Arguments for Proof of God
5 posters
Page 3 of 8
Page 3 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
money: IN God We Trust
Calypso Jones- Posts : 28193
Points : 38082
Reputation : 570
Join date : 2021-02-08
Age : 24
Leon Xiv likes this post
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
Calypso Jones wrote:money: IN God We Trust
Not proof of the existence of god, just proof that the founding fathers were believers in the existence of god,
vege57- Posts : 10697
Points : 12333
Reputation : 229
Join date : 2021-02-02
Age : 58
Location : Auckland , New Zealand
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
No proof needed to convince me. I know there's God. Try talking to Him sometime. You might be surprised!
Of course, that can get you tossed into the nuthouse, so there is that to be aware of ...
Of course, that can get you tossed into the nuthouse, so there is that to be aware of ...
Lummy- Posts : 5864
Points : 9630
Reputation : 398
Join date : 2021-04-06
Location : USA
vege57 likes this post
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
Lummy wrote:No proof needed to convince me. I know there's God. Try talking to Him sometime. You might be surprised!
Of course, that can get you tossed into the nuthouse, so there is that to be aware of ...
I also have an imaginary friend, His name is Cosmo
vege57- Posts : 10697
Points : 12333
Reputation : 229
Join date : 2021-02-02
Age : 58
Location : Auckland , New Zealand
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
yeah ... well there's that too.
Your call.
Your call.
Lummy- Posts : 5864
Points : 9630
Reputation : 398
Join date : 2021-04-06
Location : USA
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
Do you have any proof that Henry VIII existed? What are you going to offer? Historical records?vege57 wrote:Calypso Jones wrote:money: IN God We Trust
Not proof of the existence of god, just proof that the founding fathers were believers in the existence of god,
You say you will only accept physical proof that God exists, so if you are only going to offer historical records to prove Henry VIII then why are such records (Old & New Testaments, Apocrypha, Koran, Torah, etc.) unacceptable physical proof? After all they are all eyewitness testimonies, or are you going to say they were all lying or crazy? In that case all history is a lie...(unless its on your fave TV channel with a celebrity presenter...)
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
Another "Argument From Anthropology"
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary.
They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants.
And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented. If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by a Being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God.
The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a similar measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counselling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research.
I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your faith.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary.
They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants.
And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented. If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by a Being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God.
The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a similar measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counselling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research.
I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your faith.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
THE PANENDEISM TREATISE
PANENDEISM ORGANIZATION PRESS
By Benjamin Sullivan & James McDermott
2017. Panendeism Organization certificate of publication N°- OW120875
PANENDEISM ORGANIZATION PRESS
Panendeism Organization is dedicated to exploring the vast potential of Panendeism, a world view that is both millennia old and has more recently been hailed by many of the greatest physicists as a potentially true representation of reality. From its shocking implications in science, to its affirmation of human dignity, Panendeism is a promising new focus within the parent philosophy of Deism.
Our focus is to analyze the wealth of scientific data that has been accrued over the past century and promote new and revolutionary ways of investigating and expanding potentially groundbreaking fields of research.
Above all else, we are committed to the cultivation and recognition of all humanity as one extended family in which each member is worthy of value, respect, and friendship. We affirm that all life is also worthy of our care, respect, and admiration.
For more information about our organization and mission, please visit us on the web at www.panendeism.org .
2017. Panendeism Organization certificate of publication N°- OW120875 [1]
ETYMOLOGY
Panendeism (or pan-en-deism), pronounced paen'en'dei Iz'sm, is derived from the Greek pan (nav), meaning all, en (sv) meaning in, and deus (Asug), meaning god. The earliest known use of the term was in 1995 by Jim Garvin 1 , a Korean War veteran and Catholic turned Trappist monk. Garvin described his concept of deity as being similar to the "all-pervading Great Spirit" of the Native Americans, and called it "Pan-en-deism." The term “Panendeism” was officially proposed more recently by Larry Copling in 2001.
OVERVIEW
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties. Although examples of Panendeistic thought can be found as early as the 1st millennium BCE, it was not until nearly 3,000 years had passed, at the dawn of the 20th century, that these ideas began to gain traction as a prevailing scientific model of reality.
