Would you please help me: an experiment for theists and atheists alike

[Storm]

Panentheism is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it.

No, panentheism is the theological stance that the physical universe is an aspect of God, that God encompasses the universe. Pan (all) + en (within) + theo (God) = panentheism (all within God). If you're going off of the Wiki, I think they've used that in the explanation of just about every theology I've looked at.

Storm is a Theist. Now let's all stop arguing.

No, I'm not. But considering you and I just went through the same thing with you insisting believing in God makes me delusional, rather than theistic, I don't think you have much authority on the matter.

 

[Prometheus]

No, panentheism is the theological stance that the physical universe is an aspect of God, that God encompasses the universe. Pan (all) + en (within) + theo (God) = panentheism (all within God). If you're going off of the Wiki, I think they've used that in the explanation of just about every theology I've looked at.

The fact you even use the word God is shooting yourself in the foot.

No, I'm not. But considering you and I just went through the same thing with you insisting believing in God makes me delusional, rather than theistic, I don't think you have much authority on the matter.

What you and I have ever said to each other in the past is irrelevant to this discussion. Don't use a Red Herring.

 

[Storm]

The fact you even use the word God is shooting yourself in the foot.

No, it isn't. Deity is not the only God-concept; that's the entire point.

What you and I have ever said to each other in the past is irrelevant to this discussion. Don't use a Red Herring.

Sorry, but no. This is virtually the same "discussion," so it's entirely relevant.

The only real difference is that Chevalier Violet has given me no reason to believe that she's trying to be insulting.

It's also relevant because, due to your behavior in that "discussion" I suspect you only entered this one to play troll again.

 

[Prometheus]

No, it isn't. Deity is not the only God-concept; that's the entire point.

Any belief in a God-concept qualifies as a belief in a God. They are the same word. "God" may be the most vague and ambiguous word in existence. You don't have to believe in a deity to be a Theist. All you have to believe in is a God-concept. A supreme "thing" that is neither living nor non-living which transcends all time, space and thought yet is the supreme "essence" of the Universe is a God. It's not a deity, but it is a God.

The only real difference is that Chevalier Violet has given me no reason to believe that she's trying to be insulting.

I told you that I wasn't trying to be insulting. If that isn't clear enough to you nothing ever will be.

It's also relevant because, due to your behavior in that "discussion" I suspect you only entered this one to play troll again.

I tell people to stop fighting and this makes me a troll...? That logic is way over my head.

From now on, I'm not responding to any comment on our previous discussion. If you want to do that, or continue it from where we left off, you'll have to PM me. Seriously, though, stop fighting.

 

[lilithu]

Yes yes yes, I know. Philosopher of science, I know. But I can't interpret the Mona Lisa if I've never seen it. I think we can agree on that. And if my theory is correct, that many atheists have never actually spoken to this thing that I have seen and many others have experienced which appears to be a deity (quite unlike the pantheism you appear to be describing), then "interpretation" would not play a factor in any way, shape or form.

The difference, however, is that unlike the Mona Lisa, God is not located in one physical location and not another.

I have no preset definition of what this thing is. It is you who is set in your preconceptions of this "thing". I dismiss no testimony, but I am looking for testimony of a certain type. I'm not saying your experiences are invalid, but as you have pointed out repeatedly, the experiences you have posted so far say nothing about a sentient deity.

I never said God isn't sentient. Nor would I say God is sentient. I think the whole question of sentience is too anthropocentric.

What I was trying to tell you, tho perhaps not as nicely as I could have, is that by limiting testimony to what you call a "sentient deity" you will only collect "data" that further corroborates that particular view of God.

It would be like, for example, if I said that I wanted to do an experiment on people's views of cars. How do people see cars? What do they see when they encounter cars? But then I tell them that I'm only interested in testimony from people who have seen red cars. And if someone hasn't seen a red car then "You can't help me." Then, after gathering the "data" from different people's testimonies, I would conclude that cars are red. Does that seem like a valid experiment to you?

If you have encountered a deity as opposed to a pantheist universe, I'm very interested to hear your experiences.

I am not a pantheist. I'm a panentheist. I do believe that God interacts with me and all creation.

By "deity" you seem to mean an anthropomorphic being with supernatural powers. Yes, I've had visions of such things. They are not God by my interpretation. How could anything so limited possibly be considered God?

 

[Willamena]

How are you all distinguishing between "deity" and "god"?

 

[lilithu]

No, panentheism is the theological stance that the physical universe is an aspect of God

Um... and where would be your source that defines panentheism that way. I certainly don't.

 

[Baerly]

Ooook, did any of these visions involve a deity?

Oh man, I'm sorry guys, but I am really not getting much out of these types of responses.

And as for panentheism for the love of Pete, I just want to know what God looks like to you as a physical entity if anything. If you don't believe in a deity then YOU CAN'T HELP ME! (this isn't directed at you bro, but just general frustration I feel with storm right now, like telling me what to think. I am just so shocked, and I expected better from this person. But also I know she's doing her best and probably just misread what I wrote in some bizarre way. Internet communication is hard.)

CV

No, The visions I had did not concern things of a spiritual nature. I was living a very wild life back then and I was not concerned about God or heaven. I was rolling the dice that God would grant me time to repent as he did Simon in (Acts 8:22) (1John 1:6,7,8).

The bible says no man has seen God and lived.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The bible is about spiritual things. If your interested in those spiritual things I would be more than glad to speak to you about them (1Cor.15:1-4) (Mt. 28:18-20) (Mark 16:16).

Baerly

 

[MaddLlama]

Um... and where would be your source that defines panentheism that way. I certainly don't.

This is the best definition I've found:

Panentheism—One form of Panentheism is the belief that that the universe is a part of God and that Nature is thus an aspect of divinity. Another, more likely far older, is the doctrine that God is Immanent within all creation, but that the universe is not part of God, rather God is the animating force behind the universe. Unlike pantheism, it does not say that the universe is synonymous with God; it maintains that there is more to God than the material universe. In panentheism God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality.

 

[lilithu]

This is the best definition I've found:

lol, curiouser and curiouser. Sorry ML but I found that definition to be even more confusing. God is immanent in creation but creation is not a part of God? What?

I am a panentheist because I agree (mostly) with Charles Hartshorne's view of process theology.

This is the best explanation of panentheism that I've found online, tho I dislike the way the author lifts panentheism up by putting other views down.

 

[Prometheus]

The bible says no man has seen God and lived.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Moses did.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

The difference, however, is that unlike the Mona Lisa, God is not located in one physical location and not another.

For the purpose of this experiment, I do not make hypotheses as to the nature of God. The vision people see may be a panentheistic entity, it may be some sort of deity, or strange creature. People may see contrasting things.

Obviously, if you're certain in your panentheism, this experiment seems to have no use. But I do not share that certainty. Please see below.

I never said God isn't sentient. Nor would I say God is sentient. I think the whole question of sentience is too anthropocentric.

Ok, I hear you.

What I was trying to tell you, tho perhaps not as nicely as I could have, is that by limiting testimony to what you call a "sentient deity" you will only collect "data" that further corroborates that particular view of God.

See below.

It would be like, for example, if I said that I wanted to do an experiment on people's views of cars. How do people see cars? What do they see when they encounter cars? But then I tell them that I'm only interested in testimony from people who have seen red cars. And if someone hasn't seen a red car then "You can't help me." Then, after gathering the "data" from different people's testimonies, I would conclude that cars are red. Does that seem like a valid experiment to you?

You're absolutely right. I do apologize for the wording on this. This experiment will only shine light on God if God's nature is ultimately "red" like the car.

This experiment is "about" red cars. You're absolutely right. I just can't think of a way to do any experiment about God as a whole, and I feel limited by the kind of data I can collect.

Please, please, please, make a better experiment if you can think of one. I welcome your criticism, and I agree with you 100%. I can't think of anything better, and I prefer a start.

You're making valid points about the types of conclusions we can draw from "the data" (see below for more on that). It is not my intention to say this "data" is about God. This data is about a something that people interact with. See below.

I am not a pantheist. I'm a panentheist. I do believe that God interacts with me and all creation.

By "deity" you seem to mean an anthropomorphic being with supernatural powers. Yes, I've had visions of such things. They are not God by my interpretation. How could anything so limited possibly be considered God?

You may be right. You may be wrong. Obviously, I have no idea. All I want to know is how people interact with that thing, whatever it is. It seems likely to me that a lot of people call that "deity" God. But I do apologize for the rudimentary language on this post.

I believe I was careful to phrase any conclusions drawn from the data as hypotheticals, ie "if we get this result some would choose to see it as..." Data is meaningless alone, my friend. Data like this can be seen as evidence for a whole ton of contradicting theories. But I'm ok with that, I really think it's about time people started to look at religion from a viewpoint that attempts to be a bit more objective (as much as I hate that word). I use objective to mean fair to many beliefs, but I cannot hardly claim to be objective myself.

CV

 

[lilithu]

How are you all distinguishing between "deity" and "god"?

