Peanut Gallery for Tanager & Wiploc on the Moral Argumen

[wiploc]

This is the peanut gallery thread for those who wish to comment on Tanager and wiploc's one-on-one discussion of the question of whether objective morality requires the existence of a god.

I couldn't fit all that in the title, above, so I just called it the moral argument.

Tanager and I won't post here until after our one-on-one thread closes. But we may respond to comments here in our one-on-one thread.

Exception: Once our one-on-one thread exists, one of us will come back here one time to post a link.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]

Exactly and pantheism doesn't apply here at all. If pantheism is true there cannot be any such thing as objective 'bad'. Remember, in pantheism God is all that exists.

There doesn't seem to be any sound reasoning in the above couple of lines, which my own post didn't already cover DI. Perhaps you can expand on what you have said for the sake of clarity so as to address those points I made.

You wrote:

We know that behavior which purposefully harms others is bad, not because we decide that it is so, but because it actually is.

There are no 'others' in pantheism. Pan-theism literally means, "All is God".

Therefore, when you start talking about harming 'others' you are already beyond the scope of pantheism. In pantheism the perception of 'others' is already recognized to be a totally subjective perspective from the human condition.

Keep in mind that in pantheism the key concept is karma, not morality.

[William]

[Replying to post 51 by Divine Insight]

You wrote:

We know that behavior which purposefully harms others is bad, not because we decide that it is so, but because it actually is.

There are no 'others' in pantheism. Pan-theism literally means, "All is God".

If one were to - as you are attempting to do here - define pantheism solely by the literal meaning of the combined words, then your argument would definitely have legs.
However, as anyone who makes an effort to look closely at that idea, one sees that it is not as strait forward as a simply literal interpretation "All Is GOD" with the additional 'there is no other'.

This was touched upon in post #48 when I said;

Yet, as argued, we can observe human behavior as an objective reality.
We know that behavior which purposefully harms others is bad, not because we decide that it is so, but because it actually is.

We also know that people can act badly with or without any idea of GOD being a motivation.

But this does not mean that GOD is not involved in our understanding of what is good or bad.

If one were to simply accept your interpretation of pantheism, then my words above would have no meaning in relation to that.

What the word is actually saying is that all things are recognized as of GOD, even that they are individualized. That there is no separation between GOD and things, and more to the point, all consciousness derives from the source consciousness. Thus while for example, dolphin are different forms than human, the consciousness experiencing being a dolphin is the same as the consciousness experiencing being a human.
It is the form which produces the idea of 'other', whether that form is a whole universe or its separate parts.

Both pantheism and panentheism acknowledge this overall concept, while panentheism extends the idea of GOD beyond the boarders of this one universe.

The only condition where GOD is not 'other' is when there are no forms, be they universes or individuate forms within universes.

In other words, when GOD alone exists, and nothing else does.

Panentheism extends from pantheism in that it allows for both conditions to exist simultaneously.

This is to say that GOD can exist both within Its mind (which is where all things exist) and outside of its mind (where only GOD exists).

Therefore, when you start talking about harming 'others' you are already beyond the scope of pantheism.

Herein is the problem with your reasoning as it relies upon the idea that GOD is not ALL, which in turn contradicts the idea of pantheism, and pinpoints the confusion you have related to your literal interpretation of the word pantheism, devoid of the complexities.

To go 'beyond the scope of' is to denote the non-inclusive. To denote the non inclusive contradicts "All is God", thus you are not describing pantheism but at best, a distortion of the idea of pantheism.

Thus, as I said "But this does not mean that GOD is not involved in our understanding of what is good or bad" is part of the "All is God" idea.

"Others" is part of ALL.

In relation to that, and the idea you (my 'other') and me (your 'other') NOT purposefully harming one another is a pantheist recognition of the aspect of GOD in the 'other' and for that reason alone (as sufficient) together we accept this as an objective morality.

Thus clearly, I have given a more detailed account of pantheism than the simplistic one you argued for, and it would be gratifying if you would respond to this affirmatively for the sake of otherhood.

Namaste

[Divine Insight]

If one were to simply accept your interpretation of pantheism, then my words above would have no meaning in relation to that.

That's exactly correct. And I accept my interpretation of pantheism. Therefore your words have no meaning in relationship to how I view pantheism.

If one were to - as you are attempting to do here - define pantheism solely by the literal meaning of the combined words, then your argument would definitely have legs.

I'm glad that you see that my position is indeed coherent once my position has been accepted. So all you are saying here is that you disagree with my position. Not that my position is itself flawed.

However, as anyone who makes an effort to look closely at that idea, one sees that it is not as strait forward as a simply literal interpretation "All Is GOD" with the additional 'there is no other'.

