Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  They called me once an agnostic pantheist, so I can try to answer. I don't know, but...:

Hit me.

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The nature of the divine is energy. All energy - matter, kinetic, heat... I'm not sure about information. But time is merely a function of energy, the speed that spreading interaction at sub-atomic levels, or something like that. Space is a function of energy as well. None of this is however all the universe, merely a part visible to us. The rest is probably rather different and possibly even more diverse.

Eeeeuuuhhh...

If 'the divine' is energy then it is not divine. That's the point. What does that even mean?

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Our distinction of what is natural or non-natural is meaningless to the divine. The divine however always interacts in a logically definable way, as far as we can tell. The logic and metaphysics is consistent with ours, but in a way that makes our physics only one special example of it. IOW, our world is not the world of causes, it's the world of effects.

See, this is not coherent. Something that always interacts in a logically definable way is natural. But in that case it's testable. Show it to me.

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, the interaction is of great human interest, because the divine is not homogenous or explicitly integrated and it is in process of becoming so (or unbecoming so, going in and out of manifestation). By participating in this process we may improve our present condition faster than it otherwise would.

You still haven't defined anything. What interaction (and also when and where and why and how)?

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  However, what we call prayer should not be judged by the words. Words are just talking to ourselves. Some prayer is merely an emotional rehearsal, someone else's prayer is a powerful mobilization of one's placebo-controlled immune system and someone else's prayer is an interaction with the divine. You can't tell which is which from the words, or even if the words are needed at all. We need better methods of measurement.

Uh, sure. Prayer isn't a thing.

(24-08-2013 08:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure, belief is useless. So is unbelief. Belief gives you false positives, unbelief subconsciously suppresses all but strongest positives. Only neutral observation allows you to gather enough data to come to a conclusion.

Belief in something which has no consequences is useless. Belief is synonymous with conclusion, so far as one relies on reasoning to be effective.

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am actually cheating a little. I'm not an agnostic pantheist, I don't think I'm any kind of ist, so agnostic pantheism comes closest to not being sure of things but seeking answers in everything. What I say here comes from my own experience, esotericism and a few more theories. I was only able to select the theories in the light of my experience. IOW, if you don't experience it on your own skin, you have little chance of finding the answers.

Sure.

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I believe there is so much stuff for the science to study, that the science does not actually have to throw in a towel, just fund a different research. I'd say a major crossroad to be taken was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was supposed to answer a question, if there is an aether or not. This experiment was flawed and gave a wrong result. Other tests (Sagnac, Silvertooth, maybe others) confirmed that there is something like aether. Independently science discovered dark matter, which is probably it. But we imagine that dark matter is something far away, not interacting with us, while aether was supposed to be here, now, interacting with us vitally. So nobody prestigious and well-funded is looking here, now, at vital phenomena, or they would have to admit there is something to study.

No. Just no.

There is no etheric media in which electromagnetic effects may be observed. This is utterly unconnected with the proposed existence of dark matter.

Just no.

(25-08-2013 03:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Because it's all mixed up with our animal nature, with primitive, mindless and instinctive ways of interacting with the divinity, which are notoriously unreliable, yet so plentiful, because that's how we evolved, it's a finished thing. New, truly human ways of interacting with divinity based on reason are only beginning to develop. They developed in shadow of major religons. Now they develop again, according to reason. There are reasonable pieces of theory of divinity here and there. I can send you some links. However, it smells too much of science and science is harder than armchair skepticism. Too complex to be dismissed out of hand, too complex to be interested in it, that's how it ends. "Not my area" they say. "I have real work to do" they say.

You have not yet put forward a positive definite and coherent definition or claim.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-08-2013, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2013 01:55 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No. Just no.

There is no etheric media in which electromagnetic effects may be observed. This is utterly unconnected with the proposed existence of dark matter.

Just no.

What makes you so sure? You could use some agnosticism here. If you continue like that, nothing I ever say will be good enough and you're no better than a fundamentalist.

