Adding reason to faith
Home
Main Page  »  Response to:  »  a Pantheist
Wednesday, April 19
View Article  Dialogue with a Pantheist: The Pantheist versus the Panentheist: Part II
by Daniel J. Shepard on Wed 19 Apr 2006 01:00 AM EDT

Pantheism Yahoo discussion group run by RQ:

 

060416: second message posted

 

 

Rq: An excellent way for the Satanists to prevent you from contemplating 
the of "Mind of God," is to tell you that the "Mind of God" cannot be
known.

If you grab onto that false idea and hold it firmly in your mind, you
are walking with the living dead.

Djs: Again I agree. I would however be a little less hateful. Satanist is, in my opinion, too harsh a word to use. There are many reasons for iterating the statement: ‘…the Mind of God cannot be known.’ Evil may be one but it is not the only one. Some people I dearly love use the statement not because they are ‘evil’ but because some of them are fearful, others believe it, and mostly because they are correct.

 

We cannot ‘know’ the Mind of God any more than we can ‘know’ anything absolutely.

 

We cannot ‘know’ the Mind of god not just because we cannot know anything absolutely but because the Mind of God is truly beyond our comprehension.

 

Having said that I would also suggest that we are quite capable of speculating and some speculations would appear to be more correct than others. If science – what we observe, religion – what we believe, and philosophy – what we reason all concur then the answer is more probably correct than if none, one, or two of the three concur.

 

Now one may say we cannot identify truth based upon consensus. To this I would say, what else do we have available which allows us to sort out ‘more probable truths’ from the myriad list of truths placed before us by the billions of individuals, thousands of religions – sciences – philosophies, and fantasies found within the vast expanse of knowledge accumulated over the days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, … of humans questing truth.

 

In short, perhaps one should consider one’s abrasiveness when discussing the concept of God.

 

Leave Comment  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
Tuesday, April 18
View Article  Dialogue with a Pantheist: The Pantheist versus the Panentheist: Part II
by Daniel J. Shepard on Tue 18 Apr 2006 01:48 AM EDT

Pantheism Yahoo discussion group run by RQ:

 

060416

 

 

 

Rq: When you stop asking questions about God, you stop the quest.

djs: You are so right Rq, even if it means expanding your understanding of God being ‘more expansive’ than the universe, even if it means expanding your understanding of God such that one understands the universe is ‘within’ God, understanding that God goes lierally beyond the physical universe.

Leave Comment  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
Wednesday, April 12
View Article  Dialogue with a Pantheist: The Pantheist versus the Panentheist: Part III
by Daniel J. Shepard on Wed 12 Apr 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Pantheism Yahoo discussion group run by RQ:

 

060306: Statement of general belief

 

Part III

 

 

Rq: …Pantheists - …but the Universe as an infinite whole does not have human
like characteristics.

Regarding ‘…the Universe as an infinite whole…’

 

Djs: Panentheists …this is not a critical principle of panentheism. The concept of a finite and/or infinite universe is easily understandable. Time and space may be infinite but if one steps beyond the physical to observe the physical, time and space by their very nature are limited to what they are, namely: time and space. This very fact demonstrates the concept of infinite time and infinite space being limited to being time and space and thus finite, limited to what they are.

 

Rational: For the most part, reason leads us to accept this position

Observable: For the most part, observation/science leads us to accept this position however some cosmologists believe the universe is finite and in fact they have begun to map the outer limits of the physical universe.

Believable: For the most part faith/religions lead us to accept this position through their descriptions of ‘creation’.

 

Probable: Yes - Rationality, observation, and faith lead most of us to accept this concept

 

 

Pantheism: There is nothing ‘beyond’ the physical universe. Pantheists see infinite space as being all there is.

 

Panentheists understand space to be infinite in nature but understand space like the physical is limited by its very nature limited to the concept of space itself, i.e. finite

Panentheism: There is existence ‘beyond’ the physical universe and thus the physical ‘lies within’ the whole, lies within God – panentheism.

 

Which is more likely: Pantheism which limits reality to… or panentheism which places no limits upon reality?