The first well recorded teachings that evoke the God hypothesis of Panendeism were introduced by Adi Shankara, who unified the Eastern Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism in the 8th century BCE. Later, in the 4th century BCE, Plato’s philosophy of “The One” or “The Good” introduced these concepts to the West and were subsequently expounded upon by Plotinus as in the 2nd century BCE. Much later, in the 17th century CE, Baruch Spinoza would define God as the only thing that exists in his “Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being,” a work that later earned him the affection of Albert Einstein, who described his own belief as being similar to Spinoza’s.
After Spinoza, German idealism continued to pave the way for Panendeism, with authors such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel all leaving behind fantastic works that are certainly worth reading. Other wonderful examples include the Transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman, as well as the 20th century Process Theism of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.
With the dawn of the 20th century, science had at last begun to advance to a point at which the potential in several millennia of Panendeistic philosophy began to appear consistent with the objective picture of reality. Einstein’s earth shattering publication of special relativity in 1905 opened the flood gates to an entirely new scientific conception for the very basis of what we perceive as reality. The universe could no longer be seen solely in terms of Newton’s static, unchanging celestial spheres. Our understanding of the entire universe was very suddenly 'transformed' to something infinitely more perplexing, but also remarkably more insightful and potentially closer to the true reality of the Universe. Through one equation, Einstein conceived of a dynamic Universe that behaved like a sea of energy arrayed with an expanding fabric of space-time, and comprised of dynamic and interactive energy modules that could take on the form of matter, light/ radiation, or other forms, unknown: E=MC 2 .
Einstein, who would be echoed by other physicists contemplating the scientific implications of this quantum sea in which we are immersed and of which we are composed, later mused:
“[Man] experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."[2]
In 1905, Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, was among the first to immediately recognize the significance of Einstein’s (later famous) publication. Indeed, much of the initial notoriety Einstein’s theory received was largely thanks to Planck’s efforts to introduce it within the scientific community. After receiving the Nobel Prize in 1918 and spending a lifetime in Quantum Physics, Planck, as its father, unabashedly said this regarding the nature of reality:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." [3]
As science continued to unravel the mysteries of reality, new proponents of Panendeistic thought emerged. Niels Bohr, who in 1922, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to atomic structure and quantum theory clearly defined Panendeism in these terms:
“We can admittedly find nothing in physics or chemistry that has even a remote bearing on consciousness. Yet all of us know that there is such a thing as consciousness, simply because we have it ourselves. Hence consciousness must be part of nature, or, more generally, of reality, which means that, quite apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider laws of quite a different kind. ”
Erwin Schrodinger, who in 1933, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum theory, said this:
"It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it . . For we should then have the same baffling question:Which part, which aspect are you? What, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceivable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours. . . is, in a certain sense, the whole. . . This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula... 'Tat tvam asi' — this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world. "
Werner Heisenberg, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, had this to say regarding the ultimate nature of reality:
"...The same organizing forces that have shaped nature in all her forms are also responsible for the structure of our minds... Of course, we all know that our own reality depends on the structure of our consciousness; we can objectify no more than a small part of our world. But even when we try to probe into the subjective realm, we cannot ignore the central order. ..In the final analysis, the central order, or the 'one' as it used to be called and with which we commune in the language of religion, must win out. "
David Bohm, a protege of Einstein who's often referred to as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century, said this:
“The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember, and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast, is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is "wind, or breath. "
This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit, and this is never born and never dies.
And these great minds only begin to scrape the surface of names that have both revolutionized science and seen clear implications for a Panendeistic sort of world view. Among many others, Nikola Tesla, Gregory Bateson, Sir Arthur Eddington, Robert Jahn, Sir James Jeans, Henry Margenau, Carl Friedrich Von Weizsacker, Freeman Dyson, and contemporary scientists like Paul Davies and Robert Lanza, have all advocated or affirmed the ontological ideas put forth by Panendeism as both plausible and in perfect harmony with the reality that science reveals to us. Indeed, it is not unfair to say that without the ability of these brilliant minds who forsook their own human perception of reality for the scientific evidence they were presented with, we might never have arrived at the proven theories of quantum physics or relativity, both of which have radically changed the course of human progress over the past century.
