God, Energy and Matter

[Lek]

The pantheists that I know, including World Pantheism, do not define pantheism that way. They define it as the universe is god.

They do not believe in any supernatural realm or existence.

Why do they bother saying that the universe is god if they don't believe in the supernatural?  Why not just say that the universe is the universe?  Why bother getting into the whole god thing in the first place?  There are also pantheists who believe as I describe.

What does it even mean for there to be "before the advent of time"? That sounds pretty incoherent

.

I could have said "before the beginning of the universe." Some believe time began with the beginning of the universe.

What demonstrable and falsifiable evidence do you have for the contention, that there is an "outside to our closed system"?

The universe is expanding all the time. What is the space it's expanding into?

If you have another method, please enlighten us what it is. And more importantly, tell us how you know it is reliable.

Studying others' mystical experiences, looking into claimed supernatural experience and miracles. But I believe that if there is a God and we seek him, he'll reveal himself to those who seek him when the time is right. For whatever reason, I'm convinced of his existence. So I believe he revealed that to me.

I do not tell you that gods are not real. My position, and that of many (if not most) atheists, is that we have no reason to accept theist's claims that a god does exist, because theists have not met their burden of proof.

I do believe that no gods exist, but I do not claim to know that with absolute certainty, nor is it a dogmatic belief, it is provisional. As long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, I will continue to be unconvinced of their claims (an atheist).

I'm open too. If I can be absolutely convinced there is no God, I'll believe it.

---

The pantheists that I know, including World Pantheism, do not define pantheism that way. They define it as the universe is god.

They do not believe in any supernatural realm or existence.

Why do they bother saying that the universe is god if they don't believe in the supernatural?  Why not just say that the universe is the universe?  Why bother getting into the whole god thing in the first place?  There are also pantheists who believe as I describe.


[quote]
What does it even mean for there to be "before the advent of time"? That sounds pretty incoherent

.

I could have said "before the beginning of the universe." Some believe time began with the beginning of the universe.

What demonstrable and falsifiable evidence do you have for the contention, that there is an "outside to our closed system"?

The universe is expanding all the time.  What is the space it's expanding into?  

If you have another method, please enlighten us what it is. And more importantly, tell us how you know it is reliable.

Studying others' mystical experiences, looking into claimed supernatural experience and miracles.  But I believe that if there is a God and we seek him, he'll reveal himself to those who seek him when the time is right.  For whatever reason, I'm convinced of his existence.  So I believe he revealed that to me.

I do not tell you that gods are not real. My position, and that of many (if not most) atheists, is that we have no reason to accept theist's claims that a god does exist, because theists have not met their burden of proof.

I do believe that no gods exist, but I do not claim to know that with absolute certainty, nor is it a dogmatic belief, it is provisional. As long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, I will continue to be unconvinced of their claims (an atheist).

I'm open too.  If I can be absolutely convinced there is no God, I'll believe it.

---

I have no idea what happened above, but they are giving me no way to fix it.  What a mess!  Sorry.

[Simon Moon]

Lets grant you for the sake of the argument that all your claims about science in the second paragraph are true. How does the limitation(s) of science make any of your claims of pantheism (and god/s) true?  

It doesn't.  It means that I think there are means other than natural one to come about the truth.  If you dismiss these out of the gate, you probably won't find the truth.

---

I don't dismiss them out of the gate. I am just not sure they exist.

To repeat, I just want to know if they exist and are reliable. Please describe them, and tell us how you know they are reliable. Can you demonstrate your claim concerning "other methods"?

Let me put this into context.

If a scientist measures the speed of light, observes subparticles, measures the distance to the sun, etc, it doesn't matter what their theistic beliefs are or the culture they grew up in, they will all get the same results. Thereby demonstrating the reliability of the scientific method.

On the other hand, if a Christian hits their knees and prays, a Muslim makes a pilgrimage to Mecca and prays 15 times a day, a Buddhist meditate daily, a Scientologist connect themselves to an Emeter, etc, etc, they will all get different, mutually exclusive results. In other words, theist methods are unreliable.

To add, science does not make proclamations about truth. They make models that best describe reality, based on demonstrable evidence.

In order to belief in the story of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, you must believe in God or whatever that supernatural presence is to you.  Pantheists believe in that.

Did you bother to read the website I previously posted? Here is is again -

WORLD PANTHEISM

There are zero logical paths from pantheism, to "Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness", or any theistic belief for that matter.

Pantheists believe in that

No, they don't.

Pantheism has no supernatural beliefs. Individual pantheists may, but it is not part of pantheism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Lets grant you for the sake of the argument that all your claims about science in the second paragraph are true. How does the limitation(s) of science make any of your claims of pantheism (and god/s) true?  

It doesn't.  It means that I think there are means other than natural one to come about the truth.  If you dismiss these out of the gate, you probably won't find the truth.

---

Just to make sure we understand each other, please trace for me the logical path from pantheism to Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

Boru

In order to belief in the story of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, you must believe in God or whatever that supernatural presence is to you.  Pantheists believe in that.

But that's not a logical path from one to the other.  Submitting for the moment that pantheism is true, it isn't obvious that any other religious belief is true.

In other words, belief in pantheism doesn't justify belief in Hinduism, shamanism, animism, folk Buddhism, Jedi-ism, Jesus-ism or any other religion 'ism' you can think of. It's like inferring the existence of Aquaman from the existence of carp.

Boru

[Simon Moon]

Why do they bother saying that the universe is god if they don't believe in the supernatural? Why not just say that the universe is the universe? Why bother getting into the whole god thing in the first place? There are also pantheists who believe as I describe.

