Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 12:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A pantheistic argument.
#61
RE: A pantheistic argument.
(October 31, 2012 at 11:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: If I cannot use the terms "universe" and "god" interchangeably after you have labored to make them so then we have a problem with identity.
If they are defined as identical then how isn't their identity identical?

Quote: If to say "I do not believe in god" is taken to mean "I do not believe in the universe" directly then they are interchangeable..and again, you have labored to make this so, so why resist the parity you yourself created?
How am I resisting?

Quote: I'm not confused, you have created a confused equivalence between the terms which I do not agree with (but refuse to own it).

I appreciate that initially it may be a bit confusing but I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I'm taking "god" and defining it as "the universe", not the other way around. Yet you seem to have continued to take me to be defining "the universe" as the already pre-defined typical definition of "god". I'm not.

Quote:The soundness of the argument is required to make your ancillary (or main..depending) point.

I'm not expecting my argument to be sound, I'm expecting it to be valid. An argument doesn't have to be sound for it to be valid.

So, no, the soundness of my argument isn't required to make my main point. I can make my main point and leave the soundness out of it if I'm only arguing for validity.

Quote:If i said "waffliest possible plate" that would exclude all things that weren't plates...I wanted to avoid calling god a plate in my premise and stating that god was a plate in the conclusion.....the reasons should be obvious. I didn't want to define god as a plate and then conclude god was a plate.

That's all irrelevant to validity and my argument was only intended to be valid so your analogy fails.

Quote: What you label as god is unimportant (a point which we share in completely divergent ways) that you label it god -is all that matters-.
In that case, if god is the universe, you're a theist. But the thing is that if you label the universe as "god" the label is different, not the belief. Labelling something as "god" has nothing to do with atheism/theism, it is only the belief that matters. If I define god as the universe and then believe in that definition of god then I'm believing in the universe like you, an atheist, so there's a logical contradiction so in that case atheism/theism doesn't apply.

Quote: The distinction between the two, even in our case, is still meaningful
If god means, and only means "the universe" where is the difference in meaning?
Reply
#62
RE: A pantheistic argument.
(October 31, 2012 at 12:18 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: If they are defined as identical then how isn't their identity identical?
With regards to your point about atheism and theism? That I do not accept your definition (and have seen no reason to do so). Something that you yourself have made note of. But indeed, why aren't they identical, why can I not say that you have defined the universe as god, and vice versa...if you have defined them so that they are identical?

Quote:
How am I resisting?
See above and below

Quote:
I appreciate that initially it may be a bit confusing but I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I'm taking "god" and defining it as "the universe", not the other way around.
Then perhaps your conclusion should have been, "therefore god is the universe..as opposed to "therefore the universe is god"..eh?

Quote:Yet you seem to have continued to take me to be defining "the universe" as the already pre-defined typical definition of "god". I'm not.
Who said anything about a pre-defined typical definition...you are creating your own, correct?
(October 29, 2012 at 5:34 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: 3. Therefore the universe itself as a whole is god.

Thoughts?
My thoughts are that you have spent considerable amounts of time stressing that you did not mean this....as per all of the above.


Quote:I'm not expecting my argument to be sound, I'm expecting it to be valid. An argument doesn't have to be sound for it to be valid.

So, no, the soundness of my argument isn't required to make my main point. I can make my main point and leave the soundness out of it if I'm only arguing for validity.
I thought you proposed this argument to show the meaningless of the distinction between atheism and theism under a certain definition? The argument that provides the definition would have to be sound to make that point....wouldn't it?

Quote:That's all irrelevant to validity and my argument was only intended to be valid so your analogy fails.
waffles.

Quote:
In that case, if god is the universe, you're a theist.
Turn that "if" into an "is" and I would be, but since you haven't, I'm not.

Quote: But the thing is that if you label the universe as "god" the label is different, not the belief.
except the god bit..the only operative bit.

Quote: Labelling something as "god" has nothing to do with atheism/theism, it is only the belief that matters.
-in god

Quote: If I define god as the universe and then believe in that definition of god
Then you believe in at least one god..which I do not.

Quote:then I'm believing in the universe like you
Not quite "like me"......lol, because I'm not calling it god.

