Mind and Consciousness (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 04, 2012, 01:06 (4585 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: 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. These are the only two possible distinctions.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, the first part of this statement is clearly illogical. My big toe is part of me, but my big toe is not me. I went on to explain in my own words what I thought was David's concept of panentheism: "If God exists, he IS the universe in the sense that he is the primal energy that has always existed and that consciously transforms itself into the matter which we call the universe. Atheists believe that the primal energy is not conscious, and that is the difference between theists and atheists." David has confirmed that this is precisely what he means by panentheism.
> -It all comes back to the discussion of existence/nonexistence. The short of it is, something either exists or it doesn't. If it does, it's part of God, end of story. That makes it conform to a pantheistic view. Panentheism attempts to separate something from God... in David's case the universe. My exposure to eastern thought leads me inexorably to the conclusion that there is no way, if a God exists, that it would be possible logically or otherwise to declare a separation. -I point you back to my discussion of "nonexistence" and "existence" that you so poignantly posted a modern version of Leibniz's argument. I KNOW you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with it. -My answer in regards to the toe: the toe exists. End of story. Same existence. The world looks different, albeit quite dark from the perspective of the toe, but it exists, so does the foot and body of the one who carries it, as well as the ground that pushes against it. --> MATT: The whole pantheism [panentheism?] thing is done. Regardless of how I was inspired by a sect of Hinduism is irrelevant when faced with the very fact that panentheism is a logically impossible position.
> 
> David's free to call himself whatever he wishes, but Panenthesm is saying 2 + 2 = 5. Panentheism's distinction between God and universe is false by definition.
> 
> Since you have addressed your post to me, please humour me and explain 1) how your definition of panentheism differs from the above, 2) why your definition, if different, carries more authority than David's, and 3) why the above is a logically impossible position.
> -Panentheism asserts that there is a God that is somehow distinct from but existing within the universe. There is no way in the rules of logic that it is possible to make this kind of claim. -Assert God exists. Therefore God is the universe. Any feature you try to bring about the universe, is ultimately STILL a part of the same existence. -As to why it carries more weight: The universe exists within the same "space" as our asserted God. Therefore its part of the same singular whole of existence. I get that you're arguing that you can certainly take some portion of the whole, and investigate it, but I'm arguing that by reducing the issue to existence and nonexistence, there is no longer any choice to be made: All is God. God is All. -The idea of a separate God is a uniquely Abrahamic trait. When you investigate arguments against pantheism, they all take on a very moral tone, and I think that panentheism was invented as a way to be a pantheist without being pantheist, if you catch my drift. (The critical argument against pantheism is that it means that God is equally responsible for evil as well as good... which is anathema to Christianity, though interestingly tolerated in Islam and in in some Judaism I've read about.)-> MATT: Panentheism is dead. The next step up is pantheism. The only other alternative is Monism.
> 
> I think this is an important subject, and I would like to discuss it ... but I need your response to the above questions first.-I tend to use Monist in the Catholic sense. Since you challenged me I forced myself to find a "good" antonym for pantheist, and Monist is an extremely bad choice because it's used in far too many contexts to be relevant. -I will define Monist in our case to refer specifically to the theology that God exists as an entirely separate entity from our universe. To me this is as false a distinction as the one panentheism tries to make, because it forces an extra layer of explanation upon the proponent. (Dualism, all over again.)

--
\"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.\"