You got an issue with this.
Yeah....what he said. I always like the wave analogy...
Somebody give Code a wave, and when he waves back he'll understand...
Hey how did you end up in heaven?
- Thread starter Jarrett
- Start date
Somebody give Code a wave, and when he waves back he'll understand...
yes and before the wave existed and after the wave is gone it is indistinguishable from the ocean....it is in the ocean rises up, rolls along and disappears...temporal...temporarily physical and visible...and then gone.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
If God is like the ocean, and we are the water waves,
then without us, there is no God, as without water waves,
there is no ocean.
This is a purely pantheistic position:
So how does this help path of one escape fallacy?
If anything, if she adopts this position, it even puts her
at odds with her own beliefs as she is trying to argue that man is not divine,
when in pantheism: everything is divine, because everything is God
Yea, I do. You got a problem with that?
Am I not allowed to take issue with other people's beliefs,
but they are allowed to take issue with mine? Is that it?
The Undecided
Well-Known Member
Surely a God or Gods would not ask this question, they would just tell you whether they think you can enter into their kingdom or not. Your own opinion on the matter would not effect the outcome.
TU
I believe she and I are more panentheistic than pantheistic....
And within our belief there is no contradiction...it is only others examination of our beliefs (not to say she and I agree) that they have a contradiction.
We have no issue with your beliefs...go and believe as you will.
And you can have as many issues with my beliefs as you wish...I just don't have to entertain them.
Youse gotta problem wit dat?
Perhaps time to reference Panentheism again, where God is in everything, but everything is not God. Perhaps think of it from a Gestalt position, where the sum is greater than the parts - especially as this universe is almost certainly just one level of existence (even before we bring in various aspects to this universe such as multiverse, etc).
CZ's analogy is spot on and has a great scientific reference - all matter has a wave function, ie, *everything* exists as both a particle and a wave.
At low relative velocities, the wave function is easily dominated by the particle aspect - hence we look solid rather than flowy - though the reverse is true, ie, photons of light behave more like a wave than a particle because of their high relative velocities.
Waves are the propagation of energy through a medium - as physical objects, we can also be described as being waves travelling through the medium of the universe.
The universe is not God, but a fraction of God - a part - so we are all a part of God travelling through a part of God.
Or, to repeat Bill Hicks, we are all the universe experiencing itself.
There is no fallacy in this, merely semantic confusion on the part of the questioner as to what constitutes divinity - which without our tools of objective proof much remain a matter of personal faith whichever reason is decided upon.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
geez... just make up your minds already...
Are you pantheists, or panentheists?
Because the analogy which CZ used only works with pantheism.
If you are panentheists, you can't even make use of it!
does not work for you because you are supposed to believe in a Trancentend Creator.
The problem with this defense is that the sum is dependent upon the parts.
And if that is the case, then where does transcendence come into the picture here?
All is God (not All in God) and the sum is greater argument does not apply.
p.s.
The wave function is just a probabilistic diagram, not an actual picture of reality. Why do you think there are so many competing interpretations of QM? Exactly because the implications of the wave function are inherently "spooky". Unless of course, you believe in superdeterminism, like me, but I doubt you are willing to trade your notions or free will for that.
Are you pantheists, or panentheists?
Because the analogy which CZ used only works with pantheism.
If you are panentheists, you can't even make use of it!
I thought you were taking a more panentheist approach? If so, this
does not work for you because you are supposed to believe in a Trancentend Creator.
The problem with this defense is that the sum is dependent upon the parts.
And if that is the case, then where does transcendence come into the picture here?
So are you defending the pantheist model again? Because in this model
All is God (not All in God) and the sum is greater argument does not apply.
p.s.
The wave function is just a probabilistic diagram, not an actual picture of reality. Why do you think there are so many competing interpretations of QM? Exactly because the implications of the wave function are inherently "spooky". Unless of course, you believe in superdeterminism, like me, but I doubt you are willing to trade your notions or free will for that.
OAT
Where is the TAO?
That speaks volume about the person who runs that place. I would not even want to go in even if forced. I am sure I would have many friends and relatives who would not be allowed in. There are far better places to go.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
"Not knowing is most intimate."
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Not semantics, but differences in theo/alogy. You're operating in a system where there is "God" (for Muslims, an absolute)... and then humanity. Nothing much in between.
For some Pagans like myself, there is what you call "God" (what I'd term God Herself, the Limitless, etc.) and then there are deities (God-forms, emanations, divine beings that are not Limitless) and then there is humanity. Well, and a bunch of other stuff- nature spirits of sundry sorts, ancestral spirits, elementals, fae, etc.
