Pantheism vs Panentheism

[seeds]

Pantheism vs Panentheism

I was into Pantheism i.e. advaita Vedanta for many years.

I believe Pantheism is driven more 'philosophical' thinking [less triggered by psychological desperations] than Panentheism.

That may be so, but that doesn't change the fact that Panentheism at least implies the existence of something "intelligent" being responsible for the order of the universe, as opposed to the utterly ridiculous notion that it's all a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance implicit in Pantheism.

It is just a matter of degrees, both Pantheism vs Panentheism are triggered subliminally by some sort of psychological desperation driven from cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis as an evolutionary default to cling to "something" is primal reason dictate there things cannot come from nothing.

...OR...

...both Pantheism and Panentheism are triggered "subliminally" in humans by the fact that the very underlying substance from which we and the universe are constructed is part of the living fabric of a Higher Being.

In other words, if we, in a fanciful thought experiment, could anthropomorphize the watermelon seeds suspended in the pulp of a watermelon to the point of imagining them as being as conscious as humans,...



...then it would be logical to assume that the (conscious) watermelon seeds might experience some sort of "subliminal" awareness of the existence of the fully-fruitioned (fully-matured) Adult Entity that the seeds are the seeds of.

However, because they are seeds who are momentarily trapped within a closed and opaque context of reality (the inner "pulp/womb" of the melon) wherein they have no way of knowing what lies above and outside of the melon,...

...they therefore have no choice but to come up with highly speculative guesses in regard to that deeper truth that they are subliminally sensing; speculations that come in many dubious and conflicting forms due to having no accurate "overview" of their situation...



Captions starting at 9 o'clock and moving clockwise:

Christian seed: "God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Muslim seed: "You are infidels! Allah is God and Mohammad is his prophet!"

Materialist seed: "You're all a bunch-a-nuts! There is no god. This whole thing is just a big accident!"

Hindu seed: "You are misinformed. There are many gods. There is Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu. There is Prajapati, Indra, Agni, Krishna, Ganesh,...."

Buddhist seed: "I agree with the "accident guy." There is no god. But you do have to keep coming back, again and again, in order to become a better...um?...er?..."

GOD: "My kids are a real hoot!"

Racist seed: "The stripes on your shell are vertical and not horizontal like mine. You are unworthy!"

Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, but the point is...

(and it's a point that I am absolutely certain flew completely over your head)

...again, the point is that the little black and white illustration that I just presented above is the near perfect representation of what "Panentheism" truly means.

In fact, because we are the literal seeds (embryos) of this Panentheistic Entity ("created in its image"), if you just look inward into your own mind, you will discover that we are each, in and of ourselves, panentheistic entities.

Indeed, what I am suggesting is that we have each (in a "seed-like" fashion) been imbued with the potential of being able to create a universe out of the living fabric of our very own being in precisely the same way as the Entity that we are the seeds of has done.

Again, I could be wrong, but I just don't know how the truth of reality could get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than that.
_______

[Atla]

Again, I could be wrong, but I just don't know how the truth of reality could get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than that.

By forming a temporal loop. One or more of us humans becomes God (a godlike entity), which God then creates our universe in our past and this God is (was) destroyed in the process. Or some similar temporal loop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Panentheism:
God in Everything and Beyond: Panentheists believe that God is in everything (immanent) but also extends beyond the world (transcendent).
Dynamic Relationship: There's a dynamic relationship between God and the world, with the world being an expression or aspect of God.
World as Part of God: The world is considered a part of God, but God is not limited to the world.

Where did this Panentheistic God independent of the world came from?

This independent Panentheistic God is a human construct arising from the need for consonance to soothe the cognitive dissonance driven by an existing crisis.
This cognitive dissonance arise from the dilemma of;

• 1. ALL humans are programmed with the potential to be triggered with terrible fears upon any impending knowledge of and threat of death.
  
  2. Humans are the only living entities who are programmed with high self-awareness to be aware of the inevitable mortality.
  
  3. This awareness of the inevitable death, triggered a cognitive dissonance and a dilemma.
  
  4. To resolve this dissonance, the majority of humans cling to an invented illusory theistic God and some to a panentheistic God or the more subtle to a pantheistic God.
  
  5. The above which works is happening subliminally beyond one's normal consciousness.
  
  6. Since it works to soothe such terrible fears and pains, some believers will even kill those who oppose their ideologies, because a threat to their ideology could allow the fears and pains to resurface.

[Age]

For information;

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity.[1][2] What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated.
However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

There are various views on the term 'God';

There are various views on the term 'the world' AS WELL. But, so what?

