Sure. The title Tao is also a title for it, and there are other ones, like Brahman I think is fairly close, and more.
Exactly. Word play. So because there are so many different symbols or words for what people are calling god, and those symbols and words are dependent on many different variables, we need to define what we are talking about so that we can debate it.
Sure, but it depends on what you mean with deity. Which type of deity? I guess you're thinking of a conscious, sentient being like person thingy, which I don't believe in either. I don't believe the Universe is necessarily aware all-in-all, but I do know for a fact that there are pockets of awareness inside it and that it produces awareness. I'm one of those things, and I assume you're one too.
No, listen. I need to know which type of deity so I can have a reference point. While the conscious, sentient, involved, anthropomorphous deity is usually what people refer to or cling to, I know there are several different iterations. Until I know what you consider to be "god-like" about the sum of all of the parts of the universe, there's nothing to argue against. Until there is a definition, it is just wordplay.
We are certainly products of the Universe and the natural order. And that in and of itself is quite miraculous. But which definition of god are you using when you expand on that naturalism and refer to it as god?
God | Definition of god by Merriam-Webster
If it's simply a symbol used for your veneration of nature, that's one thing. But if you attribute something else to it, then that's another. And the latter requires definition.
Depends on what supernatural means to you. Anything supernatural is somewhat natural, otherwise it would be called unnatural. Perhaps we can see Higgs field as something supernatural or super-strings or dark energy, I don't know. Honestly, I don't know enough about what a Higgs field is or looks like to say how natural or supernatural it is. But, in the end, everything is one thing, all together, as the whole natural thing that exists.
If it's understood as functioning within the observable universe, then it's natural. If something exists, I think it must be "natural" by that definition, which I realize can cause a conundrum. But if we don't adhere to some form of boundary, then all cockamamie claims will be taken at face value and simply accepted as legitimate.
We agree on the fact that everything is one thing and the whole natural thing exists.... But why call it god?
The difference is that pantheism has gotten away with this for hundreds of years. It's not just a cheap or recent trick in history. It's existence has been suppressed by the ruling religions and the thoughts and ideas of what God is has been dictated by that majority. That doesn't make the history go away though.
So let's imagine that there is no historical bias towards an anthropomorphic god and that the pantheistic god reigns supreme. I still have to ask you why you attribute deity to the natural order. If you don't like the word deity because of it's anthropomorphic implications, then choose whichever word you like. In fairness though, you choose to call the Universe god, so you're invoking the idea of deity to begin with.
If the answer to the question "which god" doesn't satisfy, then no one should really ask for the open opinion about what they thing is a "god".
Yes! That's what I've been trying to say.
It depends on what "deitic" resonance is. Never heard of it.
I may have just made that up. It would be the amorphous concept of god or deity within a thing.
As with polytheists, they can say that there is a sky god, or a god of the sky, or that the sky is god. Those are 3 different things that need definition before they can be addressed.
The sky exists, admittedly. What property of the sky are you calling god? Why are you calling it god? What does god mean to you?
See?
So to answer the question "which God" we have to answer with any choice of definition from history that we can prove doesn't exist, but anything from history that has been used for God that does exist (like the universe) should be rejected as a bad definition?
No. It just needs definition.
In other words, the pantheist God is not part of the conversation. The question should've been "which God, except the pantheistic."
Again, no. You just need to explain why you're calling it god and which definition of god you are using.
Then no one should open the question which one without also restricting the answers to the only approved ones.
There are thousands of people on this forum, covering probably hundreds of different religions. Within each of those religions are various subsets, each with their own concept of god and deity. If we don't ask for clarification, there will never be any meaningful conversation.
For example, I'm fairly certain that the OP was referring to arguments against the Abrahamic god because he's Muslim, as far as I can tell. But only addressing arguments against the Abrahamic God does a great disservice to the depth of religious belief, doesn't it?
There's not limit. Just define what god is to you and we can progress.
The universe and everything that exists is God. Not much more needed to be said. Its the eternal, infinite power and source of all possible knowledge we can ever have, it produced us (or created us if that's okay with people), it's the part were we go back into when we die, and so on. Nothing sentient per-se. And nothing external. All part of it. A lot of god-like powers and attributes. I have no problem to see the connection.
And my answer to "why bother calling it God" isn't an argument against the pantheistic God either. It's just matter of opinions and subjective views.
Exactly! It's not an argument against it but a request for definition of it. I need to know why you're calling it god before I can argue against it. If it's just because you venerate this existence, then we have a lot in common but I don't call my understand of existence god.
"The Universe is the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
Unless I define what the FSM is, or means, and how it encompasses the Universe, then it's a moot claim that I've made that the Universe if the FSM.
Nothing and everything. But that's not part of this discussion.
It certainly should be. This isn't a closed debate devoid of regular conversation. I'd like to know what the difference is, at least as you see it. If nothing else educate me or someone else.
