How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?

[Rhizomorph13]

Yeah, you're stuck at the word go with this one. People aren't starting an argument with the, "All is one" schtick. It is a thing known as a deepity - "A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial."

Also language has quirks to it such that, while a sentence is grammatically correct it is also profoundly meaningless and when that occurs sometimes the brain will go haywire trying to apply meaning to something that could and should be rejected outright. One of my favorite demonstrations of this is the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The wiki entry expounds on what is going on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_..._furiously

It is part of why I am an theological noncognitivist. I believe that the idea of God is so nebulous and undifined that ANY argument for the existence of God/god or gods pretty much is a non starter. I still enjoy engaging with theists sometimes based on part of their idea but inevitably the goal posts move all over the place!

[Rahn127]

All is one.
"Yes, we are all part of the same one universe."

No, I meant we are all part of the same one god.
"What god are you talking about ?"

They attempt to describe this god
"I have no idea what you are talking about"

[zebo-the-fat]

Please provide testable and repeatable evidence for this god

[possibletarian]

'All is one' is simply a statement of belief, which when talking of all that we can see and have knowledge about is kind of true.
However if you wish to add something spiritual into an 'all is one' you have to supply a reason and proof for doing so.

[Sal]

Is that the One Electron Universe?

[Anomalocaris]

We are all one.  Fined.  

Please explain in detail why what you say next really follows from any careful examination of this oneness to which you refer?

---

Is that the One Electron Universe?

The one electron field universe?

[Rhizomorph13]

Dude, what if we are all just one time traveler that uses uteruses to go back into the past and be born as a person only to go back to their original point in time after they die?

I think that would make me extremely Pro-Life!

[Ranjr]

[Angrboda]

Ask them, "All is one what?"

[Osopatata]

Yeah, you're stuck at the word go with this one. People aren't starting an argument with the, "All is one" schtick. It is a thing known as a deepity - "A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial."

Also language has quirks to it such that, while a sentence is grammatically correct it is also profoundly meaningless and when that occurs sometimes the brain will go haywire trying to apply meaning to something that could and should be rejected outright. One of my favorite demonstrations of this is the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The wiki entry expounds on what is going on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_..._furiously

It is part of why I am an theological noncognitivist. I believe that the idea of God is so nebulous and undifined that ANY argument for the existence of God/god or gods pretty much is a non starter. I still enjoy engaging with theists sometimes based on part of their idea but inevitably the goal posts move all over the place!

Thank you! This is kind of where I'm at. Linguistically, the statement is too extreme to really have any meaning. If taken at a dialed back view, like "all is one substance." or "all is one energy." then it is reasonable, but no longer mystical. 

"All is one." taken in it's most extreme form would be, experientially, like saying "I recorded a normal camera melt into a volcano's lava to see all as one, with the camera that melted only." No you didn't, you got 30 seconds of footage from an intact camera, then the feed cut off because a camera that is one with lava cannot be said to be filming the lava. Likewise, if you melted into a blob of oneness in the most extreme and literal sense, that cannot be said to be an experience at all.

---

This is a tactic that some have used when discussing religion with me: They say they have had a meditative experience and realized all is one, or otherwise postulate that all is one for some other reason. That oneness for no logical reason is extrapolated to be a magical, mystical thing that validates religious views.

It becomes a stone wall when one may try to question the validity of a religious view, but it is explained by something beyond normal understanding like "all is one." So the conversation is blocked off completely unless one can refute this position and demonstrate that it is utterly untenable, and so the opponent must then defend their religious views in terms that do not go into realms of illogical postulations.

Seems to me there are some seriously fatal flaws in the logic of such a position as "all is one". However I am far from a logician. Could anyone offer some refutations that invalidate such a view?

I see your point, so, everything else aside, they say "All is one, therefore my consciousness will survive death and live forever. So does everyone's. We are all immortal because of this oneness." There must be some flaw in this logic? Surely this is possible to disprove and demonstrate as totally untenable?

---

I'm not sure it can be refuted.  I'm also not convinced that it is necessary to even try.

Boru

Ok, I think I didn't give enough info. Here's a fuller statement that I've dealt with "All is one. Therefore my consciousness will survive death and I and everyone else are immortal."

Can that be refuted?

---

On an atomic and/or subatomic level the argument "all is one" may be considered valid. Everything is made of stuff.

But on a day to day basis I don't consciously exist at that level and consider the position silly.

Ok, so the full issue that I'm now realizing I should have elaborated on in my op is that the extrapolation involves immortality for these people: "All is one, therefore my consciousness will survive death and I will live forever. Ditto for everyone else." Followed by more and more mystical magical talk.

---

The claim itself isn't necessarily wrong and isn't a big deal imo. All is one. Ok, and? Why must this be a religious thing exclusively?

We should never be in the mindset that we need to refute what other (aka religious) people say, unless we see something fallacious about it. Otherwise, it's ok to [sort of] agree with what they say and/or to ask for clarifications on what they're talking about.

I have failed you all and not included the full extrapolation made by these people I've spoken with. The full issue goes like this "All is one. So my consciousness will survive death. So does everyone's. We are all immortal." And this, of course, to them proves the existence of god, the afterlife, etc.