A pantheistic argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not in charge of defining what the universe is. I never claimed to be. For a start I didn't define the universe I defined "god" but I didn't even claim to be right about that definition either. My whole post starts with "if", did you not notice that? I merely said that if god is the universe - I'm defining "god" not the universe (and I'm not claiming to be logically justified in my definition either) - and you don't believe in the universe you therefore don't believe in god.

Secondly you try to slide this faulty logic by us ignoring that we already know the best option.

What faulty logic?

An that best option is that there is no such thing as a god so the universe cannot be a god either.

How are you defining god? I have said repeatedly throughout this thread that I'm defining him as the universe so all I'm saying is that if god is the universe and you don't believe in god then that means you don't believe in the universe. I never claimed that the way I'm defining god is right.

As for superstition, what superstitious claims have I made?

[Brian37]

Holly crap dude, I cant define something fictional anymore than describing superman's powers is a semblance of any sort of pragmatic reality. I could indulge in such fantasy, but why? If it doesn''t exist I can call it whatever I want and define it however I want and we all get to make shit up. But since we don't do that in reality, the best discription of the universe is merely a gigantic thing.

You definde god just now as being the universe, and I explained to you why that is silly. Just leave the universe as being a gigantic thing. You already accept this planet as a thing and the sun as a thing, why would something even bigger be more than a thing? Because you like the idea of it being more than a thing? Sorry, got to do a little better than trying to retrofit a word rooted in mythology to suit your own personal fantasy.

But then lets indulge in your new age woo for a second, ok the universe is a god, and his name is Snarfwidget.

And what is with the usage of "him" are you claiming that there are a couple of huge invidisble testicals somewhere in the universe that make it a him?

Ok, you are the reasonoble one, you got me.

FYI I don't have to think the universe is a god or even "believe" in it. I know the universe exists, so I don't have to have any "faith" in it anymore than you pray to gravity. Otherwise gravity is a god too and therefor you can give it invisible balls and pray to it too.

[Edwardo Piet]

You definde god just now as being the universe, and I explained to you why that is silly.

As I have said, I'm not justifying it logically.

I'm not saying that it is logically sound. I explained and re-explained why I'm doing it. I'm making the argument to demonstrate how changing the label doesn't change the belief and I'm doing that because some people, at least in my experience, think that changing the label changes the belief.

Just leave the universe as being a gigantic thing.

I have. I never re-defined the universe as "god", I defined "god" as the already predefined definition of "the universe".

You already accept this planet as a thing and the sun as a thing, why would something even bigger be more than a thing?

I'm not suggesting that there is anything more than the universe... see above.

Sorry, got to do a little better than trying to retrofit a word rooted in mythology to suit your own personal fantasy.

If I'm defining "god" as "the universe" then the way I'm using the word "god" isn't mythological and... what personal fantasy?

But then lets indulge in your new age woo for a second,

What new age woo?

ok the universe is a god,

I never said that.

FYI I don't have to think the universe is a god

Once again, I never said that.

I know the universe exists, so I don't have to have any "faith" in it anymore than you pray to gravity.

I never said that you had to...

Otherwise gravity is a god too and therefor you can give it invisible balls and pray to it too.

I never said that the universe is a god so that doesn't apply...

[The Grand Nudger]

If the belief in god is identical to the belief in the universe then the belief in god is identical to an atheist's belief in the universe - and if the belief is identical, the atheism and theism distinction becomes meaningless in that particular case because the very definition of them being opposites is dependent upon the definition of them being differences of belief.

LOL, people and their "ifs". Are you ever going to get around to turning that "if" into an is, or is this the point where I say "garbage in, garbage out"? If I agreed that the universe was god....then there would be no difference in our beliefs here, and I would no longer be an atheist. I don't agree, you haven't given me any reason why I should agree, and so I still don't believe that god exists. I remain an atheist.

It doesn't matter whether god exists, indeed. But it matters whether the universe is god or not

Not to our beliefs it doesn't. The universe -could- be god and I still might not believe in gods, and similarly the universe may not be god and I may still believe that it is.

because since at least most atheists believe in the universe, if the universe is god,

which is something atheists don't believe......by definition.

that would make their belief identical to the theistic belief of god being the universe.

Except that it isn't identical, atheists don't believe that the universe is god

Because they believe in exactly the same thing: The universe.