This is exactly what pantheism means to me, and the philosophy makes perfect sense from this perspective. In fact, any idea to create a separate Godhead like the Abrahamic religions have done only results in trying to twist pantheism into a deistic theism.

What the word is actually saying is that all things are recognized as of GOD, even that they are individualized. That there is no separation between GOD and things, and more to the point, all consciousness derives from the source consciousness. Thus while for example, dolphin are different forms than human, the consciousness experiencing being a dolphin is the same as the consciousness experiencing being a human.
It is the form which produces the idea of 'other', whether that form is a whole universe or its separate parts.

And it's up to you to decide whether you are going to truly accept pantheism (all is God), or if you want to stick with an idea of separatism. Everything is individual.

You can't have it both ways.

Both pantheism and panentheism acknowledge this overall concept, while panentheism extends the idea of GOD beyond the boarders of this one universe.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't even any need to invent a term called "Panentheism". That term is only required for people who didn't understand that the original term already mean EVERYTHING. The only reason the term Panentheism was coined was because some people thought that pantheism was limited or restricted to just the physical universe, but there was never anything in the original concept that even remotely suggested any such limitations.

So pantheism is the only term you need. Panentheism is a termed used by people who never understood what pantheism actually meant to begin with.

Think about it. Pantheism means "ALL is God". What does Panentheism mean? "more than ALL is God"? That's nothing more than a display of ignorance of what the original term actually meant.

The only condition where GOD is not 'other' is when there are no forms, be they universes or individuate forms within universes.

In other words, when GOD alone exists, and nothing else does.

But if GOD is all there is, then there can never be a time when anything exists that is not God. Even if God is taking on many different forms simultaneously, it's still all just God.

Unless you want to create something 'other' than God you are barking up a hopeless tree.

Panentheism extends from pantheism in that it allows for both conditions to exist simultaneously.

What "both" conditions?

If God is all that exists, then God is all that exists. Taking on many different forms doesn't change that.

This is to say that GOD can exist both within Its mind (which is where all things exist) and outside of its mind (where only GOD exists).

Now you are speaking nonsense like the Christian Trinity. In other words, in order for you to try to make this absurd idea of pantheism work you need to pretend that God can be both within its mind and outside of its mind. But what would it mean for an entity to be outside of its mind? That's make no sense (i.e. nonsense).

Secular Atheists are scoring big points in this discussion and they don't even need to be here to argue their case.

You're arguing it for them.

Herein is the problem with your reasoning as it relies upon the idea that GOD is not ALL, which in turn contradicts the idea of pantheism, and pinpoints the confusion you have related to your literal interpretation of the word pantheism, devoid of the complexities.

To go 'beyond the scope of' is to denote the non-inclusive. To denote the non inclusive contradicts "All is God", thus you are not describing pantheism but at best, a distortion of the idea of pantheism.

With all due respect I don't recognize your authority to speak for pantheism. If you have an idea of pantheism where the God is not everything, then more power to you. But I already have a very deep understanding of pantheism that doesn't require such nonsense.

If you want a God that is separate from the physical creation why bother with pantheism? There are plenty of other religious philosophies that proclaim that God is separate from the creation. As far as I can see you're just trying to bring a western philosophical view into pantheism. And this is indeed a very common thing to be sure. Westerners who have been raised to think of God as being a separate entity can't seem to get that idea out of their head, so they naturally bring that idea into pantheism. But it's really not necessary at all. Pantheism works just fine without having to try to separate humans from God.

Thus, as I said "But this does not mean that GOD is not involved in our understanding of what is good or bad" is part of the "All is God" idea.

"Others" is part of ALL.

There you go speaking of God as though God is something different from us.

In relation to that, and the idea you (my 'other') and me (your 'other') NOT purposefully harming one another is a pantheist recognition of the aspect of GOD in the 'other' and for that reason alone (as sufficient) together we accept this as an objective morality.

No, it's not objective morality. In fact, in pantheism there's no need for a concept of morality at all. Morality is all about judging whether something is good or bad. There is no need to do this in pantheism because in pantheism we have karma. Karma is not a judgment of morality. In fact, karma has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality.

In pantheism there is also the 'enlightenment' when you no longer see things as being the 'other'. You recognize that all is God. Yet you keep speaking in terms of others, and in terms of 'morality' when neither of those concepts are required in pantheism. If fact, both of those concepts are the anti-thesis of pantheism.

Thus clearly, I have given a more detailed account of pantheism than the simplistic one you argued for, and it would be gratifying if you would respond to this affirmatively for the sake of otherhood.

