Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[malimbar04]

What I believe is transcendence, immanence, pantheism, and panentheism, not panentheism by itself. I don't agree that pantheism and transcendence make panentheism, because then the universe would be transcending itself. Immanence is not that the gods are within the world, it's that they manifest throughout the entire world. It is not mutually exclusive with pantheism, and in fact, is the main part of it. Because of this, panentheism is more like transcendence and immanence combined. Perhaps the way I explained it just wasn't clear enough. When I say "within" the world, I mean manifesting in the world, or more accurately, manifesting in every portion of the world. You can always look up... articles on Wikipedia, or something if you really want to know more.

If I understand it right, this could translate just as well to "meaningless". That is, unless you believe these gods actually do something?

See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics

It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.

My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.

a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.

Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.

Tell me one god that has been disproved.

And I think a disproved god would be more useless than an unproved lofty one

A god that has been disproved:
Zeus. There is no gigantic being living on any mountain (let alone one close to rome or greece). Lightning bolts also don't come from a source (like his, which are thrown), but are instead a reaction from both directions.

Another god that has been disproved:
The literal version of Yahweh. The earth is not 6000 years old. The Isrealites did not win every battle they prayed for. People do not randomly turn into pillars of salt. The earth is not flat. stars are not small dots stuck in a cloth that hangs above us. There is no HELL below us (since we live on a sphere, we have a pretty good idea what's below us). Hey, he even got bats wrong - they're not birds.

[ECrownofFire]

What I believe is transcendence, immanence, pantheism, and panentheism, not panentheism by itself. I don't agree that pantheism and transcendence make panentheism, because then the universe would be transcending itself. Immanence is not that the gods are within the world, it's that they manifest throughout the entire world. It is not mutually exclusive with pantheism, and in fact, is the main part of it. Because of this, panentheism is more like transcendence and immanence combined. Perhaps the way I explained it just wasn't clear enough. When I say "within" the world, I mean manifesting in the world, or more accurately, manifesting in every portion of the world. You can always look up... articles on Wikipedia, or something if you really want to know more.

If I understand it right, this could translate just as well to "meaningless". That is, unless you believe these gods actually do something?

Yes, I do believe they do something. I keep those things to myself, but yes

See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics

It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.

My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.

a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.

Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.

Tell me one god that has been disproved.

And I think a disproved god would be more useless than an unproved lofty one

A god that has been disproved:
Zeus. There is no gigantic being living on any mountain (let alone one close to rome or greece). Lightning bolts also don't come from a source (like his, which are thrown), but are instead a reaction from both directions.

Another god that has been disproved:
The literal version of Yahweh. The earth is not 6000 years old. The Isrealites did not win every battle they prayed for. People do not randomly turn into pillars of salt. The earth is not flat. stars are not small dots stuck in a cloth that hangs above us. There is no HELL below us (since we live on a sphere, we have a pretty good idea what's below us). Hey, he even got bats wrong - they're not birds.

I'm just saying, you can't disprove any particular god. You can disprove certain stories, but for all you know, they could be metaphors

[Siquo]

Man, the comments section makes me proud of the level of discussion we're maintaining.

Yeah, this is a treasured corner of the internet for me

See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics

As usual But it's educating:
I looked up immanence, and now I get it. It's a broader term, and "immanence in the universe" == "pantheism", and that specificiation is implied with the use of the word, although you can use it for other "containers" as well. Or no... immanence is more... permeating the universe, whereas pantheism is "is" the universe. Come to think of it, they're all on different scales, so yeah, describing your faith as a combination of those is probably the best way.
Do I get a cookie now?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm just saying, you can't disprove any particular god.

Disproving gods is, as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, impossible. When you're dealing with ultra-powerful non-apparent beings who's traits can be changed at will by those claiming they exist, then you may have very well reached a negative that truly cannot be proved instead of the normal meaning of the phrase.

You can disprove certain stories, but for all you know, they could be metaphors

We can disprove the vast majority of the stories, given how many have outright impossible/absurdly supernatural elements. As for the metaphor thing, no. I cannot stand the tactic of defending some elements of religion as fact and others as "just metaphorical", picked and chosen based off of personal preferance. It's almost as annoying to deal with as "Out of context!".

