A pantheistic argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

How am I resisting?

See above and below

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

waffles.

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.

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.

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

-in god

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.

then I'm believing in the universe like you

Not quite "like me"......lol, because I'm not calling it god.

, an atheist,

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

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...

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.