What attracted you to philosophy?

[attofishpi]

Yes you have the right to call me a wanker again in capital letters.. I don't agree with everything within definitions of pantheism or panetheism. Can we return to your original inquiry about the two points and how to distinguish them? Or are you still digging for a fight?

You are still telling me what you DON'T agree with. Still very apophatic.

The way I use the word "Universe" is "everything that exists and that is potentially knowable (even if not yet known) by humans".

And so if God exists, then God exists within the Universe.
If God exists then God can be studied via the scientific method.

So try again. I am not arguing about the definitions of pantheism or panetheism. I am asking you a yes or no question.

Are God and Universe different entities?

How the fuck would I know? What I know is, God IS our REALITY or - your point 2. is external to our reality but has control over it. Whether 'God' extends to the entire fucking universe is waaay beyond my knowledge!

[Logik]

How the fuck would I know? What I know is, God IS our REALITY or - your point 2. is external to our reality but has control over it.

Because the way you conceptualise God is no different to reality!

If you can't draw any distinctions between "God" and "Reality" then you are speaking about the same fucking thing using different words!

Whether 'God' extends to the entire fucking universe is waaay beyond my knowledge!

Wait, are you saying that God exists within the universe and that the Universe may be bigger than God?

[attofishpi]

How the fuck would I know? What I know is, God IS our REALITY or - your point 2. is external to our reality but has control over it.

Because the way you conceptualise God is no different to reality!

If you can't draw any distinctions between "God" and "Reality" then you are speaking about the same fucking thing using different words!

You were the one questioning on your point 2. Whether God was an external agent to reality. I stated from the outset that God IS reality.

Whether 'God' extends to the entire fucking universe is waaay beyond my knowledge!

OK, so you are agreeing that God exists within the universe and that the Universe is bigger than God?

Hey, I didn't even think you agreed that God exists...so if you are actually an atheist, your logik is way off the mark. But yes, I think God is a part of the universe - the part that consists of our reality.

[Logik]

You were the one questioning on your point 2. Whether God was an external agent to reality. I stated from the outset that God IS reality.

OK, but when I asked you whether you use the words "God", "reality" and "Universe" interchangeably you said "no".

So I have no idea what to make of this!

Hey, I didn't even think you agreed that God exists...so if you are actually an atheist, your logik is way off the mark.

I am an agnostic. On matters of God and knowledge.

But yes, I think God is a part of the universe - the part that consists of our reality.

You are confusing me. You said:

1. God IS reality.
2. God is part of the universe.

So reality is part of the universe? This is a taxonomy I have never encountered before...

I use the words "reality" and "universe" interchangeably/synonymously. And I use both words to mean "everything that exists and that is currently known AND potentially knowable (in future) by humans."

I also use the words "exists" and "knowable" synonymously.

In this context if God exists, then God is knowable even if currently unknown.

[commonsense]

So you are a dopamine addict.

Philosophy is a great way to get your fix without actually achieving anything.

Yes

So you could think of this place of a support group of sorts? Or a drug den. I can't be sure.

Either participating on this forum is helping our addiction; or we are heading for anhedonia.

Yes, exactly. It is either. And for some it may be the one, while for others it is the other.

[Logik]

Yes, exactly. It is either. And for some it may be the one, while for others it is the other.

I am going with drug den.

[commonsense]

For the moment, please allow me to change the discussion about God’s existence to an analogous one. Let me say some things about spirits.

I can say, “Spirits exist”, but I cannot prove they exist. I can believe they exist. I can hope they exist. I can guess they exist.

But I cannot prove they exist. I cannot perceive spirits using any of my 5 senses. I cannot observe spirits.

I cannot use any tools to locate them. I cannot use any kind of x-ray, CT scan or MRI to detect them.

I cannot weigh them, measure them or catch them in a net. There’s no test I can perform that can identify spirits.

I just cannot know for sure whether spirits exist. To the best of my knowledge, no actual spirit has ever been found.

In other words, spirits might exist. Or they might not. My belief can be either that they exist or not. But my thought can only be that the existence of spirits is unknowable.