See the above

It is merely the label that is different.

The "label" here isn't -just- a label, it's the only qualifier between the two terms.

] That's not the difference between theism and atheism.

It is, but I apologize, I assumed that we were both referencing belief here...I didn't know that I was going to have to spell that out..but seeing as how loose words are becoming maybe I should have known better. There are no gods present in my "beliefs"..there is at least one present in yours.

That's the difference between the truth or falsehood of theism and atheism.

If we were talking gnostic or agnostic [insert whatever you like here] then sure, but we aren't.

Theism and atheism by themselves are about belief/non-belief, not about whether they are right.

Is there a god present in your belief system? Because there isn't a god present in mine, such as it is.

Of course it's a matter of what god is. If atheists believe in the universe, and theists believe that god is the universe, then they both believe in the same thing: the universe.

except that one doesn't believe in god

By your logic if I believed that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" meant "apple" and yet the meaning of "pastafarian" was no different to what it normally is I would be more of a pastafarian than non-pastafarians who believed in apples and just as much of a pastafarian as someone who actually believed that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, in the sense present in the gospel of the FSM.

LOL, no, "by my logic" you would be confused. A person who believes in at least one god is a theist, a person who does not believe in at least one god is an atheist. It is not up to me to define what a god is for you, but if you choose to call it a god, then so be it. This is a problem of your own making that does not apply to me.

Let me try and make this simpler. I'll start from the basics.

The only difference between atheism and theism is belief/non-belief.

-in a god, I''ll keep saying this until it sinks in.

Therefore, if there is no difference between the belief/non-belief of theism/atheism, there is no difference between theism and atheism.

More "ifs", but as it stands there -is- still a difference.

So, whether you label the universe as "god" or not, if in both cases the belief is completely the same because you are believing in the universe in exactly the same way

Trouble is that I am not "believing in the universe in exactly the same way"...-that much should be obvious....

and that is all that is meant by "god" the belief is identical and, therefore, for the reasons stated in the above paragraph, the difference between atheism and theism is none and there is a resulting logical contradiction that makes the whole meaning of theism and atheism collapse.

Is it supposed to be some revelation that so long as a word can be defined, redefined, or tasked in any way one wishes to at any moment that communication loses all meaning?

See above. If I merely define god as "the universe", nothing more and nothing less, and then believe in it in what respect do I believe in something different to you at all?

In that you believe that it is god..and I do not, again, that should be obvious.

I label it as "god", you don't. That is all. The label is different, the belief isn't.

The belief is different in that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt.......

So you are saying that even if god meant "the universe" you still wouldn't believe in god? That would imply that you didn't believe in the universe...

More accurately I would flat out state (you'll never need to wonder what I'm implying..I promise) that I find your definition to be ridiculous. We can both agree that the universe exists, while disagreeing on whether or not it is god.

If the very meaning of "god" is "the universe" then if someone asked you "Do you believe in god?" and you replied "No" you would be denying the very existence of the universe.

I suppose I simply expect more out of a god, eh?

If they hinge upon belief in god, they hinge upon belief.

-in a god

Therefore when a theist defines god as "the universe" and an atheist also believes in "the universe"

Does the atheist believe the universe is a god?

they are believing in the same thing, just with different labels. The belief is the same.

except for the god bit eh?

Therefore there is no difference in belief, therefore there is a logical contradiction between theism and atheism because their belief is the same

Except that it isn't the same, eh?

and that cannot be logically possible by definition and so the whole thing collapses completely and becomes meaningless.

I think that would be more of a problem for a person who's definition of a god leads them to both believing in god and not believing in god simultaneously. IE, not me.

I only need to demonstrate that the same particular definition of "god" being addressed is being believed in in both cases.

aaaactually, you'd need to get some agreement from me in the definition you used before you went about telling me that I believed in god...that's fair, don't you think?

If "god" is defined as "the universe" for example, then that means atheists don't believe in the universe.

This atheist doesn't believe in gods, but also thinks that your definition is ridiculous.

But since that isn't true because atheists do believe in the universe we then have a logical contradiction and the whole thing collapses.

Problem is that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt. I understand that you do....but that doesn't really mean much to me.

If I am defining "god" as the universe and you don't believe in that definition of "god" that I'm using - the universe - then you don't believe in the universe.