(26-08-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If 'the divine' is energy then it is not divine. That's the point. What does that even mean?
There is nothing in the universe but energy, in some form, intensity, rate of vibration and so on. The ultimate nature and origin of energy is unknown, even if we consider Big Bang, it's just a label for it. Dark matter and energy and zero point energy of vacuum are evidence of it. So we don't exactly know that it is divine, but it is the best candidate for divinity.

(26-08-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  See, this is not coherent. Something that always interacts in a logically definable way is natural. But in that case it's testable. Show it to me.
Here the language interferes. Merely the word "show" carries many assumptions about the phenomena. Regardless of time, space and money required to show you something, you assume that
- a phenomenon radiates or reflects in visible spectrum,
- that it measurably interact with the type of matter that measuring instruments are made of,
- and that it interacts with homogenous, relatively un-structured, low-entropy (non-living) matter.

Yes, it's testable, but not by tests designed by people who have these assumptions, both believers and non-believers.

(26-08-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You still haven't defined anything. What interaction (and also when and where and why and how)?
That's a lot of information you ask. Let's begin by a hypothesis, that there is a mechanism for humans to interact with the divine. One method to learn something about it is to investigate historical spiritual traditions and look for description of this mechanism.
The hypothesis says, if the divine and energy are one, they must use natural means, natural forces and forms of energy. So another method is to take these descriptions and compare them to the energy devices and phenomena known to science. We look for parallels and see if we find them. Finally, it is the time to look for a medium of this interaction, some kind of abundantly present matter, that makes up this mechanism, yet usually escapes detection.
Then we should see more evidence emerging to confirm the hypothesis. I don't say it has no weak spots, but they can be filled with proper testing.

(26-08-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You have not yet put forward a positive definite and coherent definition or claim.
Well, I think I can put forward a very good claim. The question is, are you feeling up to it? Why do you ask, what are you interested in? Do you just want to prove wrong another internet fool? Because you're in for a homework. Complain all you want, I won't dumb it down and sum it up for you more than I already did, because you'll just assume this is all there is to it. I observed on many ocassions, that non-interested people, interested only in teh internetz win, virtually shut their brain down. They are unable to remember an article and unable to correlate it with another article, unable to watch videos, unable to educate themselves and do their homework. They just keep acting stupidly, assuming I am even more stupid, so they can afford it without looking stupid. They can't.
As the scientist Kanarev said, scientific truth is never born out of arguing. Do you just want to argue?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 01:54 PM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
After that fullerm guy came on with his views about pantheism, I tend to think that pantheism is just New Age quackery wrapped around unfalsifiable ideas that pretend to be based on science and observation.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What makes you so sure? You could use some agnosticism here. If you continue like that, nothing I ever say will be good enough and you're no better than a fundamentalist.

If that's what you think dark matter is you are wrong.

S'just that simple.

There are no unaccounted for sources of electromagnetic interaction.

(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is nothing in the universe but energy, in some form, intensity, rate of vibration and so on. The ultimate nature and origin of energy is unknown, even if we consider Big Bang, it's just a label for it. Dark matter and energy and zero point energy of vacuum are evidence of it. So we don't exactly know that it is divine, but it is the best candidate for divinity.

We don't know, therefore divinity.

That doesn't fly.

(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Here the language interferes. Merely the word "show" carries many assumptions about the phenomena. Regardless of time, space and money required to show you something, you assume that
[A] - a phenomenon radiates or reflects in visible spectrum,
[B] - that it measurably interact with the type of matter that measuring instruments are made of,
[C] - and that it interacts with homogenous, relatively un-structured, low-entropy (non-living) matter.

Yes, it's testable, but not by tests designed by people who have these assumptions, both believers and non-believers.

As to your conditions:
A - not true. I can't fathom what gave you that idea.
B - non-measurable interaction is not a thing. That's an incoherent concept.
C - You have just strung those words together.

