 'spiritual' aspects are emergent phenomena - n'est-ce pas? That is the only argument I am making here. If you are complaining about unfounded assumptions and lack of evidence, theistic supernaturalism certainly has a lot more to answer for than deism, pantheism or atheism - one can take it on faith or personal experience but those are the only options - there is no possibility at all of scientific verification for theism. But there IS a real world - of that I am sure.[/QUOTE]
There are at present absolutely NO options in science and math for ultimate explanations for anything.
Without the long explanations, simply you believe in philosophical naturalism.
siti
Well-Known Member
There are at present absolutely NO options for ultimate explanations of anything.
It is irrelevant what I believe in - I have no agenda at all except to point out that you have eliminated a number of alternative (and far more rational) possibilities (like deism and pantheism) for potential ultimate explanations (perhaps in order to make the Baha'i faith in theistic super-naturalism appear a more reasonable choice). If we can get past that then maybe there's hope yet for your thread to become a genuine interfaith discussion of comparative religious (or even non-religious, philosophical) ideas about the universal "god". I honestly don't think that discussion can be had without a genuine consideration of pantheism and yet you have completely eliminated it.
Than you agree that physics and math do not represent ultimate answers (?).
Anyone may offer an explanation that they choose to present and argue for. I will present my views in response. I do not consider Deism a viable choice, because a God not remotely involved with Creation is no different than no God at all and the atheist/agnostic alternative.
Pantheism offers a similar problematic choice. If our physical existence is all there is for a God, therefore it is the same as atheism that proposes there are no Gods nor spiritual worlds other than our physical existence.
Though panentheism is an interesting variation of belief that is worth discussing.
Yes, what you believe is relevant if you choose to enter an interfaith dialogue, and not hypothetical non-scientific ultimate answers,
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
I have never claimed that physics and math represent ultimate answers. There are obviously no ultimate answers. In an eternally evolving universe there probably never will be actual ultimate answers only closer (or less close) approximations to ultimate explanations. At present, physics and evolution are the nearest things we have to ultimate explanations of the physical universe. Some cosmologists and physicists are pushing the boundaries of our knowledge in these areas (such as Lee Smolin with his cosmological natural selection and Roger Penrose with his cyclic universe...etc.). My suspicion is that before too long we will have clearer evidence that biological evolution on earth is but a small scale reflection of the overall evolutionary scheme of the entire "creation". Regardless of whether or not there is either a tinkering theos or disinterested deus behind all this, there is no question in my mind that the best explanation we can expect in the foreseeable future will come from 21st century science not bronze age mythology.
You seem to be equating all non-theistic models of deity with atheism? I don't see how that promotes inclusive interfaith dialogue but never mind.
I am heartened that you at least make room for the discussion of panentheism as a potential means of approaching an ultimate explanation. I am not sure how you can admit panentheism without making room for process theology - surely in an evolving panentheistic universe at least the part of God that is the universe must also evolve (i.e. be changeable) - and that is process theology. Once you admit that God can change in some aspects, then the boundary of God's changeableness is arbitrary. Is it only the physical bits that can change? But how does the part of God that is my mind (or my spirit if we are having spirits) change without God changing? In panentheism, it seems to me, if I change my mind, God changes his too - a little bit. And that fits perfectly with my argument that the ultimate answer (i.e. God) changes with human knowledge. What was "true" about God in the 19th century or the 6th century or the 1st century need not be true in the 21st. The ultimate answer is a moving target.
I thought I would answer this specifically than maybe address others. You have not responded to my statements. I was specific why I have the view I have and you failed to respond.
siti
Well-Known Member
Fair enough - let me explain why I disagree with your statements about deism and pantheism...
The God of deism is the "Great Architect" who designed the universe and brought it into existence in a moment of creation - this God has no further role in the universe (by choice or by necessity - deists differ on this) because he either cannot or does not wish to violate the laws of nature he has made binding on all creation (i.e. physics). I admit that I find this view more applicable to the tick-tock universe of Newtonian mechanics which has been thoroughly overturned in the last century. However, modern day deists have various ways of making their beliefs more up to date with 20th/21st century physics and cosmology - panendeism, pandeism and process deism are examples which could be explored - but I will not go into these here. The key point of deism is that it eliminates the need for divine revelation and miraculous intervention without abandoning the idea of intelligent creation. Hence, there is most definitely a god at the center of deism even if he refuses to answer prayers, do miracles or speak to us directly. Deism certainly is not equivalent to atheism.