Quote:, an atheist,
right, an atheist, because I don't believe in god.

Quote: so there's a logical contradiction so in that case atheism/theism doesn't apply.
Not until you make that argument sound..your definition hinges on an assumption that you have excused yourself from justifying. The argument you are attempting to make re: atheism and theism hinges on that definition...

Quote: If god means, and only means "the universe" where is the difference in meaning?
What part of the words atheism or theism do you think refers to what "god" means? It applies only to belief in "god" - whatever the fuck that happens to be.

A pantheist may not believe in a specific type of god any more than a christian believes in a wolf-god...nevertheless, we don't call a christian an atheist because they don't believe in wolf-gods any more than we can call a pantheist an atheist because they don't believe in christian gods.

Is that a better way to summarize why there is a distinction between atheism and theism? Pantheism, wolf-godism, and christianity are all forms of theism because there is at least one god involved, even though all three define god differently. Atheism is different than all three in that no god is involved -by any definition-. At no point can one claim belief in a god of any kind and remain consistent with the meaning of the word atheist.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#63
RE: A pantheistic argument.
(October 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: With regards to your point about atheism and theism? That I do not accept your definition (and have seen no reason to do so).
Whether you accept my definition doesn't change the belief. If I define god as the universe I still believe in the same thing as you - the universe - I just label it "god ".

Quote:But indeed, why aren't they identical, why can I not say that you have defined the universe as god, and vice versa...if you have defined them so that they are identical?

So first you say that they are identical and now you ask me why they aren't?

Okay, so I'll assume now that you are instead saying that they are identical.

Well, it's okay to say that I believe that the universe is god if you don't take what I am saying out of context. I believe that the universe is god if I also believe that god is the universe. (And I'm not taking the meaning of the universe away by the way, I'm leaving that the way it normally is). My point is, and was, that taking what I am saying out of context by merely saying that I am saying that the universe is god is not the same as saying that I am saying that god is the universe.

I am not simply saying that "the universe is god". If we are going to be simple about this, I am saying "god is the universe".

Quote:See above and below

I still don't see what I am resisting and in what way. Do you mean I'm disagreeing? Well if that's all you mean I will address you by saying that: as far as I'm concerned whenever you fail to demonstrate that my argument is invalid you fall back on questioning its soundness despite the fact that I have repeatedly stated that I'm not trying to make a sound argument.

DvF Wrote:I appreciate that initially it may be a bit confusing but I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I'm taking "god" and defining it as "the universe", not the other way around.

Rhythm Wrote:Then perhaps your conclusion should have been, "therefore god is the universe..as opposed to "therefore the universe is god"..eh?
Once again, context. My argument starts by defining god in a certain way and then concluding that the universe is god - and I see the argument as valid, I'm not saying that it is sound. But, on the other hand, when I say that I am saying "god is the universe" and not "the universe is god" that is in the context of the parts of this thread where I have repeatedly tried to explain to you why it's tautologically true that if god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god.

Quote:Who said anything about a pre-defined typical definition...you are creating your own, correct?

Well in that case what is your problem when I say that if an atheist believes in the universe that is identical to someone labelling themselves a pantheist, defining "god" as the universe and then believing in it? All they're doing is believing in the universe like you, they're just labelling it "god" and all forms of theism are about the belief not merely the label.

Quote:My thoughts are that you have spent considerable amounts of time stressing that you did not mean this....as per all of the above.

My point was, as I said above, that I wasn't saying "the universe is god" if that is to be taken out of context, I'm not merely saying "the universe is god". And the reason why I believed that you were misunderstanding me is that the alternative is for you to endorse the idea that if I merely label the universe as "god" then that changes what I actually believe in the existence of.


Quote:I thought you proposed this argument to show the meaningless of the distinction between atheism and theism under a certain definition? The argument that provides the definition would have to be sound to make that point....wouldn't it?

Would you call it relevant to soundness when I show that it's tautologically true: that if atheists believe in the universe and some theists defines god as the universe and then believes in the universe they are both believing in the same thing so that particular type of theism collapses? "God" is merely being used as a label in that case, there is no difference of actual belief in the existence of something.