All you have done is try to twist pantheism into a western style theism where there is a God who created 'others'.

That's not pantheism. If there's a God entity that created humans who are separate entities from God then pantheism is wrong. Period.

[William]

That's not pantheism. If there's a God entity that created humans who are separate entities from God then pantheism is wrong. Period.

I think that this is where we differ in our individual understanding of what pantheism is, in that I acknowledge the reality/actuality of what is regarding our universe.


In that, our universe is both one thing, consisting of many things.

Place GOD (consciousness) into that reality and 'pantheism'.

So no - your general complaint - summarized as you have in the above quote, ignores that reality.

There literally are 'others' due to - as I explained - FORMS.

In that you and I and everyone can acknowledge we are separate individuals and that what allows for us the opportunity to see the 'same' in one another is the GOD-spark, the consciousness, which as I also explained, can be acknowledge also in non human forms, such as the example I offered, that of dolphins.

The 'other' is the forms. The 'same' is the consciousness experiencing the forms, even that the experience might be 'otherwise'.

You wanting to insist that it is 'either/or' but not BOTH, is a distortion of the idea pantheism, and as such when you stated;

And I accept my interpretation of pantheism. Therefore your words have no meaning in relationship to how I view pantheism.

You are merely stating that your distorted version of what pantheism is, is the one you have decided to run with, regardless of the obvious distortions you are making about it.

I'm glad that you see that my position is indeed coherent once my position has been accepted.

Your position is coherent as you explain it, but it is not the position of pantheism.
Any position explained coherently is 'coherent' but does not mean that because of this, it is aligned with a position it is attemtping to align itself with, coherently or otherwise.
What I was saying is that in clarifying your position coherently, you are not doing your position any favors by trying to dovetail that into Panethism.

So all you are saying here is that you disagree with my position. Not that my position is itself flawed.

I am saying that while you stick to your guns on this, your interpretation of 'what is pantheism' is flawed. I do not disagree with your position. I disagree that it is representative of Pantheism.

Like I said; Pantheism recognizes both the universe as a whole, and its parts. Your position on that matter is that it is either one or the other but not both.

However, the reality is - the matter of fact is, there are indeed BOTH.

And furthermore, that there exist BOTH, does not mean contradiction and clearly pantheism sees no contradiction but rejoices in the reality.

GOD is all as GOD is every.

[Divine Insight]

In that, our universe is both one thing, consisting of many things.

Place GOD (consciousness) into that reality and 'pantheism'.

But you've got it backwards already. You are imagining a universe that exists that is separate from your so-called "GOD consciousness" and then you want to overlay your god consciousness onto that already separate reality. So you already have it all wrong as far as I'm concerned.

So no - your general complaint - summarized as you have in the above quote, ignores that reality.

My position is that the reality you have just described is not compatible with pantheism. The reality you just described would apply to the middle eastern theologies where their God does indeed created a physical universe that is separate from God. In fact, one of the main ideas of middle eastern theologies is that the God can cast humans into a state of everlasting punishment. That would make no sense in pantheism because in pantheism that would required that the "God Consciousness" cast parts of his very own consciousness into a state of everlasting punishment.

So no, I disagree with your views on pantheism. All I see you doing is bringing the middle eastern views of a God that is separate from humans and trying to place that template onto pantheism.

There literally are 'others' due to - as I explained - FORMS

.

And there you go arguing for the secular atheists again.

Keep in mind that pantheism doesn't need to be true.

Pantheism could be a totally wrong human idea. In fact the secular atheists have very good reasons to suspect that this is indeed the case.

I don't need to argue that pantheism makes sense. All I'm doing is explaining the idea behind it.

In that you and I and everyone can acknowledge we are separate individuals and that what allows for us the opportunity to see the 'same' in one another is the GOD-spark, the consciousness, which as I also explained, can be acknowledge also in non human forms, such as the example I offered, that of dolphins.

Buddhism has that covered in pantheism in a way that is completely compatible with humans still being the consciousness of God. So there is no problem for pantheism in this regard. In fact, this is how the Buddhist explain the difference between an enlightened individual and one who is not yet enlightened. But I'm not about to try to get into that here since you have a totally wrong idea of pantheism to begin with.

Also this thread is supposed to be about morality, not karma. So pantheism wouldn't even apply to this thread in any case. You're bringing an incompatible philosophy into a discussion about morality.

The 'other' is the forms. The 'same' is the consciousness experiencing the forms, even that the experience might be 'otherwise'.

Well there you go. If the 'same' is the consciousness experiencing the forms, then all is God Consciousness because that's your major theme. You can't have 'other' consciousness. All you can have is 'other' forms. So since all consciousness is God consciousness you can't have God judging his own consciousness and condemning facets of his consciousness as being 'immoral'.