It's not semantics. It's a difference in belief about how many kinds of beings are out there. The gods/goddesses, at least for some of us, are sort of "bits" of God's force/power, sort of like angels I guess, but tied to the forces of Nature and life. These are, for most Pagans I know, something different yet again from "guides" (who are personal helpers in the spiritual path of development) and "guardians" (who protect one).
And, by the way- no division does not mean equivalence. That is also not semantics. If I meant equivalence, I would say so. Your own determination that the two are linguistically the same has little bearing on their actual meaning.
By "no division" I mean the lack of this (Merriam-Webster):
4 a : something that divides, separates, or marks off b : the act, process, or an instance of separating or keeping apart : separation
Separation, to me, is an illusion. We create our own separateness from the Divine in order to reify the ego, because we are afraid of being consumed by the Divine. We want to remain as autonomous as possible, so we build walls to make ourselves feel like permanent beings in our own right, when in fact we are not.
I do not mean equivalence, which is (Merriam-Webster):
1 : equal in force, amount, or value; also : equal in area or volume but not superposable <a square equivalent to a triangle>
2 a : like in signification or import b : having logical equivalence <equivalent statements>
3 : corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function
4 obsolete : equal in might or authority
Semantics are important. Just because you wish to define a person's words a certain way, does not make it the case.
Yes. And somehow, you managed to weave a sloppy argument that Paganism led to atheism. In actuality, atheism mostly arose out of a response to organized monotheism and the modern nation-state.
I realize you only worship one deity. That's what Muslims do. I worship one Divine Being also. Some Pagans are like that.
However, I think a variety of divine beings exist as sort of little rays off the big light. I think this is what Pagans call gods and goddesses. It is what I as a Pagan call the pantheon. Personally, I honor these, but don't worship them. But some people do, and I think that's fine.
For me, "The Deity" as you put it (what I call the Divine One or God Herself or, more romantically, the Star Goddess) is Limitless Light. I think of the gods and goddesses (the pantheon) as light in extension, as are we. We just have different functions and ways of being.
Hope that helps clarify.
See if this helps - seems to be a common sense representation so far:
Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for wave functions and wave particle duality - well, it's not a contentious part of QM, it's an integral part of it.
It's possible I may be confusing my terms here as it's been a long time since I visited QM, but I do remember even in school we were were set problems to work out the wave properties of slow moving objects such as golf balls.
I don't think the laws of physics have changed that much since, though I could be wrong.
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
I'd say, "You made me knowing what would become of me. If you were just gonna throw me in a pit forever, why bother making me at all?"
And then I'd wink.
All adorable like. I'd be in for sure!Wat I'd say is pretty much a boiled down version of my argument against any vision of eternal punishment. What's the point of it? Punishment for a crime committed as retaliation is a very human way of looking at things. In terms of hell, that's punishment, by the by, for something that an all knowing god already knew you were gonna do before you even existed.
Which is pointless...
Which is why me and everyone else is pretty much golden for gettin into whatever "kingdom" is really up there.
Cause we're all just creations, and there's always a reason for everything.
I rest my case.
Is it not written " yee are gods"?
Exactly why I'd show absolutely no concern at the pearly gates...some surprise, but no concern.
You will stand before the All. However the spirit will bare record for you. You will be held accountable for your deeds of deficit if you are found without the covering. If the covering is found then all your deeds of deficiancy will be cast into the sea of forgetfullness never to be remembered again. But because of the deficit many will say, " did i not speak in your name, was it not i who served you?" to which the One will reply, "depart from me for i knew you not." At this point the individual will be cast into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Judging by the lack of true knowledge of the All that is present in this physical world and the past worlds, and also as is made apparent by our anger and loathing of one another, i would say that place is here. This place is the place of outer darkness, the place of deficit. The Kingdom of light is in the heart of the covered it is an unreachable place for those in darkness.
I thought it was you that said you don't use fear tactics in any of your posts?
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
.
@ CZ + Path + Brian
It's not enough to just sound profound. It might impress some, but if you want to have a discussion with me, I'd appreciate straight answers, or none at all.
??? What the hell are you talking about ???
I said the idea of self-divinity continues to this day in the face of atheism ("if there is no God, then I am god" -proclaimed one of Dostoevsky's characters). While you are trying to show that your version of paganism isn't about self divinity, remember?
Get confused much?
.. and did you notice that before I talked about atheism I specifically referenced rabbis, popes and imams? What do you think I was talking about there?
I would go on to point out the historical linkage between pagan ethos and the organized "monotheistic" institutions, but since I don't have time to keep correcting your "sloppy" errors, I'll just move on.
