Is naturalistic pantheism the one correct position on the "God"

Idk explain the position first

>>1470823
>correct position

>>1470823
calling the universe God serves no purpose other than to piss off both theists and atheists

>>1470823
If everything is God, nothing is.

>>1470841
Not OP but I think if you absolutely had to conform to a specific world view, I feel this would be the most logical position.

Think about it this way:

God is an intelligible sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

>>1470841

I think most atheists agree with the naturalistic pantheist position. Their main concern is that it gives theists, who aren't really able to grasp the nuances of English language, the idea that pantheists believe in a personal god.

Einstein used to gripe a lot about this.

>>1470832
>Idk explain the position first

That the Universe itself is "God" but that the Universe isn't a personal god with thoughts etc.

>>1470841
Not really, it does address how the universe can be self-caused, since a divine being would be outside of the scope of causality, which exists only within the bounds of the universe itself (and even then only at the macro scale).

>>1470895
Correct m if I'm wrong but I don't think it implies that "god" doesn't have thoughts, just that it isn't personalized. It could still think for itself, it would just be so foreign and abstract we'd never be able to understand it.

>>1470925
>It could still think for itself, it would just be so foreign and abstract we'd never be able to understand it.


You have to remember as well in naturalistic pantheism that your own thoughts would be part of God's thoughts

>>1470943
Yeah but only a part of it. It could still be considered its own entity from us, because it would have its own thoughts from us. Like how a single neuron in our brain would still play a part in our thoughts but the neuron alone isn't our thoughts.

>>1470823
My problem with pantheism is more "metaphysical" than empirical. If God = nature then he has no freedom and is subject to blind necessity. But then there would be a higher principle, necessity, or the laws of physics, whatever you want to call it, and "God" would not be God, but this higher principle would be God in his place (because God is the highest principle by definition). But suppose one would argue that God is not the physical objects, but the laws of physics. This would introduce a dualism in the system and it would no longer be pan (all) theism, but merely a special kind of theism. Suppose he were to argue that he is both. Nevermind that this would introduce difference and composition into divinity (thus falling short of perfection), this is also an impossible position because if true identity is to be established between God and the "all" of nature, God must be entirely in and identical with each part of the "all", and if so much as one part of the "all" is subject to blind necessity, then God is subject to blind necessity and the laws of physics, and we return to the first objection.

>>1470925
>Correct m if I'm wrong but I don't think it implies that "god" doesn't have thoughts, just that it isn't personalized. It could still think for itself, it would just be so foreign and abstract we'd never be able to understand it.

I'm correcting you because you're wrong. It doesn't merely "imply" all of that. It explicitly makes clear all of that. I think you may be mistaking the word "personal" for "anthropomorphised". They mean different things,

>>1471011
>My problem with pantheism is more "metaphysical" than empirical. If God = nature then he has no freedom and is subject to blind necessity.

"God" in the sense you are using it doesn't exist at all in naturalistic pantheism. There is no "he" that "thinks stuff" or could be "subject to blind necessity". You are thinking of Deism or something similar,

>>1471017
I really have no idea what you mean by "personal". I'm interpreting it as a god who understands and responds to human behaviors and has an impact on their lives. I don't know what you mean though.

>>1470895
So pretty much that we have applied the name "God" to the universe?
or is there something more to it than
>God didn't create the universe
>God IS universe
What does this imply about "gods" position towards humans?

>>1471039

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

It's not that complicated. A 'personal God' means a 'God' who has thoughts and thinks things and has opinions and decides to take actions as compared to an entirely unthinking force or set of scientific principles.

>>1471047
>So pretty much that we have applied the name "God" to the universe?
>or is there something more to it than

No, you have nailed it.

>What does this imply about "gods" position towards humans?

"God" doesn't have a position. He doesn't have any thoughts at all.

>>1471033
Sounds like nonsense.

>>1470823
Just calling the universe a different name, and an incorrect name at that, given that the universe is demonstrably not a god.

>>1471102

In what way?

>>1471084
Who's to say those are mutually exclusive? After all, aren't human minds just governed by unthinking forces that only follow universal laws? If you think that despite this we still have free will, you have to accept that god can also have free will, despite being governed by the same laws as us. If you think we don't have free will and all our decisions and thoughts aren't our own but just a product of a deterministic universe, you have to accept that we aren't above our below god when it comes to free will.

>>1471113

How could you demonstrate that?

This is an ashamed appeal to authority but naturalistic pantheism is what Einstein and Spinoza believed.

>>1471113
>given that the universe is demonstrably not a god.
>demonstrably
Well then demonstrate how the universe can't be god.

>>1471133
The universe can't act.

>>1471132

I don't think we have free will though. That's a nonsense concept, at least if you are framing it in the libertarian free will terms rather than the compatibilist sense.

>>1471141

I agree. The Universe is not a personal God. It doesn't 'make decisions' or 'act'

>>1471141
What do you mean "can't act"? The universe is constantly acting. It's expanding, it's constantly creating and destroying quantum level particles etc.

>>1471161

I assume he means it's not having thoughts and making a decision to 'act'.

>>1470823

*watches Malick once*

>>1470884
well yeah, because naturalistic pantheism is just atheism by a different name. we already have a word for the universe so why call it a word that carries a lot of baggage? pantheists strike me as atheists in denial who are desperate for spirituality and for belief in a god

>>1471148
Well in that case, we can't judge the universe as being personal because we can't even describe people as personal. From a compatibilist standpoint, we can always extent our "free will" to god aswell.

>>1471161
Consciously act.

>>1471169

For shizzle.

I'm totally in agreement with you. I just think naturalistic pantheist sounds funkier and can help a lot of delusional people let go of their religious beliefs.

>>1471166
We can't determine if it has a will to act or not. To do that we'd have to understand the whole universe in its entirety, and we obviously can't do that right now. It's impossible to determine if the universe has a will or not, just as it is impossible to determine if there's a god or not.

>>1471173

Compatibilism doesn't ascribe anything to God.

>>1471192
Why not?

>>1471188

This is the casual shifting of the burden of proof. There isn't any particular reason to assume the Universe has thoughts and pretend it is some sort of a 50/50 quandry.

>>1471203

Because it doesn't have any reason to do so. Or rather the philosophers that espouse it don't have any reason to do so.

>>1471205
The absence of evidence is not the evidence up absence. We can't assume that the universe has a will but we can't assume that it has none either. I don't think we know enough about the universe to assume anything really.

>>1471238
>The absence of evidence is not the evidence up absence.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how that logical fallacy works.

Absence of evidence doesn't mean "well it's 50/50"

>>1471261
I never said its 50/50, I'm stating we don't have any evidence to prove either.

>>1471261
Also I realise now, absence of evidence was probably the wrong argument to prove my point.

>>1471273

>I'm not saying it's 50/50
>I'm saying it's 50/50

If you are claiming the Universe itself has thoughts like a person, then it is no good just saying "hey, there is no evidence it doesn't" and then coming up with "absence is not evidence of absence". Your positive claim requires some sort of evidence for it to be taken as probable.

>>1471293

Thank you.

>>1471011
You should read into Taoism. It compliments the concept of pantheism nicely, because it does include a higher principle that isn't god at all. The Tao represents basically the primordial conditions that allow there to be structure or something rather than nothing, but it does nothing itself. I liken it coupled with pantheism to be like a creekbed through which the universe flows through, it guides the universe but does not actually control it, as the universe continually wears at it and changes it.

I think even a theistic God like the Abrahamic one would still be governed by such a higher principle, and I think you can observe evidence of it in those old paradoxes of omnipotence, where the capabilities of being all powerful seem to be limited to some semblance of order and structure.

>>1471308
I never really wanted to propose an argument in favor of a personal god, I was just trying to demonstrate that there are no arguments in favor of the lack of a personal god. I don't believe in naturalistic pantheism, I was originally replying to this >>1471141 and tried to show that there's nothing to indicate that this is any more true than "the universe can act".

>>1470823
pantheism is old and busted
panentheism is the new hotness

I'm more into personal eclecticism, simply because it means I can take what I want (theologically) when I need it and ditch everything else until it becomes useful to me.

Happily this includes naturalistic pantheism, but only if I'm feeling particularly at one with the universe. I can Chuck it the second I feel the least bit solipsistic (which, even if it's childlike, we can all admit to feeling at least a little bit every once in a while).

I have no use for religious consistency since the world and life experiences are far from consistent.

>>1470823

Deus sive Natura ou la mort.