DvF Wrote:That's all irrelevant to validity and my argument was only intended to be valid so your analogy fails.
Rhythm Wrote:waffles.

Well, do you think that it was relevant to the validity of my argument or not?

DvF Wrote:In that case, if god is the universe, you're a theist.
Rhythm Wrote:Turn that "if" into an "is" and I would be, but since you haven't, I'm not.

That makes no sense. How does that make sense? All I'm saying is that if god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god... that is tautological.

DvF Wrote:But the thing is that if you label the universe as "god" the label is different, not the belief.
Rhythm Wrote:except the god bit..the only operative bit.

So you don't think that there's a difference between believing in something and labeling something?

DvF Wrote:Labelling something as "god" has nothing to do with atheism/theism, it is only the belief that matters.
Rhythm Wrote:-in god

That statement doesn't contradict me... yes belief in god is what matters but what I'm actually saying is that merely labelling something as "god" doesn't equate to belief in god.

DvF Wrote:If I define god as the universe and then believe in that definition of god
Rhythm Wrote:Then you believe in at least one god..which I do not.
So we are both believing in the universe and my merely labeling it as god changes my belief?

No it doesn't. We are both believing in the universe, I'm calling it god, you're not, that is all.

DvF Wrote:then I'm believing in the universe like you
Rhythm Wrote:Not quite "like me"......lol, because I'm not calling it god.

I'm sure earlier in this thread you actually agreed with me that merely labelling something is not the same as believing in it. You're more confused than I thought you were because now you seem to think that by "calling it [the universe] god" I'm believing that it is god. Merely labelling something doesn't change the belief. Theism is about believing in something, not merely labelling something. There is a difference between believing in the existence of something and what you label it as.

Quote:Not until you make that argument sound..your definition hinges on an assumption that you have excused yourself from justifying.

No. If I am merely arguing for validity I can make tautologically valid arguments without soundness. If my argument had to be sound I wouldn't be merely arguing for validity now would I?


Quote:What part of the words atheism or theism do you think refers to what "god" means? It applies only to belief in "god" - whatever the fuck that happens to be.

If the thing believed in is the same, where is the difference of belief?

I'll try this argument:

Premise 1: Theism/atheism are both tautologically dependent upon belief/non-belief so if it can be demonstrated that there is no difference of belief/non-belief in a particular sense, the meaning of that particular sense of theism/atheism collapses tautologically.

Premise 2: Atheists believe in the universe.

Premise 3: Some forms of pantheism, which is a form of theism, merely believe that god=the universe.

Conclusion 1: Both groups believe in the universe and the god that the theistic group belongs to is the universe and nothing more than that

Conclusion 2: Both groups therefore believe in the same thing.

Conclusion 3: Both groups therefore don't have a difference of belief. Merely the label is different.

Conclusion 4: Therefore premise 1 has been demonstrated: there is no difference of belief in this particular sense of theism/atheism, therefore the whole logical meaning of this particular sense of theism/atheism collapses tautologically.
Reply
#64
RE: A pantheistic argument.
I still don't believe the universe is god (or that god is the universe) - Even if you do...and I'd call that a difference, wouldn't you? Perhaps even the difference between pantheism and atheism.

If there was "nothing more" then the term god becomes useless (to you...no less, but still useful to me..because again...I don't see any reason to merge the terms). There is more, and the more is the god bit. A label does not change belief, but a label does change the description of that belief if the label is a disqualifier. There are no gods in atheism Doubt....by definition. You're going to have to argue that away next, so you're about halfway there (if I just rolled over to your assumptions..which I do not).

(all this shit about labels..lol, show me a word I couldn't call -just a label-....?)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#65
RE: A pantheistic argument.
(October 31, 2012 at 6:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I still don't believe the universe is god (or that god is the universe) - Even if you do...and I'd call that a difference, wouldn't you? Perhaps even the difference between pantheism and atheism.

You're not addressing my argument. You're just saying "I still don't believe".

If god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god. That is undeniably tautologically valid logical reasoning. If X is Y and you believe in Y then you believe in X.

Quote:There is more, and the more is the god bit. A label does not change belief, but a label does change the description of that belief if the label is a disqualifier.
If the belief is the same then the label is describing the same thing. If I believe in the universe and label it "god" I am merely describing "god" as the universe. What we believe in is the same, and the description is the same, merely the name is different.

Quote:There are no gods in atheism Doubt....by definition.
Which is why if atheists believe in the universe and if god is the universe then there is a logical contradiction.


Quote:(all this shit about labels..lol, show me a word I couldn't call -just a label-....?)

All I'm saying is that the meaning of believing in something is different to the meaning of labelling it as something. So if I label the universe as "god" then that doesn't mean that I believe in god. If I merely define god as the universe, then what I actually believe in is the universe, just like you, the belief is the same - merely the label is different.
Reply
#66
RE: A pantheistic argument.
I think it depends on your definition of "god". As far as we know, the universe isn't intelligent or self-aware, so it isn't a "god" according to the definition of god as a "planner" or a "creator".

If you define god simply as "the most powerful force in the universe" then yes, god is the universe itself. But in this case the word "god" is useless. You can simply say "the universe".

Quote:Some forms of pantheism, which is a form of theism, merely believe that god=the universe.

Most of those forms also believe that the universe is intelligent or self-aware. I think that there is no evidence to make this claim.

Quote:So if I label the universe as "god" then that doesn't mean that I believe in god. If I merely define god as the universe, then what I actually believe in is the universe, just like you, the belief is the same - merely the label is different.

Then "god" is a useless label.
Reply
#67
RE: A pantheistic argument.
(November 1, 2012 at 6:20 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: You're not addressing my argument. You're just saying "I still don't believe".
I have addressed it repeatedly, without turning your "if" into an "is" your argument is DOA (for me).

Quote:If god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god[/b]. That is undeniably tautologically valid logical reasoning. If X is Y and you believe in Y then you believe in X.
......and -if- two cents were a fortune I'd be a millionaire, pity eh?

Quote: If the belief is the same then the label is describing the same thing.
But unfortunately it is not the same, remember that three line argument all the way back at the beginning of this....that's a glaring difference between you and I in what we mean by "god" or "universe". The thing in question is the same -for you-....but you have not compelled me to adopt your definition. That the thing in question is the same (for you) still has no ability to change the rob the word "atheist" of it's meaning, mostly because you yourself are ruling the word "god" into your statements. As I have said many times, it matters very little how you define your god, and it isn't up to me to define your god for you, but if it is god then at least fucking own it man.....

Quote:If I believe in the universe and label it "god" I am merely describing "god" as the universe.
-and the universe as god, they are identical, correct?

Quote:What we believe in is the same, and the description is the same, merely the name is different.
"Merely"..... plus one shady premise, an ambiguous assertion, and a conclusion that follows only because it was implicitly designed as such from that shady premise.

Quote:Which is why if atheists believe in the universe and if god is the universe then there is a logical contradiction.
Which is why your -if- is incapable of making your point. But look at what you say directly below this.....


Quote:All I'm saying is that the meaning of believing in something is different to the meaning of labelling it as something. So if I label the universe as "god" then that doesn't mean that I believe in god.
Doesn't seem to be the case from where I'm standing. However, if that were the case, If your labeling the universe as god (or god as the universe) doesn't mean that you believe in god, then why would my believing in the universe mean that I believed in god?

Quote:If I merely define god as the universe, then what I actually believe in is the universe, just like you, the belief is the same - merely the label is different.
I think you've attempted to take too many liberties with language, which results in communication becoming nigh impossible. I also think you've extended the implications of those liberties entirely too far in the absence of developing the argument that this all stems from. The label describes the thing being believed in, which is in one case god and in another case "just the universe"...now I know..I know..you keep saying "just the universe", but if that were so you wouldn't have required an argument in an attempt to manufacture parity between the two terms. Not that this actually matters.......because you have not even attempted to show that the argument is sound.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#68
RE: A pantheistic argument.
(November 1, 2012 at 7:30 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: Most of those forms also believe that the universe is intelligent or self-aware. I think that there is no evidence to make this claim.

I wasn't aware of that, I thought that there were pantheists who label the universe as "god" without believing that it is intelligent.