[Glowcat]

I'm just saying, you can't disprove any particular god.

You're ignoring that people hold very concrete and literal interpretations of religious stories. As malimbar says, those particular Gods are being disproven when the stories are. You cannot simply argue about 'X' without first defining the subject well. If the stories are simply metaphors then you should understand what they're metaphors of and what kind of being they signify.

I feel these debates over theism and the supernatural only exist because people never make enough effort to understand what it is they're discussing before leaping into the fray.

[ECrownofFire]

Man, the comments section makes me proud of the level of discussion we're maintaining.

Yeah, this is a treasured corner of the internet for me

See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics

As usual But it's educating:
I looked up immanence, and now I get it. It's a broader term, and "immanence in the universe" == "pantheism", and that specificiation is implied with the use of the word, although you can use it for other "containers" as well. Or no... immanence is more... permeating the universe, whereas pantheism is "is" the universe. Come to think of it, they're all on different scales, so yeah, describing your faith as a combination of those is probably the best way.
Do I get a cookie now?

Good job, you understand it now. You may have a cookie


Clearly you people have never heard of joking

But really, to take an analogy, Jesus. I think we can all accept he never walked on water, turned water into wine, died and was resurrected, or whatever else there was. But I'm sure that we can all accept he still existed as a person. Now replace "still existed" with "might exist", and you have the same situation with, say... Zeus. People like to stretch the truth and make their gods/religion seem better than it is. It doesn't mean that you've disproved the god itself, just the god as presented in those stories. But this is all so ridiculous to talk about. Seriously, we all know that Zeus doesn't exist, so why bother at all?

[Siquo]

You're ignoring that people hold very concrete and literal interpretations of religious stories.

Some people, yes. Most people, no. The most vocal of those two is the former, leading to these kinds of prejudices.

You can't disprove anything that's not clearly defined. Any attempt to clearly define a god can be smashed to pieces, and what is left over are gods that are loosely defined (survival of the least defined! ).
There's a school of christianity (eastern orthodox, mostly) that is very good at this. They state:

You cannot say that God exists. You cannot say that God does not exist. You can only say that it is not so that God does not exist.

Keep in mind that this "wordplay" was invented by the same guys who invented the logic you want to perform on this. But they know that reducing the above to ¬¬G == G is not doing justice to the actual words, and you'd be in direct violation of the first statement.

Disprove this:

    * Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
    * God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
    * God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
    * Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
    * God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
    * God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
    * God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.

I personally really like this way of thinking about God, as it amplifies the humility of humans vs God. To say you know what God is, is hubris in my book.

[Glowcat]

Disprove this:

Why? It's gibberish. We can't even begin a discussion if you're trying to define God by what it is not.

It's like saying "A + B = X, solve for X" and then "Also, X is not 4" as if that would somehow change the illegibility of the formula.

    * Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
    * God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
    * God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
    * Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
    * God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
    * God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
    * God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.

I personally really like this way of thinking about God, as it amplifies the humility of humans vs God. To say you know what God is, is hubris in my book.

It's this sort of nonsense that perpetuates a road to nowhere. If you don't know what the God thing is then you don't also contradict yourself by claiming certain properties. In previous posts you've stated that you were coming to new conclusions about what God is and yet now you roll out with this latest statement. Why do you hold onto an inconsistent philosophy that can't even begin to understand itself without contradiction?

[Siquo]

It's this sort of nonsense that perpetuates a road to nowhere. If you don't know what the God thing is then you don't also contradict yourself by claiming certain properties. In previous posts you've stated that you were coming to new conclusions about what God is and yet now you roll out with this latest statement. Why do you hold onto an inconsistent philosophy that can't even begin to understand itself without contradiction?

