What are the arguments for and against Pantheism/Panentheism?

>>1089795
>for
god is everything
>against
god is nothing

>>1089795
>for
N/A
>against
The universe isn't a god.

>for
Oversaturated photographs of grass and water
>against
Everything else

Scholastic theology major here

An argument against pantheism is that things have potentiality. If God and the universe are limited to each other then things would not be able to come into being, therefore pantheism is almost certainly false.

>>1089822
>If God and the universe are limited to each other then things would not be able to come into being

explain further please

>>1089828
not him, but iirc, Thomistic philosophy requires a fully actual being to serve as it's first cause (otherwise, it suffers infinite regress).

the universe has potentials (there are things about it which are not, but could be). God, by definition, cannot have potentiality (as then he wouldn't be fully actual), and thus he cannot be the universe.

I'll let the other guy correct me if I'm wrong on this.

>>1089888

Cheers that's actually an interesting way of looking at it.

Help me out here. How is pantheism not tantamount to defining God to be a chair?

>>1089910

Think of it more as God being the totality and fulfilment of all that exists.

File: 1459085204192.gif (3MB, 200x170px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x170px

>for
nothing with a logically sound basis.
>against
no logically sound basis.

>>1089822
Why do you presume God has is something unchanging?

A basic part of pantheistic systems is that God DOES change. Unchanging=doesn't exist in all the good metaphysic systems.

>>1089910
There's no reason to define God as a chair. However if you establish that on a metaphysical level all things are moved, or influenced by some other thing...than end up with some sort of thread that is binding the whole universe togeather. Giving this thread does creation, destruction, and sustaining God is an appropriate title for it.