Like I say Buddhism already has all of this covered.

You wanting to insist that it is 'either/or' but not BOTH, is a distortion of the idea pantheism, and as such when you stated;

And I accept my interpretation of pantheism. Therefore your words have no meaning in relationship to how I view pantheism.

You are merely stating that your distorted version of what pantheism is, is the one you have decided to run with, regardless of the obvious distortions you are making about it.

I don't view my understanding of pantheism as a 'distortion'. That's your personal accusation concerning my views.

I'm glad that you see that my position is indeed coherent once my position has been accepted.

Your position is coherent as you explain it, but it is not the position of pantheism.

This is like telling a "Christian" that they aren't a "True Christian".

All I'm saying is that pantheism literally means "All is God". You even pointed out that this wasn't enough for some people and they had to invent a new term called 'panenthism' to insist that they really mean that "ALL is God' with no exceptions.

And now you are attempting to violate both of these terms by proclaiming that all 'forms' that have consciousness are not "God consciousness". But this violates both pantheism and panentheism.

Any position explained coherently is 'coherent' but does not mean that because of this, it is aligned with a position it is attemtping to align itself with, coherently or otherwise.
What I was saying is that in clarifying your position coherently, you are not doing your position any favors by trying to dovetail that into Panethism.

Well, let's look at this.

My position is that pantheism means 'All is God'.

Your position begins by demanding that I shouldn't take pantheism literally.

So you are already in a position of rejecting what pantheism literally means.

This is heading for the same rejection that many Christian theists have concerning their own Biblical theology. In order for them to make their ideas work they need to demand that the Bible not be taken literally.

So all you are saying here is that you disagree with my position. Not that my position is itself flawed.

I am saying that while you stick to your guns on this, your interpretation of 'what is pantheism' is flawed. I do not disagree with your position. I disagree that it is representative of Pantheism.

That's fine. I disagree that your ideas are representative of Pantheism. So it appears we're at a dead end then.

Like I said; Pantheism recognizes both the universe as a whole, and its parts. Your position on that matter is that it is either one or the other but not both.

But pantheism doesn't recognize that parts as being truly separate. That's the difference. In pantheism the separation between forms is an 'illusion'. But your position is that the separation between forms is 'real'.

However, the reality is - the matter of fact is, there are indeed BOTH.

Again, an argument for Secular Atheism. Not an argument for Pantheism.

The Pantheist would simply say that you have fallen for the 'illusion' of separatism. I'm quite sure that many Eastern Mystical Gurus would agree with my position. My position is not my own idea. It's the result of having studied the Eastern Mystical views of pantheism for many years.

And furthermore, that there exist BOTH, does not mean contradiction and clearly pantheism sees no contradiction but rejoices in the reality.

Pantheism sees no contradiction because pantheism recognized that this is an 'illusion', and therefore the appearance of separation is not reality.

When you start demanding that separatism is "real" you have fallen away from the theme of pantheism and toward supporting the position of the Secular Atheists. Or possibly the position of the Abrahamic religions which need for humans to be totally separate from God so they can be cast into a state of everlasting punishment for not obeying the God who is clearly separate from them.

GOD is all as GOD is every.

Exactly. That is the position of pantheism. And therefore no form can exist that is not GOD. How could it if God is 'every'?

[dakoski]

"Hedons" smacks of hedonism, which is a negative term. I prefer "utils," (utilitarian units) which may be the same thing but with a classier spin.

So if Joe declines to rape Sara because it would probably take more utils from her than it would give to him, he's done a good thing even though he doesn't outnumber her. So it's not about majorities.

If Joe and Sara each give up an ounce of happiness so that Mike can have a pound of happiness, then they've done good even though the happiness of the majority (two out of three) is reduced.

Now the problem is that the utilities we assign for a particular event or experience differ among individuals which is a problem for arguing that utilitarianism leads to objective moral judgments.

We who think that rape is a bad thing would of course rate the rape of Sara as resulting in very high negative utilities (lets say on a scale from -1 to +1 we rated -0.9 or even possibly -1) both immediately after and probably substantial negative utilities for many years later. We also can hardly fathom that Joe would experience any positive utilities for perpetrating rape. So obviously we see that utility is maximised by Joe choosing not to rape Sara.

But let's suppose Joe assigned a higher positive utility (+1) and a comparatively less negative utility to Sara (-0.5) as a consequence of rape. Given Joe's assessment of utilities would he be justified in raping Sara as according to his judgement he is maximising utility? That is, if he forgoes raping Sara he loses a whole unit of positive utility whereas Sara is only spared half a unit of negative utility. How do we decide that his assignment of utilities to himself and Sara are right or wrong?

