?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
God as an entity cannot have parts.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
So what's the answer to the pantheist who would think "There are parts that are not 'part of the whole/God'"? It sounds like you'd say that no pantheist would say that.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:40 amGod as an entity cannot have parts.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Pantheists believe that God is the universe. God however has no part. The universe is made of parts. Therefore, pantheism is incoherent. I don't know what is the answer of pantheists to this objection. I don't think that there is any answer.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:55 pmSo what's the answer to the pantheist who would think "There are parts that are not 'part of the whole/God'"? It sounds like you'd say that no pantheist would say that.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:40 amGod as an entity cannot have parts.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm
?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
If a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.
Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
(2) God has no parts
and
(3) The universe has parts.
I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PantheismTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pmIf a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.
Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Electrons, protons, etc. are part of the universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm and
(3) The universe has parts.
I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
The "bounds" which separate something as being a "part" from the whole system are completely arbitrary. What makes a "unit" a unit is but a matter of abstraction.
There's no "me" and "you" except colloquially. There's us as a whole.
There's no "proton" and "electron". There's an atom as a whole.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
So do you want to make a wager whether you can find a pantheist who claims all three things?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:24 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PantheismTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pmIf a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.
Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Electrons, protons, etc. are part of the universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm and
(3) The universe has parts.
I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Things exist as different entities. They have properties which through these properties things interact so their properties are related.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:44 amThe "bounds" which separate something as being a "part" from the whole system are completely arbitrary. What makes a "unit" a unit is but a matter of abstraction.
There's no "me" and "you" except colloquially. There's us as a whole.
There's no "proton" and "electron". There's an atom as a whole.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
No, pantheists only claim 1. I claim 3. There are arguments in favor of the simplicity of God that are not mine namely 2.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:12 amSo do you want to make a wager whether you can find a pantheist who claims all three things?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:24 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PantheismTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm
If a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.
Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Electrons, protons, etc. are part of the universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm and
(3) The universe has parts.
I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.