Pantheism

[Nobuo]

I'm tired of the recent trend of de-intellectualization going on in this "Intelleegent Konversation" Forum on that note I happily present a set of eloquent logical axioms I came up with on the subject of pantheism:

-It is obvious that the universe has order(an object always falls back to the ground assuming it doesn't achieve escape velocity first, etc.); this order must be either incidental (as an Atheist or Mystic would maintain), illusionary (as Gnostics promote), or purposeful (as all true religion believes)

-If the universe is orderly, the order has purpose, and there is nothing beyond the universe (we are already assuming the order is not illusionary), then the universe is sentient itself and can be called God

-If truth is objective, the only way to live an objectively "true" or "perfect" life is to renounce all partiality/subjectivity and therefore desire

-Truth can only be objective if order has purpose and so objective truth can only be found if a pantheistic God exists

-If we assume good exists, the only objective definition of good is selfless as compassion, justice, and obedience are inherently subjective

-Good exists if order has purpose and so if a pantheistic God exists then good exists as a fundamental aspect of the universe and selflessness is the definition of this concept

-God is the source of objective truth and objective good, therefore God is infinitely perfect and infinitely good; a side effect of this is that God has no desire and no free will, God is infinitely "intuitive" but is free from passion

-Truth is indistinguishable from perfection which is indistinguishable from selflessness which is indistinguishable from renouncement of desire which is indistinguishable from infinite intuition

-If you became "perfect," as described above, you would be indistinguishable from God and therefore would have merged with God; this is my conception of heaven but unfortunately it seems impossible to achieve as it is impossible to will yourself to have no will before will ceases to exist altogether

-The reason for all evil and suffering in the universe is free will and desire—if we were all intuitive (and therefore God), there would be no imperfections in the universe; God cannot interfere with the matters of free will as fatalism results in all sorts of logical contradictions (a consequence of this is though God is the universe, God did not create life, life must have created life)

Have Fun! I personally believe that pantheism is the only religion from which the definition of good flows simply and intuitively. Religion today seems to often substitute mystic obscurity, arbitrary complexity, needless ceremony and other corruptions which cloud the original philosophical purity and simplicity religion was designed with. I assert that if you hold onto an atheistic view of the world, you cannot establish completely objective ethics as you do not believe that fundamentally, order has purpose. I believe that if you believe in multiple realities, you view the concerns of this world as either partially or fully illusory. I think that this leads to a tendency on the part of the individual to shirk full responsibility for one’s actions as “it will not matter once we get to heaven” and to view desire as at times benign instead of the sole cause of imperfection and suffering. All selfishness, even if it harms no one now, increases the individual’s expectation for pleasure thereby increasing the chances you will act counter to someone else’s interests down the road. By being selfish we lessen the perfection of God, this is my justification for ethics and the reason why I am a pantheist.

[OnlyAmbrose]

-It is obvious that the universe has order(an object always falls back to the ground assuming it doesn't achieve escape velocity first, etc.); this order must be either incidental (as an Atheist or Mystic would maintain), illusionary (as Gnostics promote), or purposeful (as all true religion believes)

I'm with you so far...

-If the universe is orderly, that order has purpose

I'm don't disagree, but I see this as an unidentified assumption on your part. Why does order have purpose?

and there is nothing beyond the universe (we are already assuming the order is not illusionary)

If you're making an argument for/against a religion, you can't just make that assumption.


So far as I can see the rest of the argument can't really follow unless you can prove that assumption. And if you want to talk about religion, it's a necessary assumption to prove.

[static_ice]

I've heard a lot of this stuff from my own religion actually. I don't know about order having purpose, as our definition to order is limited by the order that we live by; what if there was a different order?

[Nobuo]

Two things: I was worried someone might misinterpret that "that" in "if the universe is orderly..." as a "then", however if you pay close attention the logical statement is an if with three conditions and -then- a conclusion (a sentient universe). I am not assuming that the universe is necessarily sentient as evidenced in the axiom above the one you're referring to, this is the only thing I am taking on faith here but I have a one third chance of being right.