Like its parent philosophy Deism, Panendeism is closely related to naturalism and advocates that arguments for the existence of Deity must be maintained through science, reason, and observation of the natural world. Also, as in Deism, Panendeism is reasonably skeptical of - or dismisses religious figureheads, prophets, and claims of divine revelation. Panendeism is more likely to readily avoid the errors of dogma, corruption, oppression, and manipulation often manifest in organized religions, simply because it is self-governed and has no founders, fathers, or leaders. Each Deist or Panendeist, past, present and future, must justify their conclusions and hypotheses by means of the 'God-given' instruments of reason and science. Purely speculative notions are encouraged, where they are presented as speculation.
Likewise, Panendeism is highly skeptical of claims relating to the suspension of natural law through mediums such as supernatural forces or beings. Panendeism does not seek to define the attributes of Deity beyond affirming that the necessary Uncaused First Cause exists and is itself the underlying substance and cause of reality. By necessity of the proposed interconnection between God and reality, Panendeism proposes and presumes that the entire universe and everything within it is both sacred and meaningful. In this way, scientific knowledge, nature, and being are all modes of spiritual connection to Deity. Each sapient being, and to some degree, every living thing, is and must be part and parcel of God.
THE 5 TENETS OF PANENDEISM
Like our progressive science, both Deism and Panendeism represent broad world views that are constantly evolving as knowledge and science progress. However, Panendeism is governed by 5 unchanging principles:
1. We affirm as a defining thesis, that the natural terrestrial world, and the greater Universe we observe are, by very definition, “real,” and acknowledge that these may well be the only semblance of God we shall ever witness with our human eyes. We assert that we, as sapient beings, are an integral part of the whole, and that human observational perception, both material and spiritual, is worthy of our interest, pursuit, and trust.
2. We affirm the primacy of human reason and science as the final arbiters of truth and error regarding our understanding of the universe, but acknowledge that human beings embody, by design, integrated intuition and expression that transcend the bounds of science. We propound that qualities such as consciousness, compassion, passion, introspection, interconnection, love, friendship, kindness, hope, goodwill, charity, sincerity, inspiration, music, art, and spirituality, are among these inherent and inspired natural qualities.
3. We affirm that we are, even in our own cognitive abilities, finite. We
acknowledge that human reasoning is limited, our senses and perception are imperfect, and that we are free to do good or cause harm to others, or leave others to do good or cause harm. We assert that any action that disrupts the joy, peace, purpose, or balance of the beings or environment around us, shall inevitably derogate and diminish both the quality and scope of our own joy, peace, purpose, balance, and meaning. If such detrimental, counter-intuitive
behavior is embraced by many, we propound that all life could cease to exist in the natural, terrestrial world we inhabit.
4. We affirm that we are endowed by Deity with the inalienable liberty to govern and orchestrate our thoughts and our actions, within the bounds circumscribed by the Laws of Nature, known and unknown, and assert that the entire Universe, and we ourselves, are part and parcel of the Creator Architect- Supreme Being and Cosmic Mind we know as God.
5. We assert that God is not expected to be manifest inter personally in our lives, or through prophets or figureheads, but rather, intra-personally and perhaps in other ways too subtle to be understood or detected by our finite human senses.
Through the intrinsic presence of Deity, we are naturally drawn toward love; a realization of life; a sense of oneness, brotherhood and sisterhood with the natural world around us; and thus, we are compelled to live sublime and purposeful lives. Therefore, among the transcendent purposes unique to sapient life such as human beings, is the seeking after self-understanding, and the externalization of the resulting discovery within to positively affect the material and spiritual world around us and all living things and beings whose paths cross our own, to make the world a better, kinder, and gentler place for all its inhabitants.
7 POINT CODE OF CONDUCT
Panendeism additionally sets forth a simple 7-point code of conduct:
1. Approach to understanding external reality: Free -thought (rationality,objectivity, and critical-thinking).
2. Arbiters of external truth: Primacy of science and primacy of reason.
3. The universe and everything within it is sacred: We shall endeavor to do good and not cause harm.
4. Discussing or presenting information regarding external reality: Only scientifically validated information and proven theories should ever be presented as fact, while suggestive evidence and hypothesis must always be presented as speculative.
5. Exploring the nature of self, other, and being: Compassion, passion,
introspection, interconnection, love, friendship, kindness, hope, goodwill, charity, sincerity, inspiration, music, art, and spirituality are all excellent examples of the benevolent reason-based processes and mechanisms by which we engage in and experience the full spectrum of wonders that life has to offer us.