Or let's take another example female genital mutilation (FGM). In many countries FGM is a common practice, the highest prevalence being 98% (in Somalia). Now I'd rate this as leading to a very high negative utility for females who have experienced this practice. So I personally think the eradication of FGM would improve utility. However, surely given the high prevalence in many countries others must think FGM is associated with positive utility. For example, arguments for FGM include providing proof of virginity (which is a pre-requisite for marriage in many cultures) and therefore protecting the linguistic and cultural reproduction of a particular group, increasing marital fidelity, etc. Many of us find these argument unpersuasive but given the prevalence in some countries others are persuaded of the utility associated with FGM. Does utilitarianism give us an objective answer to who is right and who is wrong here?

[William]

[Replying to post 55 by Divine Insight]

But you've got it backwards already. You are imagining a universe that exists that is separate from your so-called "GOD consciousness" and then you want to overlay your god consciousness onto that already separate reality. So you already have it all wrong as far as I'm concerned.

No, you have it wrong DI.

The idea of Panentheism was to acknowledge that 'Everything is in GOD' rather than 'everything is GOD' so as to acknowledge GOD as differing from things. The creator is not the creation. The Creation is not that which is having the experience.

My position is that the reality you have just described is not compatible with pantheism. The reality you just described would apply to the middle eastern theologies where their God does indeed created a physical universe that is separate from God. In fact, one of the main ideas of middle eastern theologies is that the God can cast humans into a state of everlasting punishment. That would make no sense in pantheism because in pantheism that would required that the "God Consciousness" cast parts of his very own consciousness into a state of everlasting punishment.

I personally think that one has to acknowledge the creative aspect involved with things which have a beginning, and just because the concept has also evolved the idea that the GOD is separate and that we are being punished by the separate GOD, does not mean I can simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. My job is to explore ways in which to include the creator idea without the addition of having to conclude that we are being punished by a being who is separate from us.
That is easy enough to accomplish.

Certainly panenthism is not an idea which claims there is a separate GOD who punishes, as per those middle eastern theologies. One must take care not to allow those theologies to OWN the idea of a creator GOD as if one cannot contemplate such without inclusion of an enthroned GOD judging and punishing. This seems to be what you are doing in that you are unable to separate a creator GOD idea from a judging punishing GOD idea.

In the same way you appear unable to separate morality with judgement and condemnation.

I notice that you have 'Panentheist' in the list of things you support and identify with. Is that a typo?

So no, I disagree with your views on pantheism. All I see you doing is bringing the middle eastern views of a God that is separate from humans and trying to place that template onto pantheism.

Well hopefully that is now sorted. You are projecting onto my argument your own tendencies to conflate a creator with a being who passes judgment and condemnation onto others.

There literally are 'others' due to - as I explained - FORMS

And there you go arguing for the secular atheists again.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

Keep in mind that pantheism doesn't need to be true. Very Happy

Keep in mind we are discussing pantheism in relation to morality, so as a theological idea it at least needs to be seen to support the idea of morals.

I know - you have argued that morals are human invention based upon opinions, but therein it has not been established as to whether these moral ideas actually NEED to be true either.

I think that they do need to be true in order to even be called moral, or ethical etc.

I don't need to argue that pantheism makes sense. All I'm doing is explaining the idea behind it.

Personally I prefer ideas which do make sense. Mostly Pantheism does make sense, but required Panentheism to round it out better - to make it more sensible.

It wasn't allowing for the idea of a creator GOD and that idea (regardless of what might be further attached to that idea) has to be included in the 'ALL' part for pantheism to live up to the literal translation of its name.

That really is what Panentheism adds to Pantheism. That which was needed to complete it.

In that you and I and everyone can acknowledge we are separate individuals and that what allows for us the opportunity to see the 'same' in one another is the GOD-spark, the consciousness, which as I also explained, can be acknowledge also in non human forms, such as the example I offered, that of dolphins.

Buddhism has that covered in pantheism in a way that is completely compatible with humans still being the consciousness of God. So there is no problem for pantheism in this regard. In fact, this is how the Buddhist explain the difference between an enlightened individual and one who is not yet enlightened. But I'm not about to try to get into that here since you have a totally wrong idea of pantheism to begin with.

If Buddhism is unable to acknowledge a source creator GOD then it isn't accepting ALL ideas. If it is accepting of this idea, then it is supporting Panentheism.