(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That's a lot of information you ask. Let's begin by a hypothesis, that there is a mechanism for humans to interact with the divine. One method to learn something about it is to investigate historical spiritual traditions and look for description of this mechanism.
The hypothesis says, if the divine and energy are one, they must use natural means, natural forces and forms of energy. So another method is to take these descriptions and compare them to the energy devices and phenomena known to science. We look for parallels and see if we find them. Finally, it is the time to look for a medium of this interaction, some kind of abundantly present matter, that makes up this mechanism, yet usually escapes detection.
Then we should see more evidence emerging to confirm the hypothesis. I don't say it has no weak spots, but they can be filled with proper testing.

If you just label existence 'divinity' then you'll find it in everything. That is not a positive and coherent claim.

(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, I think I can put forward a very good claim. The question is, are you feeling up to it? Why do you ask, what are you interested in? Do you just want to prove wrong another internet fool? Because you're in for a homework. Complain all you want, I won't dumb it down and sum it up for you more than I already did, because you'll just assume this is all there is to it. I observed on many ocassions, that non-interested people, interested only in teh internetz win, virtually shut their brain down. They are unable to remember an article and unable to correlate it with another article, unable to watch videos, unable to educate themselves and do their homework. They just keep acting stupidly, assuming I am even more stupid, so they can afford it without looking stupid. They can't.
As the scientist Kanarev said, scientific truth is never born out of arguing. Do you just want to argue?

Dumb down? You haven't even defined anything yet.

I love nothing more than legitimate scientific inquiry. I assure you I am quite capable of processing and synthesizing scientific articles. I do that for a living.

This Kanarev fellow has quite the bizarre claim. I'd say that scientific truth is always born out of arguing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 02:55 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2013 03:02 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you just label existence 'divinity' then you'll find it in everything. That is not a positive and coherent claim.

Why not? That's effectively what Spinoza did. Don't see the harm in it and can't think of a more positive claim. As far as coherent, I might argue that it is too or overly coherent and as such lacks the facility for distinction or discrimination (in the proper not the pejorative sense).

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 02:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why not? That's effectively what Spinoza did. Don't see the harm in it and can't think of a more positive claim.

Oh, it's absolutely of no particular harm. Nor any particular good... Tongue

It's not a positive claim in that it's not asserting the existence of anything. It's categorical: a meaningless label.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-08-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-08-2013 02:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why not? That's effectively what Spinoza did. Don't see the harm in it and can't think of a more positive claim.

Oh, it's absolutely of no particular harm. Nor any particular good... Tongue

It's not a positive claim in that it's not asserting the existence of anything. It's categorical: a meaningless label.

Like I said, I see no practical difference between atheism and pantheism. All is God. God is Dead. Same damn thing. Makes no nevermind to me practically. It's the in-betweeners that cause all the shitstorms and turmoil. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-08-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 02:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you just label existence 'divinity' then you'll find it in everything. That is not a positive and coherent claim.

Why not? That's effectively what Spinoza did. Don't see the harm in it and can't think of a more positive claim. As far as coherent, I might argue that it is too or overly coherent and as such lacks the facility for distinction or discrimination (in the proper not the pejorative sense).

Whether divinity is nowhere or everywhere, isn't it exactly the same?
It's like saying bacon is divine. Whether it is divine or not, it's still made from the same building blocks, it tastes the same and it has the same use. Actually, bacon IS divine. Just not in the sense we're talking about.

The difference is that if you consider everything divine, you might start praying to the mountain. Or to yourself. Not exactly like atheism.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
26-08-2013, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2013 03:51 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If that's what you think dark matter is you are wrong.

S'just that simple.

There are no unaccounted for sources of electromagnetic interaction.
I'm not sure about the electromagnetic, but purely electric, perhaps.
If we project an electric field of a given intensity, then this field is dampened by proximity of vital objects and the intensity decreases. Vitality of this object is then in inverse proportion to the field's intensity.
This decrease does not respond to conventional electrically charged objects.
The Experimental Life-Energy Field Meter meter works along entirely new principles quite different from any other measuring device currently on the market. Is entirely different from ordinary "EM-field" meters. It is not responsive to electromagnetic fields, nor to static magnetic or electrostatic fields. An electrostatically-charged plastic comb or wand, for example, will show no reactions to the Life Energy Field Meter, other than what would occur from the same plastic comb or wand without the electrostatic charge. This is quite different from the usual voltmeter, which reacts strongly to electrostatic fields. Likewise, no greater readings will be developed between an ordinary piece of metal, or the same piece of metal strongly magnetized.