6. Discussing or presenting information regarding personal experiences or self: Panendeism, as an entity of philosophy, shall forever refrain from teaching spiritual practices or mysticism, as they have been used throughout recorded history by organized religions and cults to victimize and gain power over innocent people. However, we do recognize that we live in an amazing universe and welcome individuals to freely discuss and explore their own experiences, keeping in mind that things like spirituality and self are different for each person. Anyone who promotes the contrary position or claims to have special powers, methods, or connection to God should be treated with extreme caution and is perhaps more inclined toward Panentheism than Panendeism.
We encourage exploration, but not evangelism. Personal and public exploration may include any one of a number of things, from sitting atop a mountain as the sun sets or gazing into the vastness of space on a clear night, to a pursuit of science, deep meditation, or the simplest things in life, such as being close to someone you love.
Incompatible with: Organized religion, prophets, figure heads, dogma, false information, oppression, and inequality.
PANENDEISM & THE PANTHEISM
Pantheism is the worship of a physical universe and mindless energy force as God, whereas Panendeism postulates that a mindful and transcendent God is the underlying reality of what we perceive as the universe. As with Panentheists, Pantheists tend to present and accept speculations as facts and follow a structure that is more akin to organized religions and dogmatic-theism.
PANENDEISM & PANDEISM
Pandeism is the worship of a physical universe and mindless energy force as a deceased or destroyed God with a resurrection doctrine that claims God will someday evolve back into being, whereas Panendeism postulates that a mindful and transcendent God is the underlying reality of what we perceive as the universe. A great real-world analogy for this is to imagine the universe as a quantum super-computer.
In this scenario, Panendeism's God would be primarily the processor, memory, and hard drive and Pandeism's God would be the battery. This isn't to say that Panendeists don't recognize the importance of energy, or see it as part of God, they just don't attribute the vast complexity of the universe solely to it.
PANENDEISM & PANENTHEISM
While Panendeism and Panenthiesm are fairly similar in their base assumptions, Panendeists tend to look at the universe as being purely comprised of mind, while Panentheists tend look at the universe as being a part of the body of God.
Additionally, Panendeists, being a part of the parent organization of Deism, tend to be more agnostic, speculative, and cautious when it comes to forming and presenting opinions about the true nature of reality, whereas Panentheists tend to present and accept speculations as facts and follow a structure that is more akin to organized religions and dogmatic -theism. Panentheists also tend to more commonly view their relationship with Deity as interpersonal, often engaging in prayer and other religious rituals, while Panendeists often view their relationship with God as intra personal and based upon observation of the natural world, science, and reason.
Moreover, Panendeism's rejection of religious dogma allows it the freedom and agility to remain relevant by taking into consideration and adapting to all new knowledge arising at the forefront of our progressive science.
PANENDEISM & DEISM
Panendeism is a recognized member of the Deism Alliance and part of the greater Deism family. As such, Panendeism is not a breakaway from or rejection of Deism, but a concise ontological position within Deism that focuses on the vast sea of contemporary scientific knowledge, especially physics, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and neuroscience. All Panendeists are therefore effectively Deists with a default variation regarding the relationship between Deity and the universe .
PANENDEIST TERMINOLOGY FOR GOD
• Superior-Mind
• Cosmic-Mind
• Cosmic Consciousness
• Divine-Mind
• Word-Soul
• Supreme Being
• Deity
• Divinity
• Great Spirit
• Creator-Architect-Supreme-Being
• Plenum
• The All
• The All-in-All
• The One
SUPPORTIVE THEORIES & MODELS
• Bose-Einstein Condensate
• Particle Wave-Duality
• The Anthropic Principal
• Synaptic Tunneling
• Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
• Pribram's Theory of Sensory Perception
• Bertrand Russell's Consciousness Model
• Michael Lockwood's Theory of Consciousness
• The Theory of Biocentrism
• Alwyn Scott's Consciousness Model
• James Culbertson's Model of Consciousness
• Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)
• Panpsychism
• Nondualism
REFERENCES
1. Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10
2. Letter sent by Einstein to Robert S. Marcus, Political Director of the World Jewish Congress, offering condolences for his son who had succumbed to polio. February 12, 1950
3. Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy.
Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 1 1 Planck, Nr. 1797
4. Werner Heisenberg, 1971, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, New York: Harper & Row
5. "The Mystic Vision" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber
6. Werner Heisenberg, 1971, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, New York: Harper & Row
7. Speech written by David Bohm in 1987 for the memorial service of his friend and University of Pennsylvania classmate, Malcolm Sagenkahn.