Also this thread is supposed to be about morality, not karma. So pantheism wouldn't even apply to this thread in any case. You're bringing an incompatible philosophy into a discussion about morality.

So say you, but a general goggle search shows anyone that Buddhism has an understanding of morality/ethics. Virtue.

In relation to that very simply question I have been asking you, Buddhism seems to support my understanding that my not purposefully harming you and your not purposefully harming me, is indeed something its supports as truth - true morality. True ethics. True Virtue. Something GOD would practice, and something the enlightened will thus naturally practice as aspects of GOD consciousness experiencing human forms, as they understand themselves to be presently occupied with.

Perhaps that is the generic overall understanding of Buddhism? Perhaps you know of some branches of Buddhism which argue that this is not actually the case? Perhaps then it is to those branches of Buddhism to which you speak of?

The 'other' is the forms. The 'same' is the consciousness experiencing the forms, even that the experience might be 'otherwise'.

Well there you go. If the 'same' is the consciousness experiencing the forms, then all is God Consciousness because that's your major theme.

Exactly.

You can't have 'other' consciousness.

However this is not to say that one cannot be a different person/personality.
That is the gift of such a process.
In that also, one can acknowledge the otherness in persons without having to ignore or deny the sameness in the underlying consciousness which allows for that to even be able to take place.

That is essentially what the word 'Namatse' acknowledges.

This is essentially the underlying foundation of my argument.

All you can have is 'other' forms. So since all consciousness is God consciousness you can't have God judging his own consciousness and condemning facets of his consciousness as being 'immoral'.

You can indeed have that IF the circumstance prevails upon the consciousnesses within the forms of circumstances to have to do so.

It is not ever the consciousness which is being immoral but the actions of the person which are immoral, through the mechanics of the form which enable that to occur. That is not to say that the form therefore is at fault, because the same form can be used to NOT be immoral.

It is personal choice. The gift of the individuate self of 'other'. Form allowed for GOD to divest Itself into the experience of said form and the consequence of that created individualized personality. Personality in relation to the human experience develops from this state, and since it is specific to the experience of beginnings, each of us are ignorant of the knowledge to begin with, and many of us proceed through the whole experience either remaining ignorant - still developing personality but ignorant that we are aspects of GOD consciousness, or we are taught ideas as to 'what is GOD' which are incorrect but we accept that from other personalities anyway, believing it is correct.

Personality is not who we are quintessentially. God Consciousness is who we are quintessentially. Personality, however, is not something which need be frowned upon or derided or belittled etc. Personality is acceptable but simply has to align with the quintessential of GOD-consciousness.

When it does this, personality will not commit to actions which are unaligned with the knowledge - enlightenment - of God-Consciousness. This is essentially the understanding of true morality. Personality will not use form to harm others purposefully.

And now you are attempting to violate both of these terms by proclaiming that all 'forms' that have consciousness are not "God consciousness". But this violates both pantheism and panentheism.

I am unsure as to where you got this from, as you have not directly quoted me saying so.
Perhaps I failed to read over my material before posting and made an error in the wording?
For the readers information, everything I have to say regarding consciousness and form is that the consciousness within the form is GOD-consciousness.

My Members Notes can be scrutinized to show that I do not deviate from this theme. Some of the threads therein which give evidence to this are as follows;

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness - the negative consequences of doing so

♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

♦ My thoughts on death.

♦ The Necessity of Changing Our Present Systems of Disparity.

♦ The Earth Entity

♦ The Problem Of Evil

♦ Cross Reference - Clarifying My Theological Position

♦ Communication With The Vaster Aspect of My Self. [1]

♦ Communication With The Vaster Aspect of My Self. [2]

Well, let's look at this.

My position is that pantheism means 'All is God'.

Your position begins by demanding that I shouldn't take pantheism literally.

So you are already in a position of rejecting what pantheism literally means.

If the reader goes back through the posts I made they will find no such things as you are accusing me of doing.

I did not say you should not take pantheism literally but that pantheism literally does not actually live up to its name because (as already explained in this post) it leaves things out.

But pantheism doesn't recognize that parts as being truly separate. That's the difference. In pantheism the separation between forms is an 'illusion'. But your position is that the separation between forms is 'real'.

One can be an individual personality (an other) and still understand that we are all experiencing the illusion of being separate, and that the illusion is only illusion if we allow the personality to see things as separate and behave against that.
In that way we can act REAL within an illusion. The whole experience may be an 'illusion' (such as a simulation) but this does not have to be a determining factor on how we thus choose to behave.
In other words, one cannot say "I can behave as I wish because 'all is illusion and nothing therefore is real" because this would be incorrect.