I wish I knew why pantheists use the god label, because all they are really doing is calling the universe "god". Not sure why they use a word with so much baggage attached, when we already have a perfectly good name for the universe, and that would be"universe".

This from the pantheist website concerning their position:

1. Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
2. Active respect and care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
3. Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
4. Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Universe.
5. Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion.

I could have said "before the beginning of the universe." Some believe time began with the beginning of the universe.

Still incoherent. The term "before" is used temporally, how can it be used to describe a non temporal state?

The universe is expanding all the time. What is the space it's expanding into?

Who says it's expanding into something? You are trying to apply observations made within the universe, to the universe itself.

This sounds like a fallacy of composition.

Studying others' mystical experiences, looking into claimed supernatural experience and miracles.

I asked for a reliable method, and you gave me one loaded with: anecdotal experiences and confirmation bias, that can't be tested, verified, falsified, etc.

Not to beat a dead horse, but depending on the religious confirmation bias one begins with, your 'evidence' will lead to mutually exclusive results.

Let me add an example. there is a culture (I can't remember which one, but I'll find it) that does not believe in ghosts (which you do). They believe that if someone claims to have seen a ghost, they have surely been put under a spell by a witch.

So, how are we able to tell if those people you claim to have experienced a ghost, have not actually been put under a spell by a witch?

But I believe that if there is a God and we seek him, he'll reveal himself to those who seek him when the time is right. For whatever reason, I'm convinced of his existence. So I believe he revealed that to me.

I understand that's what you believe, I care about the why. And you can't even point to a reliable method to get there.

I'm open too. If I can be absolutely convinced there is no God, I'll believe it.

Oh, bloody hell.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you, that most atheists are NOT making the claim that gods do not exist. We disbelieve based on the fact that theists continually fail to meet their burden of proof.

This is logic 101.

Your 'method' of believing a claim, until it is proven wrong, should, if you were being intellectually honest, lead to all sorts of beliefs that have never been proven wrong.

Please let us know, when: Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc have been absolutely been proven wrong.

But of course, since you have been guilty of special pleading in the past, why stop now?

[Lek]

Simon, I'm going to be away overnight, but I do intend to respond to you. The site you referenced applies to what they're calling "scientific" pantheism. Here's a site that defines the common meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/pantheism

[EgoDeath]

I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist, but I'm taking what I understand from science and I'm philosophizing.  If energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, that means that they share an intrinsic quality with God.

How have you made this connection? I understand that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so far as we know, but where did you make the connection from this concept to god?

They have always existed with no beginning, and they will continue to exist into infinity.  Those are qualities are also given to God.

Once again, where are you making this connection? Where are you getting the information that god shares these qualities with energy?

 Could this match up in any way with a pantheistic understanding of the universe?  If I use science as a basis for my understanding, there couldn't have been an occasion when nothing existed, so energy and matter could not have been created.

Well, actually, the universe may very well have come from nothing. But that's neither here nor there, because this is mostly speculation for now. The point is, for those that say that "god is energy." What is that actually saying?

Are you claiming that god is a conscious being that takes the form of energy? So is energy conscious? Or is this just another way of saying, "the closest thing there is to a god is energy itself."

Which is it?

[GrandizerII]

@Lek, regarding the expansion of the universe into "something", see this:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-u...termediate

Read the first paragraph at least, if not the whole answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dogs match up to cats, too. Especially on two points of trivial criteria. They’re both furry quadrupeds.

I’d be more interested in what didn’t seem to match up to god in the mind of a believer.

[Anomalocaris]

I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist, but I'm taking what I understand from science and I'm philosophizing.  If energy and matter cannot be  created or destroyed, that means that they share an intrinsic quality with God.  They have always existed with no beginning, and they will continue to exist into infinity.  Those are qualities are also given to God.  Could this match up in any way with a pantheistic understanding of the universe?  If I use science as a basis for my understanding, there couldn't have been an occasion when nothing existed, so energy and matter could not have been created.

Nothing in modern science says matter and energy in principle can not be created or destroyed. The main constraint is in normal conditions, they are extremely unlikely to be either created or destroyed within a span of time over which we are comfortable extrapolating.   Whether they can or not, under what circumstances they can or not, is still a matter of investigation.

Knowing the limits of what you are talking about is a sign of knowing at least a little of what you are talking about.

When you say “attributes” of god without reservation, it is the sign that you don’t know the first thing about most salient attributes of god, such as his non existence.

[Lek]

It appears that people are misunderstanding my thinking in my original post. One of the first things we were taught in catholic grade school about God is that he always was and always will be. When I considered that according to science, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, I was struck that they share a characteristic with God. I myself have a hard time viewing something in nature as having infinite existence. It doesn't seem like a natural characteristic.

Somewhere in the discussion I brought up the fact that pantheists view God and nature as one in the same, therefore deeming nature divine. Someone asked how pantheism leads to a belief that Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. I answered to the effect that someone who believes in God would be more likely to come to believe in Jesus. I wasn't saying that pantheism was a likely path to christianity or any such thing.

Atheists believe many different things, but they are united in their rejection of a belief in God. Those who believe in a supernatural presence, who most refer to as a god, are united in that respect. I recognize a brotherhood with them. I never meant this thread to relate to christianity in any direct way. I was simply pointing out references to nonbeginning and eternal existence of God, energy and matter. It seems to make it easier to accept the concept of an infinite God, especially if you can accept an infinite universe.