It is, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY 'that', which EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS that is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct, and, JUST AS OBVIOUS, IRREFUTABLY SO, ALSO.

Views regarding God vary considerably.

Views regarding 'the world' vary considerably, ALSO, But, AGAIN, SO WHAT?

.....
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Some theists view knowledge concerning God as derived from faith. God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence.[1]
God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator and sustainer and the ruler of the universe.
God is often thought of as incorporeal and independent of the material creation[1][7][8] while pantheism holds God is the universe itself.
God is sometimes seen as the most benevolent, while deism holds that God is not involved in humanity apart from creation.

SO WHAT?

What, and who, 'God' IS, ACTUALLY, is some thing BEST UNDERSTOOD FIRST, BEFORE the ABSURD, and OBVIOUS, mentioning of just what some of 'you', human beings, BELIEVE is true.

WHEN WILL 'you', human beings, COME-TO-FULLY REALIZE that what 'you' each individually BELIEVE is true is of absolutely NO importance AT ALL, in Life?

[Age]

For information;

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

That's a rather redundant belief. Further, so do other theisms. Its a fairly random grouping.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity.[1][2] What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated.
However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

Yeah, they are theisms. And throwing deism at the other two, which are related, is random.

There are various views on the term 'God';

Yup, and they each get a name with 'ism' at the end.

AND, ALL 'isms' just end being A BELIEF in some 'thing'.

Unless, OF COURSE, SHOWN and PROVED otherwise.

[Age]

For information;

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

That's a rather redundant belief. Further, so do other theisms. Its a fairly random grouping.

It's not just a random grouping, it also presents a false premise, for there is no "existing" God (as defined in my prior post) in Pantheism.

Let me repeat what I said earlier...

...it is completely inappropriate (a flagrant misnomer) for pantheists to use the word "God" in their definition of Pantheism, for there is absolutely nothing in the concept of Pantheism that implies the existence of a "creator" or a "supreme being" who is a central source of "moral authority."

WHY what does the word 'God' ACTUALLY MEAN, and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Can 'you', posters, here STILL REALLY NOT YET SEE that just about ALL of 'you' ALL have 'your' OWN specific DEFINITIONS, and USES, FOR words here?

LOL just about ALL of 'your' DISAGREEMENTS and CONFLICTS here, in this forum, are over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL other than 'your' OWN DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.

For all practical purposes, an OP title such as this...

"Pantheism vs Panentheism"

...is not much different from this...

"Materialism vs Panentheism"

And that's because there is no discernable creative source in Pantheism.

In Pantheism there is not the slightest intimation of the existence of a central locus of self-aware consciousness who,...

...with willful intent and purpose,...

...took hold of the infinitely malleable substance of its own personal mind and shaped it into an unfathomably ordered setting from which we, and innumerable other lifeforms, could then effloresce from the living fabric of the setting itself.

And is 'this definition' an AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED ONE by EVERY one here, or even just one OTHER one of 'you' here?

Or, is 'this definition' "seeds" ALONE?

For whatever reason, here we are - once again - dealing with another one of VA's misappropriations of sketchy metaphysical concepts in order to advance his personal agenda,...

LOL is "veritas aequitas" the ONLY one here that does 'this'?

Are 'we' NOT here, once again, dealing with another one of "seed's" misappropriations of 'sketchy metaphysical concepts', or in other words "seed's" OWN personal definitions, in order to advance "seed's" OWN personal agenda'?

...for it is a complete non sequitur to claim (as he does) that Pantheism has something in common with Deism and Panentheism -- more specifically, that all three share the same belief that God "exists," when it is clear that there isn't the remotest hint of an existing God in Pantheism.

I am NOT SURE of HOW 'you' USE define the 'pantheism' word, EXACTLY, "seeds", BUT one of the countless MANY definitions that I LOOKED UP for the word 'pantheism' defines that word as;
a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

Which therefore MEANS that FROM 'this definition' for 'that word' that there IS, ACTUALLY, A REMOTEST HINT of an existing God, in 'pantheism'.

But, OF COURSE, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO VIEW and SEE 'things' in ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY 'you' like "seeds".

In fact, seeing how "theism" is generally defined as follows,...

theism
noun
- belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

...suggests that Pantheism shouldn't even have the word "theism" in its name.

What do you MEAN by 'generally' here?

Hey, I just thought of a new word to represent VA's anthropocentric philosophy, let's call it...

..."Mantheism"
_______

What about 'individualism' as "veritas aequitas", like the rest of 'you', human beings, here seem to constantly ONLY BELIEVE (in) what 'you' ALL INDIVIDUALLY ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

As 'you', "seeds", are PROVING here for 'us', FURTHER.

[Age]

I think there are pantheismS. Some of what you say applies to some not others and it's all very complicated if we are dealing with what gets batched under pantheism.

This, 'some applies to some, but not to all', references EVERY 'ism' group. There are NOT two individual human beings in ANY 'ism' group or thinking, look at, view, AND see the EXACT SAME, and NEVER WILL BE.

'Trying to' SQUEEZE, FIT, or 'pigeon hole' EVERY one, of ANY particular group of human beings, INTO or WITH the EXACT SAME 'views' WILL ALWAYS FAIL, and 'trying to' do so IS just a COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE OF 'time' and/or 'energy'.

LOL 'you', human beings, can NOT even come to AN AGREEMENT on the definition of ANY labels or names, let alone AGREE ON what the ONE and ONLY ACTUAL 'views' SHOULD BE HAD in ANY, of the YET UNDEFINED, 'names' or 'labels' that are USED for the ATTEMPTED 'separation' of 'you', human beings.

My main reaction to the thread is that for some unknown reason he batched three religious beliefs and did not include others and it's a silly batch. Instead of saying: yeah, I see what you mean, other theisms could have been included and a discussion of P1 vs. P2 is not aided in any way by bringing in deism - I mean look at the vague abstract way justified this batching. And then in the other thread on deism vs theism, batching those three there is also silly.

"veritas aequitas" is just 'trying' to come up with just ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' in 'its' ATTEMPT to SHOW and PROVE there is NO God, and that "muslims" and "islam" is the MOST evil 'thing', in 'the world'.

If only he was a believer in an -ism or spiritualist or worldview or objective morality that allowed him to admit mistakes.

"veritas aequitas" DOES BELIEVE in an 'ism', that is; the 'ism' of "atheism".

He brings up interesting things, then he fails them.

Just about absolutely EVERY 'thing' 'brought up' could BECOME Truly 'interesting', that is; If what was 'brought up' was NOT just INTENDED to SHOW or PROVE an ALREADY False, Wrong, or Incorrect view or BELIEF is absolutely True, Right, nor Correct.

It is BECAUSE the views and claims presented here ARE False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect WHY ALL of 'you', here, ARE FALTERING and FAILING.

[Age]

I think there are pantheismS. Some of what you say applies to some not others and it's all very complicated if we are dealing with what gets batched under pantheism.

Well, I'm not talking about small "p" pantheismS. No, I'm talking about capital "P" Pantheism - the one that when you Google it, this appears...

Pantheism: All is God
Pantheism is the belief that everything is God and God is everything, from trees and rocks to humans and stars.

BUT 'this' is NOT the ONLY 'thing' that comes up when one so-called "googles" 'that word'.

And, to even address 'this' as though 'it' was is just MORE FOOLHARDY than NEEDS to be POINTED OUT, and HIGHLIGHTED.

Btw, just for the sake of clarity, would you please name a few of those small "p" pantheismS you were referencing above?
_______

[Age]

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same fundamental belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

What do you mean by ALL 'shared'?

WHEN did they ALL 'stop'.

The three above can be grouped together [as I did] as 'reasoned god' with some degree of reflection by those who initiated the idea, in contrast to god-in-general which is merely thought instinctively with primal, primitive, "pure" and crude reasoning.

WHY, to 'you', "veritas aequitas", EVERY one with a DIFFERENT view than 'yours' is of 'crude reasoning', but EVERY one with the EXACT SAME view of 'yours' is of 'reasoned thinking'?

Pantheism and panentheism has millions or a billion of blind followers, but the original ideas were reasoned with some degree of reflection.

And, it is ONLY 'those' who BELIEVE that there is NO God who ARE 'reasoned individuals' right, "veritas aequitas"?

BUT, "veritas aequitas", WILL NEVER ANSWER these questions BECAUSE "veritas aequitas" is, LITERALLY, to BLIND and DEAF TO SEE and HEAR here.

The idea of 'god' need not be confined to theism, deism or panentheism but can included pantheism.

Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction:

1. -as a powerful, personal, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical entity or category;
2. -as the "Ultimate", the summum bonum, the "Absolute Infinite", the "Transcendent", or Existence or Being itself;
3. -as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.
The first recordings that survive of monotheistic conceptions of God, borne out of henotheism and (mostly in Eastern religions) monism, are from the Hellenistic period. Of the many objects and entities that religions and other belief systems across the ages have labeled as divine, the one criterion they share is their acknowledgment as divine by a group or groups of human beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

The god in pantheism would be that of;
1. ........ or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical entity or category;
3. -as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.

God is claimed to be Divine.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity.[1][2]
What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated.
However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

What is a deity?

A deity or god is a supernatural being who is considered divine or sacred.[1] The Oxford Dictionary of English defines deity as a god or goddess, or anything revered as divine.[2]
C. Scott Littleton defines a deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness, beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

From the above, the illusory idea of God [basically theo, deity, divine] is implied in Pantheism.
For many Hindus [? I think the majority], Brahman is pantheistic.

Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formlessness (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

As I had argued, the idea of God is an idea reified by the psychological desperates to soothe their inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonance within.
The psychological desperation is evident from some god-believers that they want exclusiveness of something despite that it is illusory.

[Age]

Well, I'm not talking about small "p" pantheismS. No, I'm talking about capital "P" Pantheism - the one that when you Google it, this appears...

I used a small letter because there is not one official religion called Pantheism.

There is ALSO NOT one 'official religion' called ANY 'thing'. And this is JUST BECAUSE 'religion', itself, just refers to absolutely ANY one who has A BELIEF in some 'thing', like, for example, those who BELIEVE that 'science' is the ONLY way TO KNOW 'things', or who BELIEVE that 'the Universe' BEGAN, and/or BEGAN with or from A 'big bang', A 'God', or ANY 'thing' else.

ANY one who BELIEVES some 'thing' or BELIEVES IN some one, or even BELIEVES (in) the writings of some one else, like the people involved in the 'scientific community' do, as well as "others", are ALL 'religious' human beings.

There are many pantheisms. Even a religion like Christianity, which supposedly comes from one cultural/geographic source, has an unbelievable variety of belief systems, concepts of God, etc. I could likely, in another context, criticize some generalizations of Christianity and refer to the various Christianities.

What do you mean by, ' you could likely criticize some GENERALIZATIONS of "christianiy" '?

I find it HARD NOT TO, especially considering HOW MANY there ARE, and HOW False and Wrong MANY OF those ones ARE, EXACTLY.

But with Pantheism we are talking about systems of belief coming from a variety of origings and even types of cultures. It gets an academic (both senses) capital P, but is a batch covering a diverse set.

Pantheism: All is God
Pantheism is the belief that everything is God and God is everything, from trees and rocks to humans and stars.

Btw, just for the sake of clarity, would you please name a few of those small "p" pantheismS you were referencing above?

If you read an article giving an overview of pantheism you'll find that this term covers a wide range of beliefs....
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
I also think the definition of God you quoted is a limited definition:

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

In the West our dictionaries are going to reflect, to varying degrees, what we are used to thinking of God. But, still, even here, especially in philosophy and anthropology, we get a very wide range of qualities, number of deities, personhoodness or lack thereof, role, acts, history for what gets called God or one of the gods/goddesses.

And even within the Abrahamic religions we have theologians whose version of God is quite different.

I think it's fine to call Pantheism a theism, even if it doesn't match expectations that other kinds of theists have for the qualities of that deity. I also think there is a diversity of qualities of the pantheist versions of God, and include even transcendance in some cases and certainly divinity. A panpsychist need not be a theist. But a pantheist is going beyond the panpsychist and God is in there.

[VVilliam]

This thread is about Pantheism vs Panentheism. I am including Deism as a side reference.
Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists but there are differences between them.

There is a contradiction re point 6 on mind-independent realism with
"pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical".

Humans with their mind are intricately part and parcel of the Universe,
"pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical"
contradicts,
6. Realism: there is a real world independent of human thought or perception.

So it appears, pantheism is in a logical mess; the above is expected because, the idea of God and divinity in all forms are illusory.
Any explanation to why there is no logical mess?

Discuss?? Views??

There is no contradiction which is real.

6. can be explained as the result of the limitations the human instrument places upon the mind experiencing said instrument.

Sometimes this interference doesn't occur ( see reports of NDEs/OOBEs et al re this ) and the assumption the mind experiencing such is that it is experiencing a "divine" or "supernatural" thing when in reality the mind is simply in a situation where the human instrument is unable to interfere with perception, and so the nature of nature in a broader sense, is being experienced. ( the veil is flung aside ).

So while there is a "real world independent of human thought or perception", it is not an external/supernatural world independent of nature, but rather an aspect of nature which is hidden from minds primarily involved with having a genuine human experience - something which cannot be obtained if the whole was not hidden, and the human instrument is designed to ensure that the mind of the user does not easily experience the whole range of frequencies of nature, but only a certain range of frequencies of nature.

Thus 6. does not mean that pantheism contradicts realism, but could mean that panentheism is an unnecessary philosophy because pantheism is sufficient.