A pantheistic argument.

[Darkstar]

---

Why call 'god' the universe at all? I just don't understand what the point of doing so is. What does it change, and why does it matter?

Well, to quote myself:

Some people, in my experience, seem to think that if you change the label, you change the belief. For example, some people think they're not atheists even when they don't believe in a creator of the universe and god is defined that way. My point is it's not about the label, it's about what you actually believe. I can define god as "everything" and become a theist therefore and yet my atheistic beliefs haven't changed whatsoever because I was only ever atheist in the sense that I didn't believe in deities, it has nothing to do with believing in the universe. That was my point in this thread. I can be an atheist and a pantheist even though pantheism is a kind of theism and atheism contradicts theism because I'm an atheist in a different sense to the sense that I'm a theist.

---

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My main question is this: why would you want to define 'god' as 'universe'?

[Anomalocaris]

Some people, in my experience, seem to think that if you change the label, you change the belief. For example, some people think they're not atheists even when they don't believe in a creator of the universe and god is defined that way. My point is it's not about the label, it's about what you actually believe. I can define god as "everything" and become a theist therefore and yet my atheistic beliefs haven't changed whatsoever because I was only ever atheist in the sense that I didn't believe in deities, it has nothing to do with believing in the universe. That was my point in this thread. I can be an atheist and a pantheist even though pantheism is a kind of theism and atheism contradicts theism because I'm an atheist in a different sense to the sense that I'm a theist.

I think for many people, using particular word with long standing connotations to describe certain independent concept of his would, overtime, subtlely shape and change his conception to more closely match the connotation of the word.

I think Christians are well aware of this, and often with conscious duplicity try to leverage the fact to the advantage of their silly god concept, as seen in their tiresome repetition of the Einistein quote about "god" playing dice.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My main question is this: why would you want to define 'god' as 'universe'?

Well, I gave my explanation: to help demonstrate that changing the label doesn't change the belief. Some people seem to get confused and think that it does.

---

I think for many people, using [a] particular word with long standing connotations to describe certain independent concept of his would, overtime, subtlely shape and change his conception to more closely match the connotation of the word.

So are you suggesting that by merely labeling the universe as "god" that makes it more likely that overtime oneself shifts closer towards typical definitions of god? So naturalistic pantheists that merely believe god is "the universe" are more likely to convert to other types of theism than atheists are? That's an interesting point of view, but I wonder why it's the case.

I think Christians are well aware of this, and often with conscious duplicity try to leverage the fact to the advantage of their silly god concept.

So are you saying that Christians would see pantheists who define god as the universe as closer to them than atheists? I would agree that they probably do, because pantheism implies theism but what I find rather odd is that the atheist who believes in the universe and the pantheist who defines god as the universe believe in exactly the same thing. It is merely that the pantheist has an extra label for "the universe" and the atheist doesn't. So, if there is no difference in belief between the two, such pantheism is the same as atheism - it's merely a different label.

---

What is the basis of this assumption?

Well, perhaps it is something like how throughout history gods have often been about forces that have power over our lives. Thunder has power over our lives for example and Zeus is a typical example of the deification of thunder. Gods seem to have originally been based upon the notion of power or influence.

I'm merely starting with one of the pantheistic definitions of god, which is a definition of god that is used by enough people for it to count I would think.

I am not sure this leads anywhere except its own anus.

I'm just making an argument - is it invalid?

Why apply additional names with unfortunate cultural baggage for reference to exactly the same thing? "Universe itself is the universe" not good enough?

As I said, I'm making an argument and my premises are merely to demonstrate that the conclusion that follows from it, and my purpose is to help demonstrate how changing the label doesn't change the belief, despite the fact that some people seem to think it does, in my experience at least.

[The Grand Nudger]

If that label applies to nothing more than belief in a god (which it does)what have you changed? Your god is different than the next guys? So what, get in line.

"Others used this definition" isn't a solid way to justify an assumption Doubt.

[DeistPaladin]

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?

If the universe has a conscious will of some sort, I can see the distinction. Otherwise, I agree with Rayaan, I don't get it.

[thesummerqueen]

Are you trying to say that God is The Force?

This is confusing the fuck out of me more than usual.

[Edwardo Piet]

We don't have to assume that, they are.

I was just saying that I trust that you are right about that...

So, you don't think that this changes your argument eh? You are a theist if you believe that there is at least one god - regardless of how you describe that god.

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.

It doesn't actually matter whether the universe is god, or whether or not god exists, only that you believe in at least one god.

It doesn't matter whether god exists, indeed. But it matters whether the universe is god or not because since at least most atheists believe in the universe, if the universe is god, that would make their belief identical to the theistic belief of god being the universe. Because they believe in exactly the same thing: The universe. It is merely the label that is different.

The difference would be the presence of at least one god.

That's not the difference between theism and atheism. That's the difference between the truth or falsehood of theism and atheism. Theism and atheism by themselves are about belief/non-belief, not about whether they are right.

Not what that god is or how you describe it.

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. 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.

That which we call a rose.....again, it doesn't matter how you describe a god, only that you believe that a god exists.

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

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

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 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.

There -is- a difference in the belief. Mainly that one believes in a god and the other does not.

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

If god means the universe then I also assume that you believe in god, correct?

No, lol. You are free to describe or define the term god however you wish and profess belief in it all day long, I do not believe in god, and I do not call the universe god...so this isn't my problem.

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...

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.

The definition of the words theist and atheist do not hinge on anything other than belief in a god.

If they hinge upon belief in god, they hinge upon belief. Therefore when a theist defines god as "the universe" and an atheist also believes in "the universe" they are believing in the same thing, just with different labels. The belief is the same. Therefore there is no difference in belief, therefore there is a logical contradiction between theism and atheism because their belief is the same and that cannot be logically possible by definition and so the whole thing collapses completely and becomes meaningless.

because the fundamental difference in the definitions have been removed

You could only do this by removing "god"...which you have not done.

I only need to demonstrate that the same particular definition of "god" being addressed is being believed in in both cases. If "god" is defined as "the universe" for example, then that means atheists don't believe in the universe. But since that isn't true because atheists do believe in the universe we then have a logical contradiction and the whole thing collapses.

Which there is, you believe in at l;east one god, I do not.

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.

What? If someone believes in the same thing as theists they aren't theists? News to me.

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 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.

[Brian37]

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?

Or just like standard theism your woo is as hollow and meaningless as theirs. "god" is a meaningless word itself and trying to naturize a word started in superstition is absurd.

The universe is not a god anymore than a hurricane is a god. It is a process, a thing. It has no emergent qualities of thought like a human brain so the two cannot nor should be even comparable.

What you are unwittingly doing needlessly is the same thing that causes theists to believe in their woo. You are merely projecting to fill in a gap as to the "meaning of all this".

The universe DOES have meaning in terms of mesurable science and thus we can know many of the things in it and how those thing behaive in relationship to other things.

BUT there is no autruistic meaning for "all this". Anymore than a raindrop can chose where it lands. We are merely in the middle of a storm, but it is just that, an ongoing thing, not an ongoing thinker.

Panthiesm has as much merit as any other new ages superstition it still amounts to "this sounds nice so I'll go with it".

Sorry if I burst your bubble but the quickest way to shoot the absurd down is to be direct and cut to the chase.

"Pantheism" is not a scientific study, it is not a universal scientific method, it isn't even a scientific formula. It is merely woo with modern clothing.

So in conclusion it is meaningless blather.

[Edwardo Piet]

If that label applies to nothing more than belief in a god (which it does)

If by that you mean belief in the universe, yes.

what have you changed?

The label. Can't find anything that I've changed? Good. You were the one suggesting that there is a difference in belief, not me. But you appear to be making my point now. Good.

Your god is different than the next guys?

'My' "god" is the universe so it's no different to your belief in the universe, I am just labeling it "god", you aren't. That's my point...

"Others used this definition" isn't a solid way to justify an assumption Doubt.

I'm not trying to justify it logically. I've already explained, re-explained and quoted and re-quoted myself explaining my purpose for my premise.

[Brian37]

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.

First off who left you in charge of defining what the universe is? Secondly you try to slide this faulty logic by us ignoring that we already know the best option.

An that best option is that there is no such thing as a god so the universe cannot be a god either. That is the same stupid logic theists use when they say "You say there is no god so humans are gods" NO, if gods don't exist then humans can be gods either.

How about nothing is a god and things are things and life is life, why complicate reality with superstition of any kind?