This effect was first discovered by Wilhelm Reich and further studied by James DeMeo.
http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ylemeter.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/lemeter.htm
Of course, this is not my method that I use, only a method I selected as most probable in the light of my personal observations.

(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  We don't know, therefore divinity.

That doesn't fly.
You are jumping to conclusions. I said a candidate on divinity, not divinity.

(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A - not true. I can't fathom what gave you that idea.
You gave it to me by using the word "show", see further.

(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  B - non-measurable interaction is not a thing. That's an incoherent concept.
If you were using your brain fully, you would not assume this incoherent absolute. You would not assume that I'm stupid, you'd think perhaps that I meant something else that is not obviously incoherent, like "of lower intensity than is measurable by instruments at the present level of technology." But you seem quite happy with stopping at that and that is a reason why I don't trust you with honest use of words like "show". Right now you're not reading all that I write and you're not reading the intention with which I write. We can't successfully communicate like that.

(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  C - You have just strung those words together.
No, I gave you a working definition of non-living matter, according to the parameters that I think might be relevant for the argument. Only you switched off your brain and went into assumption that I am stupid, therefore I am just stringing words together. Another reason why I don't trust you.

(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-08-2013 01:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That's a lot of information you ask. Let's begin by a hypothesis, that there is a mechanism for humans to interact with the divine. One method to learn something about it is to investigate historical spiritual traditions and look for description of this mechanism.
The hypothesis says, if the divine and energy are one, they must use natural means, natural forces and forms of energy. So another method is to take these descriptions and compare them to the energy devices and phenomena known to science. We look for parallels and see if we find them. Finally, it is the time to look for a medium of this interaction, some kind of abundantly present matter, that makes up this mechanism, yet usually escapes detection.
Then we should see more evidence emerging to confirm the hypothesis. I don't say it has no weak spots, but they can be filled with proper testing.

If you just label existence 'divinity' then you'll find it in everything. That is not a positive and coherent claim.
You did not comment on the hypothesis.
Also, you assumed that I am stupid enough to actually present an arbitrary label of "divinity" as an answer. I assure you, I am not as stupid as that. I just need to see if you are receiving, so I can actually present it. You clearly aren't.

(26-08-2013 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Dumb down? You haven't even defined anything yet.

I love nothing more than legitimate scientific inquiry. I assure you I am quite capable of processing and synthesizing scientific articles. I do that for a living.
Well, I'm not paying you anything and you show typical signs that you're only interested in arguing. So far there's every sign that all would be wasted on you.
Your brain is not receiving properly what I say. If it did, you'd be much more reserved in judgement than you are, you would know as well as I do when I did or did not make an argument and what the argument was about. Trust me, I've seen this attitude many times. This is not an attitude of someone who is willing to do one's homework.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Dissecting Pantheism/Panentheism
(26-08-2013 03:36 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(26-08-2013 02:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why not? That's effectively what Spinoza did. Don't see the harm in it and can't think of a more positive claim. As far as coherent, I might argue that it is too or overly coherent and as such lacks the facility for distinction or discrimination (in the proper not the pejorative sense).

Whether divinity is nowhere or everywhere, isn't it exactly the same?
It's like saying bacon is divine. Whether it is divine or not, it's still made from the same building blocks, it tastes the same and it has the same use. Actually, bacon IS divine. Just not in the sense we're talking about.

The difference is that if you consider everything divine, you might start praying to the mountain. Or to yourself. Not exactly like atheism.

Girly likes his metaphysics even if he knows it is all smoke and mirrors.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: