• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A question to the Pantheists

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Hammer. I would like to request you to read up a little bit on saguna brahman prior to making statements like "The Gods themselves would be Saguna Brahman, I guess". When I said it doesnt work that way, I mean to say that you have got it all wrong in a nice manner.

I just hope you understand. Anyway, I think this is off topic now.

You were earlier referring to a concept similar to Nirguna Brahman, and just leave it there I suppose. If you have a solution to the OP please speak of it. Thank you very much.

I gave you my solution, a variation of what @RayofLight said.

You don't have to agree with it.

If you feel Nirguna and Saguna Brahman need better explanations on what they are, feel free thread it. I went off the definition of Nirguna (without attributes) and Saguna (with attributes).

Edit: Brahman/Bhagavan – nirguna and saguna - Nature of God and existence in Hinduism - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Eduqas - BBC Bitesize
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I gave you my solution, a variation of what @RayofLight said.

You don't have to agree with it.

If you feel Nirguna and Saguna Brahman need better explanations on what they are, feel free thread it. I went off the definition of Nirguna (without attributes) and Saguna (with attributes).

Edit: Brahman/Bhagavan – nirguna and saguna - Nature of God and existence in Hinduism - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Eduqas - BBC Bitesize

Whats the solution you gave to the OP?
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Whats the solution you gave to the OP?

#2 is an incorrect premise. God did not Create what it also Is (Nature).

God=Nature
Nature=God

No division. It (God/Nature) came into being with the formation of the Universe. It did not cause this to happen.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
When a question like the one asked in the OP comes about, I often want to refresh my understanding of the proper use of a word. Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for example discussed the many forms of pantheism some of which stem from another kind of pantheism than in the OP.

At the same time it must be allowed that there is a strong apophatic streak in much pantheism. ... for Anaximander the one source from which cosmos comes forth (to apeiron) is construed precisely in terms of its resistance to any determinate characterisation, while both Eriugena and Ibn ‘Arabi stress that although the God of which we can speak is identical with the cosmos, there remains another sense in which we cannot speak of God at all. The essence of God considered in himself, the universal ground of being cannot itself be captured by any of the limited categories which flow out from it.

After reading through that web page, I'm left with the conclusion that the OP applies to some but not all pantheists.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
This is no new question, and many in the past have tried to answer it in their own way. I would like to see how our colleagues here would be able to address this as a logical problem.

Pantheism in its very simplest idea is "God and nature are one". Philosophically there are very lengthy definitions and explanations but we can keep it short.

Predominantly, Hindu's have this as their metaphysical, religious stand. To a lesser degree, Muslim & Jewish thinkers, and others have also thought about it and embraced it as their theological position although there maybe variants in their propositions. Sufi's are Muslims who take this position.

The problem is this.

1. God is nature.
2. God created nature.
3. Thus God had to have existed before creating nature.
4. Thus God cannot be nature.

I know there are responses to this problem available right now but I believe that would change pantheism into something else. I would like to hear your thoughts.

This is not an internal criticism of pantheism but an external criticism of creationists who adopt pantheism.

Peace.
While the habits of God can be seen in nature, God isn't nature.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The problem is this.

1. God is nature.
2. God created nature.
3. Thus God had to have existed before creating nature.
4. Thus God cannot be nature.
Panentheism solves that problem. ;)

But I have no clue whatsoever if it's correct.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is no new question, and many in the past have tried to answer it in their own way. I would like to see how our colleagues here would be able to address this as a logical problem.

Pantheism in its very simplest idea is "God and nature are one". Philosophically there are very lengthy definitions and explanations but we can keep it short.

Predominantly, Hindu's have this as their metaphysical, religious stand. To a lesser degree, Muslim & Jewish thinkers, and others have also thought about it and embraced it as their theological position although there maybe variants in their propositions. Sufi's are Muslims who take this position.

The problem is this.

1. God is nature.
2. God created nature.
3. Thus God had to have existed before creating nature.
4. Thus God cannot be nature.

I know there are responses to this problem available right now but I believe that would change pantheism into something else. I would like to hear your thoughts.

This is not an internal criticism of pantheism but an external criticism of creationists who adopt pantheism.

Peace.
Hindus are Panentheists. God (Brahman) is in Nature (indivisibly) and transcends it as well.
 
Top