Hi. I am a Panentheist New Ager and I was wondering: If Reality is your God can you still be called a Theist?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What is real?
Don't think very many people call their reality their god. Would be a weird one, (and organized religion in general already sets a high bar for weird.)
The Logician: "If Reality is your God can you still be called a Theist?"
Reality ain't my god. Reality just is. Thus, no I ain't a theist.
We have already been through stages where "reality" was god. Animism is long gone but for a few stragglers in Wicca, Hinduism, and Shamanism. The "everything has a spirit" bullshit is as inane as the Christian God. Interestingly enough people who worship reality in these ways may actually qualify as atheist.
For me, a god has a supernatural element that is outside the universe, for example giving a purpose to the whole of existence. I don't regard gods as at all meaningful.
However, pantheism is one of the least harmful dogmas.
It could maybe have beneficial sides, like eberything being sacred, we wouldn't be stupidly trashing our own planet, or things like discrimination or slavery may not have existed, but it would still be unevidencied and bollocks
Reality is not my god. I do not accept the proposition that gods exist.
What objective evidence do you have any god exist?
What objective evidence do you have that god is reality?
I must apply xenoview's razor to your claims that a god exist.
Objective claims requires objective evidence
That just sounds like semantics used to redefine something in an arbitrary and capricious way.
1.the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
I don't see much similarity? This seems a pointless analogy to me ? Can you explain why you're making this comparison and what you hope to achieve?
Isn't the answer in the name? Panen-theist?
Of course not. Well, at least definitely not a classical theist.
Classical theism strictly refers to an ultimate first cause, which is something pantheism doesn't address to. Also, pantheism seems to imply that the universe created God, instead of the other way around; which is kind of the basis of animism.
JazzTheist: I wish you would read a book or at least stop drinking before you post your inane nonsense. PANTHEISM: A doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." At no point does pantheism assert that the universe created god. The closest you can get to that is that the Universe is god. (Dictionary.com)
"Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are one and the same."
If you have not figured it out yet. Most of the people on this site are actually educated. Your religious woo woo and intentional misrepresentation of facts WILL NOT FLY AROUND HERE.
The definition that I’ve found was different.
Pantheism: God and the universe are the same thing.
Therefore, in pantheism, it is equally right to say that either God created the universe or universe created God. Am I wrong?
Atheists like you always resort to personal incredulity (“how am I supposed to believe your religious bullshit) and ad hominem (religious people are wrong because they are stupid). Ironically, you view yourselves as champions of logic.
Disclaimer: I’m just as educated as anyone here (which is an understatement) and I haven’t consumed alcohol for like 3 weeks.
What objective evidence do you have that your god created the universe?
If you can't provide the evidence, then just say you don't know.
Firstly, I'm talking about a philosophically necessary God; not God in a religious sense. You're committing a common non sequitor.
Secondly, existence itself is enough evidence for such a God. You might say that it's not physical evidence, but you can't demand physical evidence from something that's by definition not physical.
Thirdly, does Hawking radiation exist? Has anyone measured Hawking radiation? If not, should we say we don't know whether Hawking radiation exists or not?
"Pantheism: God and the universe are the same thing.
Therefore, in pantheism, it is equally right to say that either God created the universe or universe created God. Am I wrong?"
You're wrong. That's nonsense. If a navel and a belly button are the same thing, is it equally right to say that either the navel created the belly button or the belly button created the navel? No. Hogwash.
False analogy. God, by definition, is something that created the universe.
Well, easy to say that when you define your god into existence. Instead of the whole: prove your god into existence. You can make up what ever rules or definitions you want for your god, since it is only a creation of your definitions and imagination.
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
Well, here is an idea for you. In the beginning, there was only The Good One and The Evil One. Both were equal, yet opposite. For untold ages, since Time was non-existent, these two battled and fought each other for supremacy. However, having equal majesty, the best they could ever do is fight to a stand still. In the final battle, the two fought against each other for ultimate supremacy. In this final battle, the two only ended up destroying each other in an astounding, yet appalling, tremendously immense blast of power. In the aftermath, the two had ultimately annihilated each other. But in that aftermath, there was a creation. A universe had begun expanding...
Now prove this is no less possible than the bullshit you have been spewing. And just like the bullshit you have spewing, it is just as unfalsifiable. Perhaps you ought to go buy some Immodium.
''Now prove this is no less possible than the bullshit you have been spewing. ''
Easy. Neither those two fellas can be the ultimate source of existence because they seem to be contingent. What's more, you describe that they destroyed each other in a blast...now that's highly indicating that they're simply just occupants of a natural world. So, this whole thing is a false analogy and doesn't even address the problem in the first place.
And you say your Sky Faerie, Magic Lich Virgin, and Rather Comedic Spook are a better explanation? You just gave the answer why they are not the ultimate source of existence.
When did I claim that any of these things (whatever the heck they are) are the ultimate source?? And judging by their names, I can easily see that they're just occupants of the natural world.
They are the satirical renaming of your Christian gods.
Straw man and non sequitor. We were talking about the source of existence and you changed the target to religion.
No straw man. No non-sequitor. I changed nothing. You are the one being religious in the bullshit you are shoveling onto this site. And you have already claimed your religion as Christianity. You claim it is your god who is the creator. I am just pointing out that your Christian religion is polytheistic. It has three gods: the Sky Faerie (a.k.a. the Sky Daddy), the Magic Lich Virgin, and the Rather Comedic Spook.
And what have you been saying about critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought? Finally going to admit you ain't got any?
P.S. — Have you not realized that your lack of correct spelling and punctuation is simply proving my Theory of Religious Absolutist Lack of Intelligence? You do not know how to properly spell hyphenated words, correctly use quote marks, cannot capitalize correctly, and punctuation that is horrid. Go back to school and do not skip classes this time around.
Convenient that you define God that way. It seems pretty ridiculous to even discuss these sorts of things if you can just say something is true because that's how you define God.
All I was saying that ''having created the Universe'' is something we expect a God to have done.
This seems a serious stretch as there are hundreds or thousands of gods that have been believed in over the history of the world that were not believed to be the creator of the universe.