PANENDEISM ORGANIZATION PRESS
By Benjamin Sullivan & James McDermott
2017. Panendeism Organization certificate of publication N°- OW120875
PANENDEISM ORGANIZATION PRESS
Panendeism Organization is dedicated to exploring the vast potential of Panendeism, a world view that is both millennia old and has more recently been hailed by many of the greatest physicists as a potentially true representation of reality. From its shocking implications in science, to its affirmation of human dignity, Panendeism is a promising new focus within the parent philosophy of Deism.
Our focus is to analyze the wealth of scientific data that has been accrued over the past century and promote new and revolutionary ways of investigating and expanding potentially groundbreaking fields of research.
Above all else, we are committed to the cultivation and recognition of all humanity as one extended family in which each member is worthy of value, respect, and friendship. We affirm that all life is also worthy of our care, respect, and admiration.
For more information about our organization and mission, please visit us on the web at www.panendeism.org .
2017. Panendeism Organization certificate of publication N°- OW120875 [1]
ETYMOLOGY
Panendeism (or pan-en-deism), pronounced paen'en'dei Iz'sm, is derived from the Greek pan (nav), meaning all, en (sv) meaning in, and deus (Asug), meaning god. The earliest known use of the term was in 1995 by Jim Garvin 1 , a Korean War veteran and Catholic turned Trappist monk. Garvin described his concept of deity as being similar to the "all-pervading Great Spirit" of the Native Americans, and called it "Pan-en-deism." The term “Panendeism” was officially proposed more recently by Larry Copling in 2001.
OVERVIEW
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties. Although examples of Panendeistic thought can be found as early as the 1st millennium BCE, it was not until nearly 3,000 years had passed, at the dawn of the 20th century, that these ideas began to gain traction as a prevailing scientific model of reality.
The first well recorded teachings that evoke the God hypothesis of Panendeism were introduced by Adi Shankara, who unified the Eastern Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism in the 8th century BCE. Later, in the 4th century BCE, Plato’s philosophy of “The One” or “The Good” introduced these concepts to the West and were subsequently expounded upon by Plotinus as in the 2nd century BCE. Much later, in the 17th century CE, Baruch Spinoza would define God as the only thing that exists in his “Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being,” a work that later earned him the affection of Albert Einstein, who described his own belief as being similar to Spinoza’s.
After Spinoza, German idealism continued to pave the way for Panendeism, with authors such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel all leaving behind fantastic works that are certainly worth reading. Other wonderful examples include the Transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman, as well as the 20th century Process Theism of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.
With the dawn of the 20th century, science had at last begun to advance to a point at which the potential in several millennia of Panendeistic philosophy began to appear consistent with the objective picture of reality. Einstein’s earth shattering publication of special relativity in 1905 opened the flood gates to an entirely new scientific conception for the very basis of what we perceive as reality. The universe could no longer be seen solely in terms of Newton’s static, unchanging celestial spheres. Our understanding of the entire universe was very suddenly 'transformed' to something infinitely more perplexing, but also remarkably more insightful and potentially closer to the true reality of the Universe. Through one equation, Einstein conceived of a dynamic Universe that behaved like a sea of energy arrayed with an expanding fabric of space-time, and comprised of dynamic and interactive energy modules that could take on the form of matter, light/ radiation, or other forms, unknown: E=MC 2 .