Well that's not really what pantheism is. Naturalistic pantheism is more or less akin to atheism in that it denies - I guess - the idea of a personal deity and promotes reverence for the wondrous universe itself. If I had to choose, naturalistic pantheism is probably as close a label as I would be able to come up with for my own beliefs (although I am inclined to change them with new knowledge). But there are many pantheists who believe strongly in a spiritual aspect of the universe that pervades the whole of "creation" - a kind of "cosmic consciousness" that we can connect to and that even moves people to "do good" to their neighbour and to the wider creation. Whether or not they choose to call it "God", that universal "spirit" or "consciousness" is, de facto, a kind of deity for them.
For both deists and pantheists, their view of "deity" (or "non-deity") is for them the "best explanation" of the ultimate.
Is that a sufficiently specific response?
Last edited:
I do not buy this scenario. You're anthropomorphizing Deism, which I believe is no longer Deism. Your edging over to various Gaia and panentheisticm. As I said before, this is my personal interpretation, and when we are talking about different religious world views there are no absolutes.This thread is of course open to presenting different perspectives as you propose,
Your belief system appears to be a materialist Deism, which is philosophical naturalism in my perspective.
Same goes here. I believe your personifying pantheism, and it becomes a belief system something a kin to Gaia.and panetheism. You are sort of merging Deism and Pantheism into something that they are not. I do not believe these beliefs go to the point of personification of the "Deity" in the manner you propose,
It is more than obvious that everyone believes and creates a perspective that their view is the "best explanation,"
siti
Well-Known Member
What? "Gaia", "panentheism", "Materialist Deism"??? What on earth are you talking about? How did you get any of that from my brief paragraph on Deism - let alone all of it which is absurdly contradictory and not a single thing that you mention can be found in what I wrote. Putting it more simply (as it is clearly necessary to do) Deism is the belief in a supreme creative deity that does not intervene in the natural universe. For the record, here is Bob Johnson's definition from the World Union of Deists website:
"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."
and here's what the same page in its FAQ section states about how Deists view God:
How do Deists view God? We view God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. The following quote from Albert Einstein also offers a good Deistic description of God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Atheism, as I am sure you know very well, is the rejection of belief in any deity. They are clearly not equivalent in any way.
Again, I don't see where you are coming from with this - I specifically mentioned that pantheism denies the idea of a personal deity - anyway, here are a few selections from a list of definitions from the World Pantheism web site:
1. Oxford English Dictionary
Pantheism.
1. The religious belief or philosophical theory that God and the Universe are identical
(implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God); the doctrine that
God is everything and everything is God.
[First use 1730, modelled on the word pantheist, first used by John Toland in 1705]...
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica
Pantheism
[Only one def given]
The doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and,
conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and
laws that are manifested in the existing universe…
5. WorldBook Encyclopaedia
Pantheism
[Only one definition given]
Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, that God is not separate
from but totally identified with the world, and that God does not possess
personality or transcendence...
12. Oxford Companion to Philosophy
[Only one definition given]
Pantheism
First used by John Toland on 1705, the term "pantheist" denotes one who
holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity, and that this
unity is divine.
And equally obvious that some are prepared to dishonestly dismiss other viewpoints as something they are not in order to make their "best explanation" appear to be THE "best explanation". I can only think of two reasons for doing this - insecurity or the desire to proselytize. Either way, it is not the best basis for an interfaith discussion.
For the record, here is what I actually believe about the big questions:
How did the universe come to exist? I don't know.
Is there really a God? I don't know.
What is God like? I don't know.
How will we find out? By scientific observation and human reason - the only reasonably reliable tools at our disposal. Revelation has failed miserably over and over again (despite unsuccessful syncretistic attempts to stitch the torn pieces together into a meaningful whole). Priestcraft and prophecy are thoroughly discredited. Science and reason are all we have left. And they are doing a pretty good job so far (compared to revelation and prophecy), but we have a long, long way to go yet.
Last edited: