Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:42 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:51 am The term "theists" implied they by definition believe there is a God and that created the universe.

No it doesn't. Theism implies a belief in a God.

The term leaves open the questions "What is God?" and "What does it mean to believe (or not believe) in God?".

e.g Pantheism. What is God? God is the Universe.

What does it even mean to believe (or not believe) in God-The-Universe?

Even in pantheism, the Universe is a manifestation of God, which by implication means creating the Universe but play no active part in it thereafter like the personal God.

Pantheism\Panetheism

Personally in my experience and comprehension of this entity - God - Panentheism is the best glove that fits.

It is extremely personable btw, although I would advise keep away - this doG bites.

Does that mean that God created the universe - NO.

It means, that what man conceives of, indeed perceives of the universe IS God. And what can man perceive? Reality...and that's our limit.

Ergo - God is the construct behind our reality and what we perceive is the 'universe' ...whatever the fuck that is.

Do you comprehend the difference?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:14 pm Does that mean that God created the universe - NO.

It means, that what man conceives of, indeed perceives of the universe IS God.

These two statements interfere with one another...and perhaps outright contradict.

If the second is right, then you claim has to be that "The universe (i.e. "what man perceives of the universe," you say) IS God." Which I would have to guess means, then, that either a) the universe was never created, or b) that the universe created the universe. There doesn't seem any other way to make sense of that claim. However...

Option b) is circular, because it means the universe had to pre-exist itself, so as to be the right causal description of why it, itself, exists. That makes no possible sense. It's actually no causal explanation at all.

But option a) is empirically and evidently untrue. The universe in which we live is not eternal and circular, but on a linear timeline, as observable through every actual empirical indicator we have.

But worse, you say that "the universe" refers to "what man perceives of the universe"? So you're saying that the whole thing refers to the part of the thing that people see? But what explains the whole thing, then? And how can the whole be only a part of itself?

And you say that this "God," (which you defined already as "what man perceives of the universe") did NOT, in fact, create the universe. So it cannot be the case that this "universe" you call "God" created itself. (That's a consequence of your first proposition.)

So I can't imagine what these explanations are supposed to point to, when one puts them together. You're going to have to do some elaborate explaining to make that clear.

Waffle..

ANYONE for fund.a.mental.list WAFFLE?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 pm These two statements interfere with one another...and perhaps outright contradict.

Not from an agnostic/scientific metaphysic. That which is knowable coincides with that which we call the universe.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 pm If the second is right, then you claim has to be that "The universe (i.e. "what man perceives of the universe," you say) IS God." Which I would have to guess means, then, that either a) the universe was never created, or b) that the universe created the universe. There doesn't seem any other way to make sense of that claim. However...

False dichotomy. The third option is "We don't know" and it makes perfect sense to an agnostic.

God created the Universe. Humans are God. Humans created the epistemic concept of The Universe. It is the place where epistemology, ontology and metaphysics coincide.

It's all that you are allowed to know. Everything else is speculation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 pm Option b) is circular, because it means the universe had to pre-exist itself, so as to be the right causal description of why it, itself, exists. That makes no possible sense. It's actually no causal explanation at all.

The Universe owes you nothing. Not even an explanation. When you ask The universe where it came from, or you insist that it explains itself - it says "Fuck you!"

The concept of an "explanation" is Human-made too. As is the concept of God.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 pm These two statements interfere with one another...and perhaps outright contradict.

Not from an agnostic/scientific metaphysic. That which is knowable coincides with that which we call the universe.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 pm If the second is right, then you claim has to be that "The universe (i.e. "what man perceives of the universe," you say) IS God." Which I would have to guess means, then, that either a) the universe was never created, or b) that the universe created the universe. There doesn't seem any other way to make sense of that claim. However...

False dichotomy. The third option is "We don't know" and it makes perfect sense to an agnostic.

God created the Universe. Humans are God. Humans created the epistemic concept of The Universe. It is the place where epistemology, ontology and metaphysics coincide.

It's all that you are allowed to know. Everything else is speculation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 pm Option b) is circular, because it means the universe had to pre-exist itself, so as to be the right causal description of why it, itself, exists. That makes no possible sense. It's actually no causal explanation at all.

The Universe owes you nothing. Not even an explanation. When you ask The universe where it came from, or you insist that it explains itself - it says "Fuck you!"

The concept of an "explanation" is Human-made too. As is the concept of God.

Did humans create assumptions without assuming first?

God is God as God(s) through Man as Image where the question of whether God is Man or Man is an Image of God (gods) is mostly likely "both/and".

In the history of most world religions.

God is undefinable.
God exists through an avatar, thus is Man.
God exists through image, thus man is an extension of God as gods.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:42 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:05 am
No it doesn't. Theism implies a belief in a God.

The term leaves open the questions "What is God?" and "What does it mean to believe (or not believe) in God?".

e.g Pantheism. What is God? God is the Universe.

What does it even mean to believe (or not believe) in God-The-Universe?

Even in pantheism, the Universe is a manifestation of God, which by implication means creating the Universe but play no active part in it thereafter like the personal God.

Pantheism\Panetheism

Personally in my experience and comprehension of this entity - God - Panentheism is the best glove that fits.

It is extremely personable btw, although I would advise keep away - this doG bites.

Does that mean that God created the universe - NO.

It means, that what man conceives of, indeed perceives of the universe IS God. And what can man perceive? Reality...and that's our limit.

Ergo - God is the construct behind our reality and what we perceive is the 'universe' ...whatever the fuck that is.

Do you comprehend the difference?

There are various interpretations of what is panentheism;
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

• panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.
  
  In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
  
  While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.
  
  Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God.

Panentheism according to panentheists is reducible to

• 1. God-A
  2. The Universe- All that is created

The question is if 'ALL that is created' or manifested is not created by God-A as in 1, then who created 'ALL that is created'.
Are they claiming there is God-B that created 'ALL that is created'.

Logically, God-A has to be involved in the the creation of 'All that is created'.
Thus whatever is the claim, it is inevitably implied,
God-A created the Universe.

"The term [panentheism] was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828"
-wiki
who did not know what he was talking about.

Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

Is this intended as a sociological, psychological, theological, ontological, or history of ideas question?