How is it different with any immaterial entity, such as God?

[Logik]

For the moment, please allow me to change the discussion about God’s existence to an analogous one. Let me say some things about spirits.

I can say, “Spirits exist”, but I cannot prove they exist. I can believe they exist. I can hope they exist. I can guess they exist.

But I cannot prove they exist. I cannot perceive spirits using any of my 5 senses. I cannot observe spirits.

I cannot use any tools to locate them. I cannot use any kind of x-ray, CT scan or MRI to detect them.

I cannot weigh them, measure them or catch them in a net. There’s no test I can perform that can identify spirits.

I just cannot know for sure whether spirits exist. To the best of my knowledge, no actual spirit has ever been found.

In other words, spirits might exist. Or they might not. My belief can be either that they exist or not. But my thought can only be that the existence of spirits is unknowable.

How is it different with any immaterial entity, such as God?

Suppose all spirits went extinct tomorrow because. Bad spirit-flu going around!
Suppose God died too. Choked on an olive. Freak accident!

How would our experience of reality change in their absence?

[commonsense]

Suppose all spirits went extinct tomorrow because. Bad spirit-flu going around!
Suppose God died too. Choked on an olive. Freak accident!

How would our experience of reality change in their absence?

Interesting question. If there were no change, we would surmise that neither God nor spirits exist, or rather that neither interacts with reality. If there were a change, we would be inclined to conclude that either God or spirits or both exist, supposing as we did.

[Logik]

Suppose all spirits went extinct tomorrow because. Bad spirit-flu going around!
Suppose God died too. Choked on an olive. Freak accident!

How would our experience of reality change in their absence?

Interesting question. If there were no change, we would surmise that neither God nor spirits exist, or rather that neither interacts with reality. If there were a change, we would be inclined to conclude that either God or spirits or both exist, supposing as we did.

And if you can’t predict (a priori) what might actually change in practice then it is safe to conclude that you don’t have a meaningful conception of God or spirits.

[commonsense]

Suppose all spirits went extinct tomorrow because. Bad spirit-flu going around!
Suppose God died too. Choked on an olive. Freak accident!

How would our experience of reality change in their absence?

Interesting question. If there were no change, we would surmise that neither God nor spirits exist, or rather that neither interacts with reality. If there were a change, we would be inclined to conclude that either God or spirits or both exist, supposing as we did.

And if you can’t predict (a priori) what might actually change in practice then it is safe to conclude that you don’t have a meaningful conception of God or spirits.

Exactly!

[gaffo]

How old were you when you first became interested in phil osophy? Where were you when that happened? What would you like to say about your initiation to philosophy?

7, being an introvert by nature thought a lot.

by 16 thought of Solipsism is all i can know. then 5 yrs later learned of Descarte in college and that he thought the same thing (then added-backslide from my view later).
I suspect introverts by their nature are more apt to "think" and so more Philosophy minded than extroverts.

but individuals trump therer introversion/extroversion - and so speaking generally here, individuality trumps this to a degree.

[Logik]

7, being an introvert by nature thought a lot.

by 16 thought of Solipsism is all i can know. then 5 yrs later learned of Descarte in college and that he thought the same thing (then added-backslide from my view later).
I suspect introverts by their nature are more apt to "think" and so more Philosophy minded than extroverts.

but individuals trump therer introversion/extroversion - and so speaking generally here, individuality trumps this to a degree.

Any distinction between a solipsist, atheist and theist is only linguistic. There is no empirical distinction.

Thought experiment: suppose you changed your mind tomorrow and you stopped being a solipsist. How would your behaviour change? How would the way you carry yourself in the world change?

[commonsense]

Any distinction between a solipsist, atheist and theist is only linguistic. There is no empirical distinction.

I find this intriguing. How is it that there is no empirical distinction between a theist and either of the other two?

[Logik]

Any distinction between a solipsist, atheist and theist is only linguistic. There is no empirical distinction.

I find this intriguing. How is it that there is no empirical distinction between a theist and either of the other two?

Demonstrate one.

Better yet. Determine somebody’s beliefs empirically, rather than through conversational means.