 

 

 

 

Regarding ‘…the Universe… does not have human
like characteristics.…’

 

Djs: Panentheists …again this is not a critical principle of panentheism. The Universe lacking consciousness, a collective creation of many entities of knowing, a creation of God, emerging from ‘nothingness, …, does not affect the concept of panentheism. On the other hand, such concepts literally decimate the concept of pantheism.

Rational: What we can understand, the physical universe, as limited beings is less than the whole of reality.

Observable: No observations by scientists lead scientists to believe the universe is a conscious entity.

Believable: For the most part the teachings of world faith/religions suggest man, not the physical universe, is made in the ‘image’ of God.

 

Probable: Yes - Rationality, observation, and faith lead most of us to accept this concept

 

 

Which is more likely: Pantheism which limits reality to… or panentheism which places no limits upon reality?

Leave Comment  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
Monday, April 10
View Article  Dialogue with a Pantheist: The Pantheist versus the Panentheist: Part II
by Daniel J. Shepard on Mon 10 Apr 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Pantheism Yahoo discussion group run by RQ:

 

 

060306: Statement of general belief

 

Part II

 

Rq: …Pantheists -…Humans are part of the Universe.

 

Djs: Panentheists …generally agree although this is not a critical principle of panentheism. Whether the physical exists as a collective thought process or as a discrete entity does not define panentheism.

 

Symbiotic panentheism on the other hand, as elucidated at www.panentheism.com, does specifically demonstrate the physical universe exists as a discrete entity found within God. Symbiotic panentheism further demonstrates each individual is unique and exist as discrete entities of consciousness.

 

Rational: For the most part, reason leads us to accept this position

Observable: For the most part, observation/science leads us to accept this position

Believable: For the most part faith/religions leas us to accept this position

 

Probable: Yes: Rationality, observation, and faith lead most of us to accept this concept/perception.

 

 

Although pantheism and panentheism agree ‘…Humans are part of the universe’, they also differ in this respect.

 

Pantheists see humans as being a part of physical and that’s the end of it. Humans are born, live, die and that’s the end of it.

 

Panentheists see physical reality as being ‘limited’ by its very nature and as such sees the physical universe as being simply ‘contained’ within the ‘greater’ reality. As such, panentheists see the physical body as being physical in nature but see the substance and essence of the individual, the spirit of the individual, as being the same as what it is the physical universe is ‘contained within’ and thus Divine in nature.

 
Leave Comment  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
Wednesday, April 5
View Article  Dialogue with a Pantheist: The Pantheist versus the Panentheist: Part I
by Daniel J. Shepard on Wed 05 Apr 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Pantheism Yahoo discussion group run by RQ:

 

060306 : Statement of general belief

 

Part I

 

God and the Universe are one in the same. Humans are part of the Universe, but the Universe as an infinite whole does not have human like characteristics.

The Universe is Omniscient, (containing all knowledge) yet the Universe does not think like a human. The Universe does not have human like emotions such as love and hate. IT does not distinguish between good and evil. IT has no gender.

 

There is no place where IT does not exist (Omnipresent). IT is completely everything that exists, without any exceptions. IT is Omnipotent (All-powerful), because nothing could exist without ITs power/energy/life force.

Various names Pantheists use for God are: The Universe, The Father/Mother Nature, The Infinite, Life, All, and yes even the word "IT"

The Pantheist God can be likened to an Infinite Organism in which all finite organisms live/exist within. That is what a God should be.

Djs: Let’s take a look at the position of pantheism in terms of it being more rational/observable/believable or panentheism being more rational/observable/believable.

 

Statement of general belief:


Rq: …Pantheists generally believe God and the Universe are
one in the same.

 

Djs: Panentheists disagree.

 

Pantheists see reality as being limited to the physical, limited to the physical universe.

 

Panentheist see physical reality as being ‘limited’ by its very nature and as such see the physical universe as being simply ‘contained’ within the ‘greater’ reality. Panentheists therefore see God as being ‘greater’ than the physical universe and thus being of a different substance and essence than the physical.

 

Which is more likely: Pantheism which limits reality to… or panentheism which places no limits upon reality?

 

To be continued:

Leave Comment  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos