I've decided to post a thread about my own metaphysical belief system because it's fairly unknown/misunderstood, and because I know I'll get some honest arguments about it, and I always enjoy those (not because I want to convince anyone of anything, but because I want to explore my own faith further).

Anyway, here goes...

I am a Pantheist. It's not quite a religion, but a metaphysical view that is very present in Hinduism, and is to some extent present in Monotheistic religions and paganism. The basic premise is very simple: God, Substance and Nature are synonymous. God is all that exists, and all that exists is God.

The main opposition to this view is that God thus defined is quite different from the common view of God, especially among the fundamentalist faiths (certainly God cannot be a man, like Jesus Christ, nor can he 'punish' anyone or grant wishes). However, I believe that there are enough similarities between the two concepts to use the same word. Here are a few reasons:

1. He is omniscient. Is knowledge any more than a model of reality? Well, God here is defined as the perfect model of reality, since He is reality. Consider Rodney Brooks's Nouvelle AI premise: The world is its own best model.

2. He is omnipotent. Since He represents ultimate reality, all that can possibly be done is done through Him, and therefore by Him.

3. He is omnipresent. This one should be fairly obvious.

4. He is perfect. Perfection is a very vague and muddy term, but if we use its original definition, it becomes very evident that God is perfect. After all, the original meaning of perfection is completion, and God is the most complete thing that can be, since he is Everything that exists.

5. God is unique. There obviously cannot be another 'Everything', from the very definition of 'Everything'. This is quite consistent with Monotheism.

At this point, I am sure that at least some theists would agree that it is indeed God that I am talking about. I would add to this another idea that is certainly not held by all Pantheists, but one that I personally believe in:

6. God is a conscious, thinking being. I believe that there can only be one consciousness in the world, and that seeing our own consciousnesses as being distinct is an illusion. If there is only one thinking substance, it can very accurately be described as the mind of God. I've had personal experience (prophetic dreams) that suggests this, and while I am sure it will never convince anyone but myself, I can't deny its reality. See this thread for more about this: http://socialdiscussion.com/religion...ciousness.html

I'll be happy to answer any questions, as I've done quite a bit of research on this subject.

As I read that, I was reminded of a quote I heard somewhere that goes something like this: "Either what I have just read was so profound that it meant nothing to me, or it actually meant nothing and subsequently sounded profound." But that was just what popped into my mind, forgive me if it sounded rude.

Anyway, where I would take issue is your first two points. You assume that God is reality. Ok, I've heard stranger things. Then you say that knowledge is a model of reality. Ok, all good there.

But then you say that the perfect model of reality *is* reality. For lack of a better word: duh. It's like saying A = B, and B = A, so A = A. IMHO, nothing is accomplished with that statement because you already assume what is required to prove your point. I'm not really arguing your beliefs I guess, just your methods.

Pantheism \Pan"the*ism\, n. [Pan- + theism.]
The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a
whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the
combined force and natural laws which are manifested in the
existing universe; cosmotheism. The doctrine denies that God
is a rational personality.
[1913 Webster]

According to the above definition, you won't get any criticism from me. I believe that is what John Lennon was. You may be too young to know who John Lennon was.

Hmm, yes. By that definition, I must agree with rjwood. I see no objections. I would, however, point out that using the term "God" would still be misleading to some, despite your efforts to make it not so.

lol, everyone knows john lennon.

Of course it's an obvious deduction. The part that is problematic/controversial is saying that knowledge is equivalent to a model of reality. Once that's out of the way, the rest follows by definition. All that this was meant to say was that once you make a fairly honest assumption, it's possible to easily derive a truth that is supports my view. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course I know who John Lennon was. I wouldn't be surprised if there are similarities, because John Lennon's personal philosophy was influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism. Here's a paper on Hinduism that highlights its Pantheistic side: Swami Vivekananda

I wouldn't argue with that definition.

For some, it could be, but I personally believe that we are talking about the same Being, so we can use the same word. After all, even Biblical scholars tend to agree that the bible is not to be taken literally, that God's personality is in no way human-like, that He should not be considered in human or animal form, and so on. The traditional religious view of God is simply more metaphorical, but not fundamentally different. I think that by using the same terminology, we can have much more meaningful and polite conversations with theists, and maintain our ability to have emotion, artistic and poetic views of God.

Agree with hackle577, sounds like just relabeling the universe as god. Nothing is achieved.
Is perfect not always perfect for some purpose? It does not seem evident that the universe is perfect to me..(what original definition of 'perfect'?) Also, a model in my computer can be seen as a universe on itself; there are neigh-zero errors in the chip on my computer. I would not accredit perfection to that model. (even if i coded it wrong, it is still a model of something, just not what i had in mind)
Two universes could be totally separate, like my computer model, you can see it as a single entity. However things are usually seen as separate if their interactions can be abstracted as an internal model of the objects and interactions between the models based on a external variables. Like pressure(tensor), speed, density and temperature are external variables of gas. This model has to be relinquished as precision of required statements increases.(like if someone smashes my simulating computer) On many topics of course this does not happen in practice.
If god is the universe, it seems an assumption that it is conscious. Certainly parts of it are conscious, as we are parts of the universe, but not the whole. I would not say my computer simulations are conscious either.

@Ilya you can use the \[Quote=<enter name> thing to make quotes with names. (Handy not to have to look back who said it again.

my impression is that you're stretching semantic so that your theistic views fit in a pantheistic model ... why ?

vague and muddy indeed

This is approaching panentheism, I think.

Perfect means 'Being complete of its kind'. The more complete a thing is, the more perfect it is. The model in your computer is perfect in a sense (insofar as it is that particular model, and insofar that it exists), but if you want to talk about absolute perfection, only all of existence can be called perfect.

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly understand your argument.

Your arm is not conscious. Your eye is not conscious. The left part of your brain is. So is the right (it can be demonstrated that they can be conscious independently of each other). And yet you say that "you" are conscious. In the same sense you can say that the universe is conscious.

But yes, I agree, this part can be seen as an assumption. It is not a core part of pantheism.

This would be rather strange of me, since I don't have any theistic views. Nor do I believe in panentheism, which involves a God that is external to the world. The reason that I play with semantics is because I wish to illustrate that at the core, there is no fundamental clash between the beliefs of humans, only of the way we express them. Many conflicts arise because of the way people currently discuss these issues.

I am willingly to buy that argument, with one exception: I am an atheist. I believe there is no God, Supreme Being, higher power, etc. Please explain to me how my beliefs do not fundamentally clash with those of a Christian, a Jew, or even a Pantheist.

If god is the universe, and we are beings which are part if this universe, wouldnt that make us god(s)?

So as a god, in line with my atheism, i declare gods not to exist!

I believe Ilya would say no, and here's why: You fingers are parts of your body, but your body can do things that your fingers alone cannot. Just because something is a part of the whole does not mean it has the same powers as the whole.

We humans are merely a part of what Ilya refers to as "God."

(Correct me if I'm wrong Ilya. :-) )

Ive actually met a pantheist who believed what i described. Though of course, Ilya might not be the same (and the second part of my post was a joke :P). The pantheist i met thought that we were gods or part of a god, we could shape our own destiny because of this, and that we were the universes own way of experiencing itself.

I'm having trouble figuring out where we jump from describing the universe as a unified force to it becoming a personified "God". I could see there being an energy holding everything together, but I can't make the leap to envisioning a conscious, thinking God-creature.

That is precisely why I could never believe some philosophy such as pantheism, etc. It seems so vague and New-Agey it's hard to nail down exactly what the belief system is.

hackle577 answered it for me. Saying that everyone is 'a' god is more of a Buddhist belief than a Pantheist one. 'God' in pantheism is a unique and abstract concept, whereas 'gods' in Buddhism are merely supernatural deities, a status which every human may achieve (not all Buddhists believe this, though).

I wouldn't say that it is a 'personified' God, since His 'mind' is nothing like our own minds, and His body is nothing like our own bodies. The only value of personifying a Pantheistic notion of God would be for artistic or therapeutic purposes. When we are talking about God as He really is, it would be very misleading to call Him a creature or a person.

What is also interesting is how people have came to this conclusion, they dont claim to have been given higher knowledge, and there no scientific evidence to suggest it. More of a case of 'this sounds good lets roll with it' (no offence pantheists - purely my opinion)

Actually, there is very good lines of reasoning that lead to this conclusion. Better than most religions, at least. For a very systematic approach, just read the first part of Spinoza's Ethics. He pretty much mathematically proves the Pantheistic view.

But there is more to it than cold logic. To me, it feels true and clear on a very fundamental level, beyond logic. Of course, I could be wrong, but I could also be wrong in assuming that the world exists, that I can trust my senses, and that I am even conscious.

Actually, I don't think that anyone has ever been convinced of any religious view by logic. Logic is nice to reinforce the view, but it's usually just a matter of being exposed to an idea (I've first read about it in Ethics) and feeling that it is absolutely true.

That sounds like a whole other discussion
Maybe that's why I have yet to subscribe to any set of beliefs. I don't consider myself an atheist, but maybe an agnostic in the root sense of the word (as in simply not knowing - I won't go so far as to affirm that God etc. is entirely unknowable). I'm pretty skeptical in general and need a good deal of logic and proof in order to be convinced of something, so if religious view cannot be attained through those means, I suppose that means that I will never truly be religious.