Darkness of angels -
In my view, god doesn't play any role in the sense that one would assume, ie it doesn't "do" anything, or interact with or intervene in anything, or contribute to anything. The reason for that is because in my view, god IS everything. If you want to count that as a role that's fine but I don't really consider it a role, because a role implies taking part in something, whereas I believe that god already is everything (and simultaneously beyond everything).
The reason why I call it god is because I believe that consciousness is involved, I believe that the universe is a living, conscious thing, a manifestation. To use an illustration (lthough it's not the most accurate), god is the mind, and the universe is the body (therefore interconnected), and god (the mind) infinitely transcends the body and is selfexistent (uncreated), and god manifests and the universe is that manifestation. That's why I don't just call it nature, because consciousness is involved. I'm a panentheist.
Given that view (and I know you don't share it), the universe itself is the "trace" of god's existence. And I fully understand that one would only regard the universe as being the trace of god's existence if one has the view that I have. This would make it very difficult for you to demonstrate that the universe involves no god, because you'd first have to convince me that panentheism is not the corert view in the first place. In other words, you'd have to challenge my initial premise. If you did that, practically everything else in my belief system would fall in an instant.
In my view, god doesn't play any role in the sense that one would assume, ie it doesn't "do" anything, or interact with or intervene in anything, or contribute to anything. The reason for that is because in my view, god IS everything. If you want to count that as a role that's fine but I don't really consider it a role, because a role implies taking part in something, whereas I believe that god already is everything (and simultaneously beyond everything).
The reason why I call it god is because I believe that consciousness is involved, I believe that the universe is a living, conscious thing, a manifestation. To use an illustration (lthough it's not the most accurate), god is the mind, and the universe is the body (therefore interconnected), and god (the mind) infinitely transcends the body and is selfexistent (uncreated), and god manifests and the universe is that manifestation. That's why I don't just call it nature, because consciousness is involved. I'm a panentheist.
Given that view (and I know you don't share it), the universe itself is the "trace" of god's existence. And I fully understand that one would only regard the universe as being the trace of god's existence if one has the view that I have. This would make it very difficult for you to demonstrate that the universe involves no god, because you'd first have to convince me that panentheism is not the corert view in the first place. In other words, you'd have to challenge my initial premise. If you did that, practically everything else in my belief system would fall in an instant.