[Neoteny]

Two things: I was worried someone might misinterpret that "that" in "if the universe is orderly..." as a "then", however if you pay close attention the logical statement is an if with three conditions and -then- a conclusion (a sentient universe). I am not assuming that the universe is necessarily sentient as evidenced in the axiom above the one you're referring to, this is the only thing I am taking on faith here but I have a one third chance of being right.

I think your purpose is noble, but I have to continue to disagree with you on your second axiom, upon which all the others are based. Order by no means implies purpose. If you roll a six-sided dice enough times, you get a clean ratio of the numbers 1-6. This is order, but it is incidental. And situations like this greatly reduce your 1/3 projection, I believe. I feel you might be showing a bit of a bias by dropping the other possibilities like you do.

I'm all for the whole universe is god thing, though. In a figurative sense, anyway.

[OnlyAmbrose]

this is the only thing I am taking on faith here but I have a one third chance of being right.

But if you want to discuss religion, you can't just leave it up to chance. All you can really do is go through each option, and say "if this is true, then this is the logical conclusion."

But there's really no point in having a religious discussion if you're just going to say, "oh well, I may be right, I may not." If that's the basis of your argument in favor a religious philosophy, then this will be a very short thread indeed.

And you can't really quantify the chances that you're right. It's not that you have a "one third" chance of being right, it's that you're choosing one of three possible options, which may or may not be as plausible as the other two. The purpose of discussion of this kind of thing essentially boils down to a discussion on which of the three is the most plausible.

[Nobuo]

Are you seriously suggesting Ambrose, that faith (or at least gambling spirit) never enters into the equation with religion? I'm not claiming I know that I'm right, I very might well be wrong. I am only presenting the logic which flows from the one assumption I am making, which is far less faith then is required for devotion to most religions. Even if you want to discuss pure philosophy you still need to have faith in order to believe arguments made by historical philosophers (from Plato to Heraclitus to Parmenides).

[OnlyAmbrose]

Are you seriously suggesting Ambrose, that faith (or at least gambling spirit) never enters into the equation with religion? I'm not claiming I know that I'm right, I very might well be wrong. I am only presenting the logic which flows from the one assumption I am making, which is far less faith then is required for devotion to most religions. Even if you want to discuss pure philosophy you still need to have faith in order to believe arguments made by historical philosophers (from Plato to Heraclitus to Parmenides).

I believe that blind faith should be avoided as much as possible.

But a more accurate summation of my point is that any discussion on this topic is going to boil down to that assumption. So you assume that the Universe is God. Alright.... why? That is the basis of pantheism, and if you want to explain the reasoning behind pantheism you're going to inevitably have to explain that assumption, or else why bother making a thread about it?

Elimination of assumptions is really the only way to get any closer to truth, so to determine the truth (or lack thereof) of pantheism, the assumptions it is based on must be held up to scrutiny.

[Neoteny]

I agree. The fact that your whole argument rests on that tenuous assumption is rather distracting.

[Grooveman2007]

and there is nothing beyond the universe (we are already assuming the order is not illusionary)

If you're making an argument for/against a religion, you can't just make that assumption.

By most current readings scientists predict that the universe has a radius of approximately 30 trillion light years (I might be off but stick with me) and that we are in the middle. This raises the question of weather or not light decays. Since light behaves like both a wave and a partical, it is entirerly plausable to assume that it does, thus proving the possibility of an infinite universe.

If the universe is orderly, the order has purpose, then the universe is sentient itself and can be called God.

As Neoteny said before, if someone rolls dice long enough, they will have an even ratio of 6:1 for all sides. Orderly yes, purposeful probably not. Why would a sentient being have no purpose? If it is truely perfect, then why waste its time with things that have no purpose?

The reason for all evil and suffering in the universe is free will and desire—if we were all intuitive (and therefore God), there would be no imperfections in the universe; God cannot interfere with the matters of free will...

Then why would a perfect being create us in the first place? Why bother with needless imperfections? It doesn't seem logical to create things that disrupt the order of one's creation.



Thanks for bringing back Intelleegence to this forum.

[Neoteny]

Welcome to the Intelligentsia...

[OnlyAmbrose]

By most current readings scientists predict that the universe has a radius of approximately 30 trillion light years (I might be off but stick with me) and that we are in the middle. This raises the question of weather or not light decays. Since light behaves like both a wave and a partical, it is entirerly plausable to assume that it does, thus proving the possibility of an infinite universe.

Well first of all, I don't think the OP was arguing in favor of an infinite universe. Secondly, the concept of an infinite universe violates the laws of thermodynamics, so I think that it's ridiculous to make any "assumption" of that sort. If you want to argue the point, you're going to need more than just assumption, you're going to need scientific data.

In any debate, assumptions are generally only made on points that can be mutually agreed on. These assumptions are vital to being able to discuss anything. But in this discussion, the very PREMISE isn't something we can agree on, so before we can move on we have to address this assumption.

Just the dynamics of how discussions go, really.

But based on the rest of your post, it looks like we agree on the topic anyways...

[Nobuo]

Grooveman, I don't understand your cosmological argument; if the universe were infinite as you claim (based on faith) wouldn't this increase the divinity of it?
Secondly, a dice is a bad example of order--it is influenced by free will (us) and therefore not "God" (this is true of the atmosphere on a human inhabited planet if people were wondering about the implications this makes for CC). But yes on a macroscopic and quantum scale probability will even out--either you believe that each event is random, illusory, or not.
As far as God creating us, I already said he didn't, read carefully.

I do not take myself that seriously nor do I take this argument too seriously, so I take the fact that I'm bringing "Intelleegence" to the forum as a compliment. I am not attempting mass religious conversion here, I just thought people would be intrigued by my addition of logic to what is normally entirely faith.

[Neoteny]

Grooveman, I don't understand your cosmological argument; if the universe were infinite as you claim (based on faith) wouldn't this increase the divinity of it?
Secondly, a dice is a bad example of order--it is influenced by free will (us) and therefore not "God" (this is true of the atmosphere on a human inhabited planet if people were wondering about the implications this makes for CC). But yes on a macroscopic and quantum scale probability will even out--either you believe that each event is random, illusory, or not.
As far as God creating us, I already said he didn't, read carefully.

I do not take myself that seriously nor do I take this argument too seriously, so I take the fact that I'm bringing "Intelleegence" to the forum as a compliment. I am not attempting mass religious conversion here, I just thought people would be intrigued by my addition of logic to what is normally entirely faith.

How are dice ratios a bad example of order? I see you prefer Schroedinger's cat... Anyhow, you can believe what you want, but I think the probabilities are an entirely different matter.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I just thought people would be intrigued by my addition of logic to what is normally entirely faith.

You make some interesting points, but they are all essentially based on "entirely faith." Granted, we all have faith in something, if only in the senses. But the idea is to reduce assumptions to a bare minimum, which is what will make discussions truly intriguing. I could make all sorts of assumptions, but none of them will be useful in the search for truth.

The most compelling arguments (for me at least, and for most of the atheists/agnostics here at CC) are those which make the inferences that are most reasonable based on the evidence. Is there evidence for your argument? Well, if there is, you haven't yet presented it. It's that evidence which will make your argument compelling.

[Nobuo]

I consider myself an agnostic, personally because as I have already said, Ambrose, I can't ultimately prove any of this. I find that pantheism is the most attractive possibility for the nature of reality out there, though, so I choose to believe it at the same. If you consider yourself atheist then I would very much like to hear your proof of the nonexistence of God and the purposelessness of order.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I consider myself an agnostic, personally because as I have already said, Ambrose, I can't ultimately prove any of this. I find that pantheism is the most attractive possibility for the nature of reality out there, though, so I choose to believe it at the same. If you consider yourself atheist then I would very much like to hear your proof of the nonexistence of God and the purposelessness of order.

I'm not an atheist, I'm a Catholic.

And I'm a Catholic because I find it to be the most reasonable belief based on the evidence. Granted, I'm just in my second year of high school physics, but I've found most of the physical laws to point to the concept of a finite universe and a creator. From the nature of that creation I drew a few more conclusions, but those are all contained in other threads. We're talking about pantheism at the moment.

[Grooveman2007]

By most current readings scientists predict that the universe has a radius of approximately 30 trillion light years (I might be off but stick with me) and that we are in the middle. This raises the question of weather or not light decays. Since light behaves like both a wave and a partical, it is entirerly plausable to assume that it does, thus proving the possibility of an infinite universe.

The concept of an infinite universe violates the laws of thermodynamics, so I think that it's ridiculous to make any "assumption" of that sort.

The concept of an infinite universe follows the laws of thermodynamics. The third law states "As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum."

In a limited universe, absolute zero must be reached once you exit the boundrys of it, since if there is nothing, there is no energy. The third law makes absolute zero impossible. A finite universe would break the third law.

The first law states "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large."

In no way does an infinate universe break that law. What this says is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. An infinate universe has an infinate amount of energy, one can not add or subtract from infinity.

The second law states "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

If energy is infinate, then it will always increase its entropy, but at the same time, the matter around the energy is also infinate. The infinate energy would disperse itself throughout the equally infinate matter, reaching an equilibrium.

[OnlyAmbrose]

By most current readings scientists predict that the universe has a radius of approximately 30 trillion light years (I might be off but stick with me) and that we are in the middle. This raises the question of weather or not light decays. Since light behaves like both a wave and a partical, it is entirerly plausable to assume that it does, thus proving the possibility of an infinite universe.

The concept of an infinite universe violates the laws of thermodynamics, so I think that it's ridiculous to make any "assumption" of that sort.

The concept of an infinite universe follows the laws of thermodynamics. The third law states "As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum."

In a limited universe, absolute zero must be reached once you exit the boundrys of it, since if there is nothing, there is no energy. The third law makes absolute zero impossible. A finite universe would break the third law.

The first law states "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large."

In no way does an infinate universe break that law. What this says is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. An infinate universe has an infinate amount of energy, one can not add or subtract from infinity.

The second law states "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

If energy is infinate, then it will always increase its entropy, but at the same time, the matter around the energy is also infinate. The infinate energy would disperse itself throughout the equally infinate matter, reaching an equilibrium.

Your knowledge of thermodynamics is clearly superior to mine, so I'll concede the point. But I'm having a little trouble regarding the concept of infinite matter.

Though firstly I'd like to point out that because an infinite universe is "possible" doesn't make it likely. Now, back to my point.

If matter and energy is expanding from one point, and if all the matter of the universe is infinite, then are you saying that an infinite amount of matter existed at one point? The Big Bang theory suggests that the space in which the matter of the universe fit in at one point was measurable. I fail to see how an infinite amount of matter can exist in a measurable point.

[Nobuo]

I believe that blind faith should be avoided as much as possible.

I'm not an atheist, I'm a Catholic.

Needless to say I don't quite understand. Do you believe that God is anthropomorphic? Do you believe that Jesus was alive forever, incarnated as a being both perfect and imperfect at the same time? Do you believe that we all go to heaven, regardless of whether we discover infinite truth during our lifetime? This seems like faith to me.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I believe that blind faith should be avoided as much as possible.

I'm not an atheist, I'm a Catholic.

Needless to say I don't quite understand. Do you believe that God is anthropomorphic? Do you believe that Jesus was alive forever, incarnated as a being both perfect and imperfect at the same time? Do you believe that we all go to heaven, regardless of whether we discover infinite truth during our lifetime? This seems like faith to me.

Why should you misunderstand? If I wanted to have blind faith in something I'd be a satanist so I could enjoy whatever it is that I have blind faith in. But I don't have blind faith, I have faith in what I find to be most reasonable based on the evidence. I've laid out this evidence in several other threads, but once again, we're talking about pantheism here.

[Neoteny]

::patiently waiting for the threadjack Ambrose is fighting::

[Grooveman2007]

By most current readings scientists predict that the universe has a radius of approximately 30 trillion light years (I might be off but stick with me) and that we are in the middle. This raises the question of weather or not light decays. Since light behaves like both a wave and a partical, it is entirerly plausable to assume that it does, thus proving the possibility of an infinite universe.

The concept of an infinite universe violates the laws of thermodynamics, so I think that it's ridiculous to make any "assumption" of that sort.