Einstein, who would be echoed by other physicists contemplating the scientific implications of this quantum sea in which we are immersed and of which we are composed, later mused:
“[Man] experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."[2]
In 1905, Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, was among the first to immediately recognize the significance of Einstein’s (later famous) publication. Indeed, much of the initial notoriety Einstein’s theory received was largely thanks to Planck’s efforts to introduce it within the scientific community. After receiving the Nobel Prize in 1918 and spending a lifetime in Quantum Physics, Planck, as its father, unabashedly said this regarding the nature of reality:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." [3]
As science continued to unravel the mysteries of reality, new proponents of Panendeistic thought emerged. Niels Bohr, who in 1922, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to atomic structure and quantum theory clearly defined Panendeism in these terms:
“We can admittedly find nothing in physics or chemistry that has even a remote bearing on consciousness. Yet all of us know that there is such a thing as consciousness, simply because we have it ourselves. Hence consciousness must be part of nature, or, more generally, of reality, which means that, quite apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider laws of quite a different kind. ”
Erwin Schrodinger, who in 1933, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum theory, said this:
"It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it . . For we should then have the same baffling question:Which part, which aspect are you? What, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceivable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours. . . is, in a certain sense, the whole. . . This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula... 'Tat tvam asi' — this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world. "
Werner Heisenberg, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, had this to say regarding the ultimate nature of reality:
"...The same organizing forces that have shaped nature in all her forms are also responsible for the structure of our minds... Of course, we all know that our own reality depends on the structure of our consciousness; we can objectify no more than a small part of our world. But even when we try to probe into the subjective realm, we cannot ignore the central order. ..In the final analysis, the central order, or the 'one' as it used to be called and with which we commune in the language of religion, must win out. "
David Bohm, a protege of Einstein who's often referred to as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century, said this:
“The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember, and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast, is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is "wind, or breath. "
This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit, and this is never born and never dies.
And these great minds only begin to scrape the surface of names that have both revolutionized science and seen clear implications for a Panendeistic sort of world view. Among many others, Nikola Tesla, Gregory Bateson, Sir Arthur Eddington, Robert Jahn, Sir James Jeans, Henry Margenau, Carl Friedrich Von Weizsacker, Freeman Dyson, and contemporary scientists like Paul Davies and Robert Lanza, have all advocated or affirmed the ontological ideas put forth by Panendeism as both plausible and in perfect harmony with the reality that science reveals to us. Indeed, it is not unfair to say that without the ability of these brilliant minds who forsook their own human perception of reality for the scientific evidence they were presented with, we might never have arrived at the proven theories of quantum physics or relativity, both of which have radically changed the course of human progress over the past century.
Like its parent philosophy Deism, Panendeism is closely related to naturalism and advocates that arguments for the existence of Deity must be maintained through science, reason, and observation of the natural world. Also, as in Deism, Panendeism is reasonably skeptical of - or dismisses religious figureheads, prophets, and claims of divine revelation. Panendeism is more likely to readily avoid the errors of dogma, corruption, oppression, and manipulation often manifest in organized religions, simply because it is self-governed and has no founders, fathers, or leaders. Each Deist or Panendeist, past, present and future, must justify their conclusions and hypotheses by means of the 'God-given' instruments of reason and science. Purely speculative notions are encouraged, where they are presented as speculation.
Likewise, Panendeism is highly skeptical of claims relating to the suspension of natural law through mediums such as supernatural forces or beings. Panendeism does not seek to define the attributes of Deity beyond affirming that the necessary Uncaused First Cause exists and is itself the underlying substance and cause of reality. By necessity of the proposed interconnection between God and reality, Panendeism proposes and presumes that the entire universe and everything within it is both sacred and meaningful. In this way, scientific knowledge, nature, and being are all modes of spiritual connection to Deity. Each sapient being, and to some degree, every living thing, is and must be part and parcel of God.
THE 5 TENETS OF PANENDEISM
Like our progressive science, both Deism and Panendeism represent broad world views that are constantly evolving as knowledge and science progress. However, Panendeism is governed by 5 unchanging principles:
1. We affirm as a defining thesis, that the natural terrestrial world, and the greater Universe we observe are, by very definition, “real,” and acknowledge that these may well be the only semblance of God we shall ever witness with our human eyes. We assert that we, as sapient beings, are an integral part of the whole, and that human observational perception, both material and spiritual, is worthy of our interest, pursuit, and trust.
2. We affirm the primacy of human reason and science as the final arbiters of truth and error regarding our understanding of the universe, but acknowledge that human beings embody, by design, integrated intuition and expression that transcend the bounds of science. We propound that qualities such as consciousness, compassion, passion, introspection, interconnection, love, friendship, kindness, hope, goodwill, charity, sincerity, inspiration, music, art, and spirituality, are among these inherent and inspired natural qualities.
3. We affirm that we are, even in our own cognitive abilities, finite. We
acknowledge that human reasoning is limited, our senses and perception are imperfect, and that we are free to do good or cause harm to others, or leave others to do good or cause harm. We assert that any action that disrupts the joy, peace, purpose, or balance of the beings or environment around us, shall inevitably derogate and diminish both the quality and scope of our own joy, peace, purpose, balance, and meaning. If such detrimental, counter-intuitive
behavior is embraced by many, we propound that all life could cease to exist in the natural, terrestrial world we inhabit.