Think I already handled this but I'll do it again...I don't agree with your definition Doubt........

No, I was demonstrating that if god is defined as something and atheists believe in that something then there is a logical contradiction, so:

If they believed in something, and accepted a definition that termed it god they would not be atheists...

If atheists believe in the universe, and god is the universe, either atheists don't believe in the universe or the theism and atheism dichotomy logically collapses.

OR- atheists don't believe god is the universe...or that the universe is god, eh?

TLDR version, so long as you insist upon robbing words of their meaning at the very outset, anything becomes possible - except communication.....

BTW, you did say that the universe is god, if you didn't mean it I understand. Nevertheless, it was the conclusion of the argument you presented...so at least own it.

[Brian37]

I'm not saying it is logically sound. I explained and re-explained why I'm doing it. I'm making the argument to demonstrate how changing the label doesn't change the belief and I'm doing that because some people, in my experience, think that changing the label changes the belief.

Well once you KNOW something you don't have to believe it or argue for it, it is demonstrable beyond one's own personal bias.

So maybe I missread you, but pantheism is just woo and changing the word god to make god a natural thing is stupid. There is no need to use pantheism or even use the word god. Ochams razor says that overconflating something with excess baggage is a certian clusterfuck and will lead you away from reality.

So if you are not advocating for pantheism, then why this thread at all, just call a duck a duck and call it a day.

Pantheism=the universe is what I personally want it to be

The universe is big=the universe is big

Between the two which is opinion and which is provable fact? Which of the two seems to be the least complecated answer?

So if we are on the same page, I am sorry I missunderstood you. So now you are not arguing for pantheism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehe, can't believe this slipped by me Doubt, but did you just refer to the universe (being interchangeable with god, via your statements) as "him"? I think you're smuggling some stuff in with the concept of god that you don't want to talk about when you claim that it's "just the universe".....

[Brian37]

Hehehe, can't believe this slipped by me Doubt, but did you just refer to the universe (being interchangeable with god, via your statements) as "him"? I think you're smuggling some stuff in with the concept of god that you don't want to talk about when you claim that it's "just the universe".....

I really hate it when they think they are doing anything differently. Make a naked assurtion and back that ambiguity up with even more ambiguity.

Really, what is the problem with simply saying "The universe is a really really gigantic thing". I think subconciously this mindset simply thinks by accepting reality they'll lose their sense of awe. I havent lost it. I think the universe is awsome, both in our luck in lot being here, and its constrotive and destructive aspects. But I do not assing anything mysterious or autruistic to it. It is both a horrible and fantastic place, mostly hostile to life, but still awesome.

---

I would say that what came before the big bang or what will happen after the heat death of the universe is simply unknown at this point, but unknown does not mean unatural and most certainly scientists say that a cognition is not required for either to explain what we have now. Just like there was a time we didn't know what caused hurricanes but now we do.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] If I agreed that the universe was god....then there would be no difference in our beliefs here, and I would no longer be an atheist. I don't agree, you haven't given me any reason why I should agree, and so I still don't believe that god exists. I remain an atheist.

I'm not saying that the universe is god.

Not to our beliefs it doesn't. The universe -could- be god and I still might not believe in gods,[...]

I didn't say the universe was god...

and similarly the universe may not be god and I may still believe that it is.

see above.

Except that it isn't identical, atheists don't believe that the universe is god

1. I didn't say atheists believed that.

2. I didn't even define the universe as god.

See the above

See above the "See the above" quoted above, and hopefully see the rest of my post too.

It is, but I apologize, I assumed that we were both referencing belief here...I didn't know that I was going to have to spell that out..but seeing as how loose words are becoming maybe I should have known better. There are no gods present in my "beliefs"..there is at least one present in yours.

I said that theism and atheism are about belief/non-belief. You appeared to suggest that they are about the truth/falsehood of those beliefs.

Is there a god present in your belief system?

If god is the universe, yes. If god is a supernatural being, natural being or supernatural force, no.

LOL, no, "by my logic" you would be confused. A person who believes in at least one god is a theist, a person who does not believe in at least one god is an atheist. It is not up to me to define what a god is for you, but if you choose to call it a god, then so be it. This is a problem of your own making that does not apply to me.

If X is something and you believe in that something then you believe in X.

Therefore, if god is something and you believe in that something then you believe in god.