The concept of an infinite universe follows the laws of thermodynamics. The third law states "As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum."

In a limited universe, absolute zero must be reached once you exit the boundrys of it, since if there is nothing, there is no energy. The third law makes absolute zero impossible. A finite universe would break the third law.

The first law states "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large."

In no way does an infinate universe break that law. What this says is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. An infinate universe has an infinate amount of energy, one can not add or subtract from infinity.

The second law states "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

If energy is infinate, then it will always increase its entropy, but at the same time, the matter around the energy is also infinate. The infinate energy would disperse itself throughout the equally infinate matter, reaching an equilibrium.

Your knowledge of thermodynamics is clearly superior to mine, so I'll concede the point. But I'm having a little trouble regarding the concept of infinite matter.

Though firstly I'd like to point out that because an infinite universe is "possible" doesn't make it likely. Now, back to my point.

If matter and energy is expanding from one point, and if all the matter of the universe is infinite, then are you saying that an infinite amount of matter existed at one point? The Big Bang theory suggests that the space in which the matter of the universe fit in at one point was measurable. I fail to see how an infinite amount of matter can exist in a measurable point.

Theory is not law, if a finite universe breaks the third law of thermodynamics, then we should trust the proven law over theory. Then again, how would it ever be possible to prove or disprove an infinate universe. We can't see further than 30 trillion light years, and if we were to "set sail" in one direction in hopes of finding an end and we never reached it, it could be claimed that the universe is just bigger than assumed. So, this is all an exercise in academic futility.

[Nobuo]

Could you explain to me your evidence, Ambrose? I'm very interested and 1805 posts is a lot to wade through.

[OnlyAmbrose]

By most current readings scientists predict that the universe has a radius of approximately 30 trillion light years (I might be off but stick with me) and that we are in the middle. This raises the question of weather or not light decays. Since light behaves like both a wave and a partical, it is entirerly plausable to assume that it does, thus proving the possibility of an infinite universe.

The concept of an infinite universe violates the laws of thermodynamics, so I think that it's ridiculous to make any "assumption" of that sort.

The concept of an infinite universe follows the laws of thermodynamics. The third law states "As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum."

In a limited universe, absolute zero must be reached once you exit the boundrys of it, since if there is nothing, there is no energy. The third law makes absolute zero impossible. A finite universe would break the third law.

The first law states "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large."

In no way does an infinate universe break that law. What this says is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. An infinate universe has an infinate amount of energy, one can not add or subtract from infinity.

The second law states "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

If energy is infinate, then it will always increase its entropy, but at the same time, the matter around the energy is also infinate. The infinate energy would disperse itself throughout the equally infinate matter, reaching an equilibrium.

Your knowledge of thermodynamics is clearly superior to mine, so I'll concede the point. But I'm having a little trouble regarding the concept of infinite matter.

Though firstly I'd like to point out that because an infinite universe is "possible" doesn't make it likely. Now, back to my point.

If matter and energy is expanding from one point, and if all the matter of the universe is infinite, then are you saying that an infinite amount of matter existed at one point? The Big Bang theory suggests that the space in which the matter of the universe fit in at one point was measurable. I fail to see how an infinite amount of matter can exist in a measurable point.

Theory is not law, if a finite universe breaks the third law of thermodynamics, then we should trust the proven law over theory. Then again, how would it ever be possible to prove or disprove an infinate universe. We can't see further than 30 trillion light years, and if we were to "set sail" in one direction in hopes of finding an end and we never reached it, it could be claimed that the universe is just bigger than assumed. So, this is all an exercise in academic futility.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but thermodynamics isn't a "proven law," it's one of the "fundamental laws" of physics which can be observed but not proven by existing laws. Like the big bang theory, it's based more on empiricism than anything else.

But I don't think the concept of a finite universe violates the third law of thermodynamics. Once again, I'm limited to high school physics knowledge here, but I can think of several finite-universe scenarios which don't violate this third law. I'm not sure if I really understand what you're getting at with that argument.

By "boundaries of the universe", do you mean the boundaries of space? Or the boundaries created by matter?

Because absolute zero would still never be reached, because you could never be infinitely far away from a heat source.