4. We affirm that we are endowed by Deity with the inalienable liberty to govern and orchestrate our thoughts and our actions, within the bounds circumscribed by the Laws of Nature, known and unknown, and assert that the entire Universe, and we ourselves, are part and parcel of the Creator Architect- Supreme Being and Cosmic Mind we know as God.
5. We assert that God is not expected to be manifest inter personally in our lives, or through prophets or figureheads, but rather, intra-personally and perhaps in other ways too subtle to be understood or detected by our finite human senses.
Through the intrinsic presence of Deity, we are naturally drawn toward love; a realization of life; a sense of oneness, brotherhood and sisterhood with the natural world around us; and thus, we are compelled to live sublime and purposeful lives. Therefore, among the transcendent purposes unique to sapient life such as human beings, is the seeking after self-understanding, and the externalization of the resulting discovery within to positively affect the material and spiritual world around us and all living things and beings whose paths cross our own, to make the world a better, kinder, and gentler place for all its inhabitants.
7 POINT CODE OF CONDUCT
Panendeism additionally sets forth a simple 7-point code of conduct:
1. Approach to understanding external reality: Free -thought (rationality,objectivity, and critical-thinking).
2. Arbiters of external truth: Primacy of science and primacy of reason.
3. The universe and everything within it is sacred: We shall endeavor to do good and not cause harm.
4. Discussing or presenting information regarding external reality: Only scientifically validated information and proven theories should ever be presented as fact, while suggestive evidence and hypothesis must always be presented as speculative.
5. Exploring the nature of self, other, and being: Compassion, passion,
introspection, interconnection, love, friendship, kindness, hope, goodwill, charity, sincerity, inspiration, music, art, and spirituality are all excellent examples of the benevolent reason-based processes and mechanisms by which we engage in and experience the full spectrum of wonders that life has to offer us.
6. Discussing or presenting information regarding personal experiences or self: Panendeism, as an entity of philosophy, shall forever refrain from teaching spiritual practices or mysticism, as they have been used throughout recorded history by organized religions and cults to victimize and gain power over innocent people. However, we do recognize that we live in an amazing universe and welcome individuals to freely discuss and explore their own experiences, keeping in mind that things like spirituality and self are different for each person. Anyone who promotes the contrary position or claims to have special powers, methods, or connection to God should be treated with extreme caution and is perhaps more inclined toward Panentheism than Panendeism.
We encourage exploration, but not evangelism. Personal and public exploration may include any one of a number of things, from sitting atop a mountain as the sun sets or gazing into the vastness of space on a clear night, to a pursuit of science, deep meditation, or the simplest things in life, such as being close to someone you love.
Incompatible with: Organized religion, prophets, figure heads, dogma, false information, oppression, and inequality.
PANENDEISM & THE PANTHEISM
Pantheism is the worship of a physical universe and mindless energy force as God, whereas Panendeism postulates that a mindful and transcendent God is the underlying reality of what we perceive as the universe. As with Panentheists, Pantheists tend to present and accept speculations as facts and follow a structure that is more akin to organized religions and dogmatic-theism.
PANENDEISM & PANDEISM
Pandeism is the worship of a physical universe and mindless energy force as a deceased or destroyed God with a resurrection doctrine that claims God will someday evolve back into being, whereas Panendeism postulates that a mindful and transcendent God is the underlying reality of what we perceive as the universe. A great real-world analogy for this is to imagine the universe as a quantum super-computer.
In this scenario, Panendeism's God would be primarily the processor, memory, and hard drive and Pandeism's God would be the battery. This isn't to say that Panendeists don't recognize the importance of energy, or see it as part of God, they just don't attribute the vast complexity of the universe solely to it.
PANENDEISM & PANENTHEISM
While Panendeism and Panenthiesm are fairly similar in their base assumptions, Panendeists tend to look at the universe as being purely comprised of mind, while Panentheists tend look at the universe as being a part of the body of God.
Additionally, Panendeists, being a part of the parent organization of Deism, tend to be more agnostic, speculative, and cautious when it comes to forming and presenting opinions about the true nature of reality, whereas Panentheists tend to present and accept speculations as facts and follow a structure that is more akin to organized religions and dogmatic -theism. Panentheists also tend to more commonly view their relationship with Deity as interpersonal, often engaging in prayer and other religious rituals, while Panendeists often view their relationship with God as intra personal and based upon observation of the natural world, science, and reason.
Moreover, Panendeism's rejection of religious dogma allows it the freedom and agility to remain relevant by taking into consideration and adapting to all new knowledge arising at the forefront of our progressive science.
PANENDEISM & DEISM
Panendeism is a recognized member of the Deism Alliance and part of the greater Deism family. As such, Panendeism is not a breakaway from or rejection of Deism, but a concise ontological position within Deism that focuses on the vast sea of contemporary scientific knowledge, especially physics, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and neuroscience. All Panendeists are therefore effectively Deists with a default variation regarding the relationship between Deity and the universe .
PANENDEIST TERMINOLOGY FOR GOD
• Superior-Mind
• Cosmic-Mind
• Cosmic Consciousness
• Divine-Mind
• Word-Soul
• Supreme Being
• Deity
• Divinity
• Great Spirit
• Creator-Architect-Supreme-Being
• Plenum
• The All
• The All-in-All
• The One
SUPPORTIVE THEORIES & MODELS
• Bose-Einstein Condensate
• Particle Wave-Duality
• The Anthropic Principal
• Synaptic Tunneling
• Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
• Pribram's Theory of Sensory Perception
• Bertrand Russell's Consciousness Model
• Michael Lockwood's Theory of Consciousness
• The Theory of Biocentrism
• Alwyn Scott's Consciousness Model
• James Culbertson's Model of Consciousness
• Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)
• Panpsychism
• Nondualism
REFERENCES
1. Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10
2. Letter sent by Einstein to Robert S. Marcus, Political Director of the World Jewish Congress, offering condolences for his son who had succumbed to polio. February 12, 1950
3. Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy.
Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 1 1 Planck, Nr. 1797
4. Werner Heisenberg, 1971, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, New York: Harper & Row
5. "The Mystic Vision" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber
6. Werner Heisenberg, 1971, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, New York: Harper & Row
7. Speech written by David Bohm in 1987 for the memorial service of his friend and University of Pennsylvania classmate, Malcolm Sagenkahn.
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
Leon Xiv wrote:Do you have any proof that Henry VIII existed? What are you going to offer? Historical records?vege57 wrote:Calypso Jones wrote:money: IN God We Trust
Not proof of the existence of god, just proof that the founding fathers were believers in the existence of god,
You say you will only accept physical proof that God exists, so if you are only going to offer historical records to prove Henry VIII then why are such records (Old & New Testaments, Apocrypha, Koran, Torah, etc.) unacceptable physical proof? After all they are all eyewitness testimonies, or are you going to say they were all lying or crazy? In that case all history is a lie...(unless its on your fave TV channel with a celebrity presenter...)
For a kick off, we know where the remains of Henry are , we have provable living relatives that can be DNA tested to prove this , we have coins from his reign and many other artifacts . A bow has not been made that is long enough for you to draw on this argument Leon,,
vege57- Posts : 10697
Points : 12333
Reputation : 229
Join date : 2021-02-02
Age : 58
Location : Auckland , New Zealand
Re: Arguments for Proof of God
Leon Xiv wrote:Another "Argument From Anthropology"
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary.
They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants.
And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented. If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by a Being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God.
The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a similar measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counselling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research.
I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your faith.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
No one person developed any theory , they all added to the existing narrative and knowledge of their predecessors , as classic quote by Isaac Newton illustrates this the best
Standing on the shoulders of giants is a metaphor which means "Using the understanding gained by major thinkers who have gone before in order to make intellectual progress". ... Its most familiar expression in English is by Isaac Newton in 1675:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
vege57- Posts : 10697
Points : 12333
Reputation : 229
Join date : 2021-02-02
Age : 58
Location : Auckland , New Zealand
Page 3 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Similar topics
» 3 Good Arguments that Jesus was....
» Sonia Sotomayor Loses Her Ever-Loving Mind at Oral Arguments Over Biden's Vaccine Mandate
» Proof of a Stolen Election
» What happened to natural immunity?
» Further Proof We Are Living in a Dystiopia
» Sonia Sotomayor Loses Her Ever-Loving Mind at Oral Arguments Over Biden's Vaccine Mandate
» Proof of a Stolen Election
» What happened to natural immunity?
» Further Proof We Are Living in a Dystiopia
Page 3 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum