Isn’t pantheism the same thing as atheism?

[Seax]

Why does a god have to have a brain?

How else is this god (or gods) going to think?

Because there are only 3 choices:
1. Some thing is designed and assembled by a thinking being, capable of logic and mathematics and perhaps has "good taste".
2. Some thing simply exists.
3. Some thing gets assembled via the intrinsic properties of nature: For example, 2 protons join. This duo has an excess amount of energy. Eventually one proton converts to a neutron and a neutrino and position gets emitted at high speed.

--Ferrocyanide

Why would God 'think' in the same manner as a human?

[Abaddon_ire]

How else is this god (or gods) going to think?

Because there are only 3 choices:
1. Some thing is designed and assembled by a thinking being, capable of logic and mathematics and perhaps has "good taste".
2. Some thing simply exists.
3. Some thing gets assembled via the intrinsic properties of nature: For example, 2 protons join. This duo has an excess amount of energy. Eventually one proton converts to a neutron and a neutrino and position gets emitted at high speed.

--Ferrocyanide

Why would God 'think' in the same manner as a human?

Because he has no choice in the matter.

The three fundamental laws of logic, (identity, non-contradicition, excluded middle), hold for god as much as the rest of us.

Unless you are about to deny those. That might at least give rise to a diverting discussion for a while, but likely unproductive for you.

[Angrboda]

I've argued that the law of non-contradiction might not hold. Opponents of that thought inevitably rely upon the law of non-contradiction to defend it, and accuse proponents of the idea of doing likewise in a fallacy of the stolen concept.

[Nay_Sayer]

This is why Pastafarianism is the clear answer.

[Seax]

Why would God 'think' in the same manner as a human?

Because he has no choice in the matter.

The three fundamental laws of logic, (identity, non-contradicition, excluded middle), hold for god as much as the rest of us.

Unless you are about to deny those. That might at least give rise to a diverting discussion for a while, but likely unproductive for you.

I'm not sure I understand.

[Belacqua]

Because he has no choice in the matter.

The three fundamental laws of logic, (identity, non-contradicition, excluded middle), hold for god as much as the rest of us.

Unless you are about to deny those. That might at least give rise to a diverting discussion for a while, but likely unproductive for you.

I'm not sure I understand.

It seems to me that people who assume a pantheistic God would think like people aren't yet taking the "pan" part of the definition seriously enough.

A pantheistic God, if I'm understanding right, includes everything in the universe, and is coterminous with the universe. This is different from the standard Catholic God, who includes everything in the universe... plus infinity. 

So if God includes everything in the universe, it doesn't think about objects in the same way that people do. 

For example, if a person knows something, there are two separate items: the knower and the known. If I know your phone number, that's two things. I could forget your phone number, but it would still exist independently from me.

God, on the other hand, includes the phone number and everything else within himself. He can't be separated from it. This is what "omniscient" means -- that everything known or knowable is a part of God. If God doesn't know something, it doesn't exist.

So I think it would work the same way for thinking. There is not (1) a thinker and (2) an object of thought. If I'm thinking about the revocation of the edict of Nantes, that's two things: me and the historical event. But a pantheistic or Catholic God includes that and every other historical event within itself. Forgetting, or thinking wrongly, etc., is not possible. So that's fundamentally different from the way people think, I think.

[Seax]

I'm not sure I understand.

It seems to me that people who assume a pantheistic God would think like people aren't yet taking the "pan" part of the definition seriously enough.

A pantheistic God, if I'm understanding right, includes everything in the universe, and is coterminous with the universe. This is different from the standard Catholic God, who includes everything in the universe... plus infinity. 

So if God includes everything in the universe, it doesn't think about objects in the same way that people do. 

For example, if a person knows something, there are two separate items: the knower and the known. If I know your phone number, that's two things. I could forget your phone number, but it would still exist independently from me.

God, on the other hand, includes the phone number and everything else within himself. He can't be separated from it. This is what "omniscient" means -- that everything known or knowable is a part of God. If God doesn't know something, it doesn't exist.

So I think it would work the same way for thinking. There is not (1) a thinker and (2) an object of thought. If I'm thinking about the revocation of the edict of Nantes, that's two things: me and the historical event. But a pantheistic or Catholic God includes that and every other historical event within itself. Forgetting, or thinking wrongly, etc., is not possible. So that's fundamentally different from the way people think, I think.

Yes, that is a really good explanation. I don't really the way God 'thinks,' or if He even has consciousness in any sense we would understand is knowable.

[Mister Agenda]

So is pantheism just naming the universe God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Some people call it Spinoza’s god. 

To answer the OPQ, and specifically with regards to this example - probably, yes.  Spinoza was an atheist but gets remembered as history's most famous pantheist due to the necessity of conventions with respect to consequential laws and societal norms which existed at the time.  He didn't believe that worshipful awe was an appropriate attitude towards god or nature.  There was nothing holy or sacred to nature.  He believed that these impulses, though genuinely felt, could only lead to superstitious behavior and submission to ecclesiastic authorities who were, themselves, intellectually bankrupt.

If a person indicates that they believe in spinozas god™ - they're telling you that they don't believe in a god at all.

---

So is pantheism just naming the universe God?

Not as a position, no - but in practice....?  Well, yeah, nine times out of ten. In my experience, contemporary pantheists are describing a religion of nature - not a belief in gods or that nature/universe is god-alike or a part of some god or god-alike whatsit.

[Seax]

Some people call it Spinoza’s god. 

To answer the OPQ, and specifically with regards to this example - probably, yes.  Spinoza was an atheist but gets remembered as history's most famous pantheist due to the necessity of conventions with respect to consequential laws and societal norms which existed at the time.  He didn't believe that worshipful awe was an appropriate attitude towards god or nature.  There was nothing holy or sacred to nature.  He believed that these impulses, though genuinely felt, could only lead to superstitious behavior and submission to ecclesiastic authorities who were, themselves, intellectually bankrupt.

If a person indicates that they believe in spinozas god™ - they're telling you that they don't believe in a god at all.

---

So is pantheism just naming the universe God?

Not as a position, no - but in practice....?  Well, yeah, nine times out of ten.  In my experience, contemporary pantheists are describing a religion of nature - not a belief in gods or that nature/universe is god-alike or a part of some god or god-alike whatsit.

Spinoza was in no way an atheist & believed in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheis...philosophy