Under "How Reliable is Science?"
> 
> MATT: Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down. He didn't want to engage anymore. In fact, he deliberately asked I stop talking about it. (And if you read this David, again, panentheism is false by definition. You're a pantheist.)
> 
> DAVID: I'm not sure of anything by the way you define. My concept of me by the definitions I've read is I am a panentheist. Maybe the dictionaries are wrong. An issue of no importance. Still has to be a first cause. God made the universe from His mind and He is within and without the universe. We are contained by him.
> 
> I must confess that I also have difficulty distinguishing between pantheism, panentheism and process theology, though it probably makes little difference since David doesn't need to classify his beliefs. What interests me is the concept of "within and without the universe", which initially doesn't seem to make much sense. However, if we link it to the mystery of consciousness, it becomes conceivable. Near Death Experiences once again provide us with the best illustration of the mind appearing to exist independently of the body. Of course it's all a huge "IF", but the concept would have to be along the lines of the material universe as the body and God as the mind, just as my identity is contained within its physical self and may control its physical self, but at the same time may exist in a dimension different from any that we know. If we take NDEs and other psychic phenomena seriously, this is a concept that must also be taken seriously. I think that pantheism, at least in its original form, identifies God with Nature ... and as such need not conflict with atheism, since Nature can be viewed as a purely material and impersonal force. That would be very different from David's ...ism.-Technically speaking... if he wants us to understand him better, I would at least hope he does. -Vaishnavism (Hinduism) is pantheistic, and generally encompasses the views that David discusses. Their criticism of panentheism is essentially where I got my argument from. God is everything.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Under "Einstein and Time: The "reality" of math": Matt argued that there were only two possible distinctions: "If God is part of the universe, then God IS the universe. If God is separate from the universe, then God is not part of the universe." David replied: "I agree that God is the universe, as you interpret it", and I wrote a detailed response to both comments.
 
DAVID: I've produced the last post by dhw completely. I am not a logician with strict worry about every nuance. I don't care if Matt uses the word 'part'. dhw is correct in his paragraph as to my concept. And I have it at the end of the post he is commenting on:-"It fits my idea that the universe is really mind and consciousness. I don't believe that inorganic material can become alive and invent consciousness, unless consciousness already exists." That mind of course is God, who must be the first cause. It is nice that dhw has delved so deeply into my thinking that he must explain me to me! As I have always stated I know what I believe even if it doesn't sound logical to others. I'm with Alban in La Cage, 'I am what I am".-My apologies if I've given offence, but my post was meant to be a response both to you and to Matt, who earlier had written: "Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down." In the above quote, he has again set out to catch panentheism in a logical trap, and my post was an attempt to show (a) the illogicality of the first premise (my big toe is part of me, but that doesn't mean my big toe IS me!), and (b) the logical reconciliation between God having created the universe and therefore apparently being separate from it (which makes it impossible for him to be part of it) and yet at the same time BEING the universe. But I have tried to take the argument one step further. As I see it, the logical answer is not necessarily consciousness or mind, but energy that transmutes itself into matter. The energy is what I think BBella sometimes calls WHAT IS or ALL THAT IS. You can therefore logically argue that energy is and has also created the universe. David's panentheistic belief is that this energy is conscious; the atheist's belief is that it is not conscious; the agnostic as always sits on his fence. This explanation seems to me not only to solve the logical puzzle that Matt was setting for panentheism, but also to cut out most of the extraneous material that confuses the debate between theists and atheists. However, once again, my apologies both to David and to Matt if my posts are an unnecessary interference. Alas, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!