Yea, we'll see about that.
great, you can use a dictionary, good 4 you...
Now tell me, how can there be "no separation" between something transcendent, and something finite? You do believe in a transcendent Creator, do you not? OR are you also planning on flip flopping between pantheism or panentheism like the others here?
Make this clear now before we waste anymore of each other's time. Because if you are adopting a pantheistic position, then we have nothing to talk about. But if you are contending that you believe in a God that is simultaneously transcendent, yet there is no separation between Him and us, then that is just the kind of "sloppy" theology which I won't mind critiquing. (at least the panthiests are consistent).
While your at it, why don't you also try explaining how can there be any intermingling (or interpenetration, if you prefer the panentheistic terminology) between the "mind" and the body? Because your argument is no different then the dualistic notions of Descartes. The philosophers discarded such notions exactly because there can be no such intermingling. If you think you can try and prove them wrong, go ahead.
OR you can just accept that your "theology" falls into contradiction and semantics, before even reaching transcendence.
Again, if you are defending panentheism, then why were you so impressed with CZ's analogy? It doesn't even apply to your "sum is greater" argument.
As for your ideas about QM, I will remind you that it can't be used to explain reality in its current form. So forget about using it to defend a pantheistic/panentheistic view. You have not even definied which interpretation of QM you are trying to use (just like you have not decided firmly between pantheism or panentheism).
@ CZ + Path + Brian
It's not enough to just sound profound. It might impress some, but if you want to have a discussion with me, I'd appreciate straight answers, or none at all.
??? What the hell are you talking about ???
I said the idea of self-divinity continues to this day in the face of atheism ("if there is no God, then I am god" -proclaimed one of Dostoevsky's characters). While you are trying to show that your version of paganism isn't about self divinity, remember?
Get confused much?
.. and did you notice that before I talked about atheism I specifically referenced rabbis, popes and imams? What do you think I was talking about there?
I would go on to point out the historical linkage between pagan ethos and the organized "monotheistic" institutions, but since I don't have time to keep correcting your "sloppy" errors, I'll just move on.
Yea, we'll see about that.
great, you can use a dictionary, good 4 you...Now tell me, how can there be "no separation" between something transcendent, and something finite? You do believe in a transcendent Creator, do you not? OR are you also planning on flip flopping between pantheism or panentheism like the others here?
Make this clear now before we waste anymore of each other's time. Because if you are adopting a pantheistic position, then we have nothing to talk about. But if you are contending that you believe in a God that is simultaneously transcendent, yet there is no separation between Him and us, then that is just the kind of "sloppy" theology which I won't mind critiquing. (at least the panthiests are consistent).
While your at it, why don't you also try explaining how can there be any intermingling (or interpenetration, if you prefer the panentheistic terminology) between the "mind" and the body? Because your argument is no different then the dualistic notions of Descartes. The philosophers discarded such notions exactly because there can be no such intermingling. If you think you can try and prove them wrong, go ahead.
OR you can just accept that your "theology" falls into contradiction and semantics, before even reaching transcendence.
Again, if you are defending panentheism, then why were you so impressed with CZ's analogy? It doesn't even apply to your "sum is greater" argument.
As for your ideas about QM, I will remind you that it can't be used to explain reality in its current form. So forget about using it to defend a pantheistic/panentheistic view. You have not even definied which interpretation of QM you are trying to use (just like you have not decided firmly between pantheism or panentheism).
I'm sorry c0de, but Citizen's simple analogy was brilliant and explains a simple way to view inter-relationships - I'm genuinely sorry you don't understand it, at least, for now.
Pantheism as I understand it limits existence to this universe, and therefore limits God to that Universe - while Panentheism sees the universe as simply a fraction of existence, therefore the Divine is seen as as expressed in that universe but neither constrained nor directly identified with it.
On a limb - energy is about the purest expression of God I can think of in this universe. It permeates all things, is all things, and yet transcends our normal dimensions of existence. And yet God is not energy, but energy is a part of God, just as my finger is not Brian, it is simply a part of a larger whole, and Brian is greater than the sum of his parts.
As for Quantum Physics - again, wave-particle duality and the fact that everything has a wave function is a founding part of physics in general. So far as I'm aware, it is not subject to interpretation or can be accepted/rejected on whimsy without rejecting all non-classical physics. Just to clarify as well, it's an interesting analogy for this conversation and one I'll consider further, but does not at this point explain anything - merely illustrate something profound simply, that others may also wish to consider further.
The suggestion of "defend or not" is a pointless argument, because at the end of the day none of us can successfully claim to know Objective Truth and thus all our arguments and discussions are nothing more than the grunting of apes in the larger universe.