The reason things are illusion are because they are created to be experienced by that which is able to experience. And that is GOD -consciousness. God consciousness is real. That which can be experienced is the 'illusion'. GOD-consciousness in not a 'thing'. It is that which is able to create and experience things.

We can and do of course, conflate the illusion with the real in order to see no difference but in doing so we tend to either accept a purely secular materialism as our foundation position of world view, or we accept a type of theology which allows for secular materialism to fit comfortably enough with this as to have no philosophical conflict which contradicts secular materialism.

From my own experience and subsequent developmental of a theology which enfolds the idea of 'illusion' with 'real' I have come to the conclusion so far that whatever individuate GOD-consciousness deems as 'real' will remain that way for as long as it is being experienced, and that fundamentally it does not matter if one sees things as 'real' or not, if they already understand that it is only real for as long as it is permanent and once it is not experienced anymore, all that remains real is that which is being experienced.
Thus, as I said in another post, if all that exists is GOD and things do not exist, GOD is still real, and will still experience Itself as real.

Pantheism understands things which can be experienced as separate are indeed 'real' enough. Forms are experienced as 'other' as well as 'self' but the real 'self' is the GOD-consciousness, not the forms being occupied. I understand that this is how pantheism sees/understands form in relation to consciousness occupying form.

The fundamental difference in referring to something as 'real' or 'illusion' gets down to how the individual decides to self identify.
If the individual self identifies as the form - I am a 'male' 'human being' 'sexually attracted to other human males' '55 years old' 'am the product of my brain' etc, then yes - pantheism as I understand it, would say to that person - "that is an illusion you believe yourself to being."

The separation between forms is real, and pantheism would not say otherwise. Rather the 'illusion' isn't about the separation between forms. It is about allowing that separation to be that which one self identifies WITH. When one identifies oneself and others as the form one is buying into that illusion and the separation.

When one accepts it is perfectly fine to be a 'character' - a 'personality' when that personality is shaped through the understanding that one and all are equally aspects of the same GOD-consciousness, then the character/personality will behave accordingly. Will ACT in character. The character will be aligned (enlightened) with that understanding. This is the idea of 'objective morality'.

My position is not my own idea. It's the result of having studied the Eastern Mystical views of pantheism for many years.

Maybe so, but are those mystical views complete? What you have been arguing re this allows one to see that they actually are not complete as they do not take all into consideration.
As well as this, can such ideas truly be understood by anyone who does not immerse themselves within them but only positions themselves to one side and observes them from that external position.

It would appear Buddhism makes a distinction between those who simply study and those who practice what is being studied and refer to this difference as those who are 'enlightened' and those who are 'unenlightened'.

It appears that the enlightened are regarded as those who actually think there is a need for pantheism and duly practice Buddhist ethics, and as you have personally declared, 'pantheism doesn't need to be true', implying that it can be studied without being believed to be true. Apparently what is not believed to be true will not be practiced.

Exactly. That is the position of pantheism. And therefore no form can exist that is not GOD. How could it if God is 'every'?

Because GOD is Consciousness. Things exist because of GOD, but that does not mean things are GOD.

That would be like saying, 'the clothes you wear are who you are'.

It would be like me saying 'you are a thing'.

Yes, you can think of yourself and everyone else as 'basically apes' but we are so much more than the costumes we wear.

[Divine Insight]

No, you have it wrong DI.

In other words, you simply disagree with my views. That's makes us even.

I notice that you have 'Panentheist' in the list of things you support and identify with. Is that a typo?

Yes, now that I've re-read the description of that group it most certainly was a mistake to join it. I disagree with the way the member who started that group defines panentheism. That's not how I would define panentheism anyway.

If Buddhism is unable to acknowledge a source creator GOD then it isn't accepting ALL ideas. If it is accepting of this idea, then it is supporting Panentheism.

What you've just said here is logically flawed reasoning on your part.

To begin with Buddhism does acknowledge a source creator God. They just recognize that there cannot be anything outside of that source. That's all.

Panentheism doesn't support what you think it does. Panentheism doesn't claim that humans are beyond God or outside of God. It simply claims that God is more than just this universe. Actually Pantheism says that God is more than just this universe too. It wasn't until Western philosophers starting thinking about Pantheism that they decided to make it only apply this this physical universe.

So you have fallen into the same trap that they fell into.

Pantheism says that 'ALL is God'. Period. It never said, "this universe is God".

So you are supporting the ignorance of western philosophers who never understood what pantheism meant to begin with.

For the readers information, everything I have to say regarding consciousness and form is that the consciousness within the form is GOD-consciousness.

Well, there you go. You've just now agreed with my view of pantheism. This is what I've been saying all along.