Therefore, if god is the universe and you believe in the universe, you believe in god.

Trouble is that I am not "believing in the universe in exactly the same way"...-that much should be obvious....

I shouldn't have used the words "same" or "exactly". Apologies. All I meant by that was that I am giving "god" the typical definition of the universe so, assuming we both believe in the typical definition of the universe then if god is that very universe that we believe in then we both believe in god.

Is it supposed to be some revelation that so long as a word can be defined, redefined, or tasked in any way one wishes to at any moment that communication loses all meaning?

No, I don't know how many times I have to explain that I have already explained my purposes for this thread many times and I have also quoted and re-quoted myself explaining.

In that you believe that it is god..and I do not, again, that should be obvious.

I don't know how many times I have to explain that I didn't say "if the universe is god" I said "if god is the universe". Also, I didn't say that I even believed that god is the universe.

The belief is different in that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt.......

As I said, I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain that I didn't define the universe as god. And not only to you.

I'm saying that if god is the universe, and you believe in the universe, you believe in god. The reasoning there is tautological.

So you are saying that even if god meant "the universe" you still wouldn't believe in god? That would imply that you didn't believe in the universe...

More accurately I would flat out state (you'll never need to wonder what I'm implying..I promise) that I find your definition to be ridiculous. We can both agree that the universe exists, while disagreeing on whether or not it is god.

I didn't say that it was logically sound. I have already explained my purpose for this definition again and again and again and again and again and re-explained and quoted myself and re-quoted myself explaining it. And I've also explained that I've done that too.

I have already said that I'm not arguing that the argument is logically sound. I'm arguing that it is logically valid. If god is the universe and you believe in the universe you believe in god. That is logically valid. I'm not saying that it is sound.

I suppose I simply expect more out of a god, eh?

If god is the universe and you expect god to be more than the universe, why?

Once again, the argument is logically valid, I'm not saying that it is sound. Where did I say that it is sound?

Does the atheist believe the universe is a god?

How many times must I be misunderstood on this matter I wonder? I'm not saying the universe is god. I'm saying "if god is the universe".

I only need to demonstrate that the same particular definition of "god" being addressed is being believed in in both cases.

aaaactually, you'd need to get some agreement from me in the definition you used before you went about telling me that I believed in god...that's fair, don't you think?

If I say "if god is the universe then anyone who believes in the universe believes in god", what is logically invalid about that? I didn't say it was sound. I have stated my purpose for my premise, it wasn't for it to be logically sound. My premise is pragmatic, not logical. My argument and conclusion is logical, not my premise.

This atheist doesn't believe in gods, but also thinks that your definition is ridiculous.

Of course atheists don't believe in gods. I'm not saying that my definition isn't, logically, ridiculous I'm saying that my argument is valid and I explained the purpose of my premise.

Problem is that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt.

How many more times do I have to say: "How many more times to I have to say that I'm not saying that the universe is god"?

I understand that you do [believe in god]....

If god is the universe, yes.

but that doesn't really mean much to me.

I understand that you don't see my argument as sound but it was never meant to be and I never said that it was. Can you demonstrate how my argument is invalid? I have said many times that if god is the universe and you believe in god then you believe in the universe. That is logically valid. I'm not saying that it is sound, I'm saying that it is valid. And it is, tautologically so.

As for my explained purpose for creating this thread I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that.

Think I already handled this but I'll do it again...I don't agree with your definition Doubt........

I didn't say you should. I said if. I said if god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god. That's a tautology. It can't be false, it must be true, by definition. But your answer to that statement was "no".

If they believed in something, and accepted a definition that termed it god they would not be atheists...

How many more times must I say, etc, etc, etc, once again: I didn't say "if the universe is god" I said "if god is the universe".

OR- atheists don't believe god is the universe..

If god is the universe and atheists don't believe in god then they don't believe in the universe. That's a tautology.

---

Hehehe, can't believe this slipped by me Doubt, but did you just refer to the universe (being interchangeable with god, via your statements) as "him"? I think you're smuggling some stuff in with the concept of god that you don't want to talk about when you claim that it's "just the universe".....

Nah, I was the most active atheist on these forums for the first few years and my atheism hasn't changed one bit - I merely left partly to do other things and partly due to mental illness - I still believe a supernatural creator of the universe is about as likely as the flying spaghetti monster. I'm making a valid argument here, that is all.

My point is that whether I believe god is the universe or whether I just believe in the universe it makes no difference because in both cases I'm merely believing in the universe. It is just in one case I label it "god" and in another I don't. Because I'm defining god as "the universe" but I'm not defining "the universe" as god.

It's funny that I said "him", but I assure you that that's just out of sheer habit of 8000 odd posts on these forums with most of them being directed at theists, so when I argue with them about their "God" I refer to it as "Him" because apparently they somehow know that their god has a personality - is a person - and is male.

---

Really, what is the problem with simply saying "The universe is a really really gigantic thing".

Did you not see my post where I responded to you about all the assumptions you had made about me including the fact that you assumed that I was defining the universe as god despite the fact that I didn't say I was? I said that god is the universe. I didn't say that the universe is god. Well, if I did, it was by accident. Check my posts and I assure you that either in all of them I say that "if god is the universe" and not "if the universe is god" or the vast majority of the time and any time I say the reverse, it was an accidental mistake on my part.

Now, the premise of my argument is "if god is..." and I concluded that it lead to the universe being god but I'd already defined "god" as the most influential force in the universe and shown that that was the universe itself, so all I'm really doing is saying god is the universe. I'm not saying the universe is god in the typical sense.

[Brian37]

Hehehe, can't believe this slipped by me Doubt, but did you just refer to the universe (being interchangeable with god, via your statements) as "him"? I think you're smuggling some stuff in with the concept of god that you don't want to talk about when you claim that it's "just the universe".....

Nah, I was the most active atheist on these forums for the first few years and my atheism hasn't changed one bit - I merely left partly to do other things and partly due to mental illness - I still believe a supernatural creator of the universe is about as likely as the flying spaghetti monster. I'm making a valid argument here, that is all.

My point is that whether I believe god is the universe or whether I just believe in the universe it makes no difference because in both cases I'm merely believing in the universe. It is just in one case I label it "god" and in another I don't.

It's funny that I said "him", but I assure you that's just out of sheer habit of 8000 odd posts on these forums with most of them being directed at theists, so when I argue with them about their "God" I refer to it as "Him" because apparently they somehow know that their god has a personality - is a person - and is male.

A physically blind person whould have more reason to "believe" in the universe than you do. You don't have to "believe" in the universe anymore than you have to believe in the floor below you or the ground your house sits on. It is emperical and does not need any type of "believing". You KNOW there is a floor under your feet and you know your house is sitting on real ground.

There is a huge difference between belief and knowledge and if people wouldn't confuse the two the world as a whole would be better off.

Calling the universe a god is stupid and vacuous. It is the same "it is bigger than me so therefor it is a god" is the type of stupid logic that lead people to believe that vocanos were gods.

Now if you are not arguing for pantheism please don't feed them. If you are arguing for pantheism then you simply have no case. You are merely swaping one form of woo with another.

Here is the progression of human psychology in our evol8utionary trait of comming up with all sorts of woo and superstition.

It starts with "it is bigger than me and it frightens me so because it has me in its grips it must be thinking so I should fear it so it must be a god". That is simply a reflection of the same fear and reward a baby feels when it gets a nipple or gets a spank.

That is ltterally where this placebo comes from. A baby's narcissism and fear.That is the part of evulution that manifests itself into credulous thinking.

The upside however to evolution is that we constantly have proven despite creating new woo and new superstitions we have overcome old ones. I am simply placing pantheism in the same rightful boat of all prior naked assertions and all the popular naked assertions still made today.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Let's assume that there is one god and it is whatever is the most influential force in the universe.

2. The universe as a whole has more influence than anything else because without it nothing else can exist, because everything is part of it. It is so influential that it necessitates existence itself by definition, assuming that the universe is everything.

3. Therefore the universe itself as a whole is god.

Thoughts?

So I guess my final thoughts on the matter would be that you are incapable of providing any justification for the assumption at the start (specifically that you have assumed god, and that influence is the qualifier), and you aren't willing to stick to your conclusion (or even admit that you said it). Also, since you don't believe this (as per the response above), I suppose you aren't a pantheist either. If the only reason that you proposed this was to show how meaningless the terms atheism and theism are then you failed there as well, being incapable of addressing the very root of either word. "If words didn't mean what they meant then....." waffles.