(November 1, 2012 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: I have addressed it repeatedly, without turning your "if" into an "is" your argument is DOA (for me).

The validity of my argument has not been refuted "If X is Y and you believe in Y then you believe in X" "If god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god". It's tautologically valid.

Quote:......and -if- two cents were a fortune I'd be a millionaire, pity eh?

I'm arguing for validity, as I have stated repeatedly, so obviously it's dependent on an "if".

Quote:But unfortunately it is not the same, remember that three line argument all the way back at the beginning of this....that's a glaring difference between you and I in what we mean by "god" or "universe". The thing in question is the same -for you-....but you have not compelled me to adopt your definition. That the thing in question is the same (for you) still has no ability to change the rob the word "atheist" of it's meaning, mostly because you yourself are ruling the word "god" into your statements.

That equates to saying when we both believe in the universe we don't believe in the same thing. But all I'm saying is "If X is Y and you believe in Y then you believe in X".

Quote:-and the universe as god, they are identical, correct?

They are both identically what we would call "the universe" not what we would call god. You appear to be equivocating.


Quote:"Merely"..... plus one shady premise,[...]
Irrelevant to validity.

Quote: an ambiguous assertion,[...]
I've explained my assertions repeatedly.

Quote: and a conclusion that follows only because it was implicitly designed as such from that shady premise.
Once again irrelevant to validity.

Quote:Which is why your -if- is incapable of making your point.

No, that gave me my point because I demonstrated that there was a logical contradiction between the particular sense of atheism and theism and therefore it makes no sense to say that I'm a theist merely by labeling the universe as "god" because we both believe the same thing, I just label it differently. A label is not a belief.

Quote:Doesn't seem to be the case from where I'm standing. However, if that were the case, If your labeling the universe as god (or god as the universe) doesn't mean that you believe in god, then why would my believing in the universe mean that I believed in god?

Because "If X is Y and you believe in Y you believe in X". "If god is the universe and you believe in the universe you believe in god". That's different to merely labeling. The point is that by believing that god is the universe all you're doing is saying god is "the universe", you're not saying that the universe is any definition of god. "God" is just being used as a label for the universe. God isn't being defined as anything else other than the universe, we are both simply believing in the existence of the universe, the fact I call it "god" and you don't doesn't change what we actually believe exists..

Quote:[...]
The label describes the thing being believed in,
Yes, which in both cases is "the universe". Whether we label our actual experiences of the universe as "the universe" or whether we label our actual experiences of the universe as "god" that doesn't actually change the fact that we are believing in our actual experiences of the universe in both cases. What we label the universe as is not the same as whether we believe it exists. What we believe exists is not the same as what we label it as.

Quote:...now I know..I know..you keep saying "just the universe",[...]
Indeed I do. And I wonder how many more times I'll have to say it.

Quote:[...] but if that were so you wouldn't have required an argument in an attempt to manufacture parity between the two terms.
I'm merely making a valid argument.

Quote: Not that this actually matters.......because you have not even attempted to show that the argument is sound.

...because that wasn't my intention. As I've stated several times.
Reply
#69
RE: A pantheistic argument.
Quote: I thought that there were pantheists who label the universe as "god" without believing that it is intelligent.

Some pantheist, like Albert Einstein, did that. Einstein even believed that the concept of a personal, intelligent god was "childish".

Others, like Fichte, didn't. Fichte thought that god, or the universe, was an intelligent source of moral laws.

There have been many debates between "naturalistic pantheists" (the ones closer to atheism) and "theistic pantheists" (who believe in an intelligent universe).

Even prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins himself, have rercognized that naturalistic pantheism and atheism are different labels for the same philosophical approach. Dawkins has called pantheism "sexed-up atheism".
Reply
#70
RE: A pantheistic argument.
Yes, and this "sexed up atheism" that Dawkins described in TGD - naturalistic pantheism - is what I am referring to. I'm not talking about an intelligent or even conscious universe.

But, more specifically, I actually didn't define it either way when it comes to intelligence/consciousness, that was simply irrelevant to my definition. I'm saying that god is merely the universe because when I conclude "the universe is god" I had already defined god with properties that lead to god being merely the universe.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)