I am not. Some people seem to be certain of a difference.

 

[lilithu]

Obviously, if you're certain in your panentheism, this experiment seems to have no use. But I do not share that certainty. Please see below.

No, I'm not certain of anything. I'm just arguing to have my perspective heard when the discussion is about God. See below.

You're absolutely right. I do apologize for the wording on this. This experiment will only shine light on God if God's nature is ultimately "red" like the car.

OK.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

No, I'm not certain of anything. I'm just arguing to have my perspective heard when the discussion is about God. See below.


OK.

Hahaha, were you imitating me with the "see below."

Well, some people write in article format, others write in response format. I could probably have uh organized that better, but I prefer the random brain-fart, stream of consciouness format.

Also, I love my cat.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I am not. Some people seem to be certain of a difference.

Yeah... the language of this post is really rudimentary. Crap. Anyway, I guess I'm only really talking about experiences with a "deity," or panentheistic thingamajig. (now that is even less precise - maybe the word I'm looking for is "higher being.")

CV

 

[Baerly]

Moses did.

Hi, How are you?

Would you please give me a verse saying Moses seen God?

(Ex.3) tells us Moses sees a burning bush (An angel). Then The Lord speaks from the bush. But it does not say Moses seen God.

(Ex.34:8) tells us that Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshipped. Before that The Lord was in a cloud (34:5).

If Moses seen God, He would have to had died at that time. That might have been what happen on Mt. Nebo (Deut.34:1-5). I cannot tell from the text.

Baerly

 

[Draka]

Oh boy. Okay, let me preface my response here with a definition of what I believe, since labels are not working here. I'm sure that I will fall under different labels from differrent people too.

I believe in an energy of sorts that permeates through all life. This is what I refer to as both Source and Divine interchangably. This Source is the essence of life, the spirit/soul. It is what makes up the link between and within all existence. I am as much connected and a part of other people, as trees and plant life, as the water flowing through the land and the life within it, as the animals grazing on the land, which is also permeated by this energy. It flows through and is a part of everything. My thought of spirit can best be equivocated to a wave on the ocean. It is a singular wave, with its own power and force, but is a part of the rest of the ocean and therefore connected to all other waves. It eventually falls and returns to the general energy of the ocean until energy rises up again and produces another wave. So is reincarnation. Energy is never ending, only forever changing.

Since everyone's spirit encounters different experiences and accumulates different knowledge, it is all lended to the Source as a whole. One can "tap into" the Divine nature of this and pull from the experience and knowledge of all. In order for some to try to communicate with the whole Source, which is overwhelming, it becomes easier for humans to visualize a simpler form, a manifestation of sorts, of this energy. Our own spirit and mind help create the manifestation of the attributes that we most want to associate with. Whether apparition happens or not depends on the spirit, the willingness of the mind to actually see something, or if the person really feels it's necessary to see something. I don't believe in it being a "god" really, but the energy prevalent in life that some conceptualize and need/want to be their "god/gods".

Thusly, visualizations of "god" are whatever is most accepted or easy to connect with for the person visualizing. Personally I visualize a man and a woman, younger, about 25 to 35 in appearance. Parental and loving. They have no distinct or definite faces or specific form though. The feeling and knowledge I receive is more important than the appearance of what cannot be wholly fathomed anyway.

 

[elwedriddsche]

There is one pre-condition to this experiment. This requisite pre-condition is very different from experiments in the material world: true desire.

Then count me out.

By prayer, I mean just ask God for what you want, talk about your feelings with God. If you feel comfortable doing the following, apologize for not being a better person in specific ways.

If I want to ruminate about my wants and feelings or work on self-improvement, I can do so without an imaginary intercessor. A real-life friend may help, though.

You really have nothing to lose but a few minutes of time and everything to gain.

Pascal's Wager...

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Then count me out.

You are officially counted out.

If I want to ruminate about my wants and feelings or work on self-improvement, I can do so without an imaginary intercessor. A real-life friend may help, though.

I know you can. I like fleshly friends also. I'm presenting this to support the statement that you can only gain from this experiment.

Another guy who did the experiment didn't see God but enjoyed the time to ruminate.

Pascal's Wager...

No, that is not intended to be Pascal's Wager. What I am saying is that if you see God, the experience is really cool and feels like a revelation of something always known (at least to everyone I know). If you don't see God, you ruminate. That is the meaning of the statement you can only lose half an hour of your time over the course of a week and have everything to gain.

I believe we are all going to heaven, so I personally dismiss this "scare the non-believers with hell" nonsense.

CV