A pantheistic argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

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 ".

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

waffles.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

-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.

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.

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.

then I'm believing in the universe like you

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.

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?

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.