Because contradictions are no reason not to believe in something, and at least I have a road. You don't. Give me one (hint: Science is not a road, it's a tool). I also stated before that my view of god changes by the minute at times, so yes, it's inconsistent. The "disprove this" was a joke, but I guess there's humourless atheists as well as theists, those groups are not all that different

Before you go apeshit on contradictions, consider things like love, or hope. I believe that a certain person loves me, even though she's trying to make my life a living hell at times. Contradictory, yes, but still I believe it. (BTW, she's still 2.5 yrs old so I forgive her ) I believe that the world will be ok, eventually, despite all evidence that it won't. I believe in the goodness of man, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And why do I hold on to something inconsistent that changes all the time and can't even begin to understand itself? SCIENCE! 
(for those who didn't get the last remark: The body of knowledge discovered by Science is contradicting itself all the time (yes it does (really, just look at scientists arguing)), changing all the time, and can't explain itself)

[Phmcw]

Because contradictions are no reason not to believe in something, and at least I have a road. You don't. Give me one (hint: Science is not a road, it's a tool). I also stated before that my view of god changes by the minute at times, so yes, it's inconsistent. The "disprove this" was a joke, but I guess there's humourless atheists as well as theists, those groups are not all that different

I disagree on the fact that you got a road. When you believe in something, you have nothing. You picked a direction because you "feel" it's the road, but it's all.

[Glowcat]

Because contradictions are no reason not to believe in something, and at least I have a road. You don't. Give me one (hint: Science is not a road, it's a tool).

You do? Where is it? Going through the trees and over the color blue?

You are correct that Science is a tool but I come from a perspective of philosophical naturalism and a focus on objective truth. My philosophy is to put together reality as it can be observed. It doesn't need to make more assumptions than that.

I also stated before that my view of god changes by the minute at times, so yes, it's inconsistent. The "disprove this" was a joke, but I guess there's humourless atheists as well as theists, those groups are not all that different

While you may have been joking you also expressed support for such ideas. Sorry if my argumentative approach was harsh but it seems that you're simply being evasive about your beliefs instead of letting them be scrutinized.

Before you go apeshit on contradictions, consider things like love, or hope. I believe that a certain person loves me, even though she's trying to make my life a living hell at times. Contradictory, yes, but still I believe it. (BTW, she's still 2.5 yrs old so I forgive her ) I believe that the world will be ok, eventually, despite all evidence that it won't. I believe in the goodness of man, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here.

And why do I hold on to something inconsistent that changes all the time and can't even begin to understand itself? SCIENCE! 
(for those who didn't get the last remark: The body of knowledge discovered by Science is contradicting itself all the time (yes it does (really, just look at scientists arguing)), changing all the time, and can't explain itself)

As you pointed out earlier, science is a tool, not a philosophy. It's also a tool that is meant to discover apparent contradictions in the observable universe and sort them out, not cling onto them.

[Andir]

My road takes me wherever I want to go, but it complies to the laws of nature (in that, it will not take me through a tree...)

Picking a religion is like getting on a bus and letting the driver take you to where they want to drop you off.

[ECrownofFire]

My road takes me wherever I want to go, but it complies to the laws of nature (in that, it will not take me through a tree...)

Picking a religion is like getting on a bus and letting the driver take you to where they want to drop you off.

Which is why you pick your own religion

[Leafsnail]

And why do I hold on to something inconsistent that changes all the time and can't even begin to understand itself? SCIENCE! 
(for those who didn't get the last remark: The body of knowledge discovered by Science is contradicting itself all the time (yes it does (really, just look at scientists arguing)), changing all the time, and can't explain itself)

This is the most hilarious thing I've read all day, thanks.

[Urist is dead tome]

Another god that has been disproved:
The literal version of Yahweh. The earth is not 6000 years old. The Isrealites did not win every battle they prayed for. People do not randomly turn into pillars of salt. The earth is not flat. stars are not small dots stuck in a cloth that hangs above us. There is no HELL below us (since we live on a sphere, we have a pretty good idea what's below us). Hey, he even got bats wrong - they're not birds.

Malimbar, please do not write down G-d personal name. But back to this post.

It is not said in the Bible how old the Earth is. We don't even know if it really was created in six literal days.

 It was not randomly turning into salt.

Since when did the Bible say that the Earth was flat? You're part about the stars in inapplicable as there is no mention in Scripture. It never said Hell was inside the Earth. Because if that were true than you're earlier claim of Scripture saying the Earth is flat doesn't make sense.

And as for bats. Probably due to a mistranslation.