Panentheism (Religion)

by dhw, Monday, April 30, 2012, 14:19 (4588 days ago) @ dhw

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!