My Members Notes can be scrutinized to show that I do not deviate from this theme. Some of the threads therein which give evidence to this are as follows;

Are you kidding me? You contradict your own position continually. You just said above that consciousness within the form is GOD-consciousness.

That's MY POSITION when it comes to pantheism.

You need for humans to be somehow separate conscious entities from God.

Until then, you've just confirmed my position on Pantheism.

Yes, you can think of yourself and everyone else as 'basically apes' but we are so much more than the costumes we wear.

It's not a matter of what I might think. Science has shown that we are a member of the Great Ape family of primates.

If you find that offensive that's your problem, not mine.

Even if a God exists, we are still Apes. That fact is never going to change.

If you don't like being an Ape you only have your Creator God to blame for that.

[William]

[Replying to post 58 by Divine Insight]

In other words, you simply disagree with my views. That's makes us even.

Equality is such a beautiful thing

Yes, now that I've re-read the description of that group it most certainly was a mistake to join it.

Glad to be of some assistance to you. Perhaps you can delete your membership to that group.

I disagree with the way the member who started that group defines panentheism. That's not how I would define panentheism anyway.

Definitions! Perhaps all argument is built upon them.

If Buddhism is unable to acknowledge a source creator GOD then it isn't accepting ALL ideas. If it is accepting of this idea, then it is supporting Panentheism.

What you've just said here is logically flawed reasoning on your part.

Hopefully then, you will show that your claim of my 'flawed reasoning' will have more to do with just the way we each define things.

To begin with Buddhism does acknowledge a source creator God. They just recognize that there cannot be anything outside of that source. That's all.

Is that really 'all' though. If it were then I wonder why you think Panentheism is not something Buddhism can acknowledge.

Panentheism doesn't support what you think it does.

Thus there is some official definition of Panetheism which can show this to be the case?

Panentheism doesn't claim that humans are beyond God or outside of God.

Well so far it aligns with what I think it is.

It simply claims that God is more than just this universe.

And what then? Buddhism thinks that only this universe exists?

Actually Pantheism says that God is more than just this universe too.

Well this was not what you have been saying about pantheism. Why the change of mind re definition?

It wasn't until Western philosophers starting thinking about Pantheism that they decided to make it only apply this this physical universe.

They probably did this in relation to science then, as what other reason would they limit it? The only limit is what science can observe as evident.

So you have fallen into the same trap that they fell into.

How can that be since I don't limit my ideas only to what science can observe as evident?

Pantheism says that 'ALL is God'. Period. It never said, "this universe is God".

Well 'all' must include the universe as well right? So I gather what you mean there is that Pantheism never said that 'ALL' only meant 'this universe'. Would that be what you are now saying DI?

So you are supporting the ignorance of western philosophers who never understood what pantheism meant to begin with.

Note to reader: As I have provided ample evidence which shows my ongoing assertions that "all consciousness is GOD-consciousness", the above accusation about what I am 'supporting' is clearly a purposeful misrepresentation of my oft-stated position on the matter.

DI, to be clear, I haven't been arguing that Pantheism and Pantheism were that dis-similar, and in relation to Pantheism I was taking my cue from the position of your own argument re how you defined pantheism up until this post, where you have decided that "actually Pantheism says that God is more than just this universe too."

Mind you, I did have a quick google to see what the differences might actually be and that appeared to be the main one...do you have references to support your change of position on this?

Well, there you go. You've just now agreed with my view of pantheism. This is what I've been saying all along.

Well there you go. I never said that it wasn't what you were saying all along. I was saying that it is what I have been saying all along.

What I was commenting on was your initial argument that Pantheism was specific to this universe only, and your complaint that Panetheism was trying to superimpose upon Pantheism, another universe outside of this one.
As you are now saying, you got this wrong. You said this by the expression "actually Pantheism says that God is more than just this universe too." only, instead of being a gentleman about it you are now spinning what actually went down in some effort to make it appear that it was me saying that Pantheism only concerned itself with this universe. Plainly it was YOU who were arguing that point to begin with DI. I was simply arguing against the notion of Pantheism as you were presenting it.

Are you kidding me? You contradict your own position continually.

So say you. Should the reader simply take your word for that? The evidence I presented shows clearly that I remain consistent in my understanding that we are all aspects of GOD-Consciousness, experiencing the human form. Even my last post went into detail about that, but you didn't quote that part of what I said. You couldn't both accuse me of 'contradicting myself continually' and quote me in context. Fortunately I represent my self, and that represented evidence weighs heavily against your attempt to misrepresent me. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for attempting such a sad and transparently obvious misrepresentation!

To the reader; I gave many links to examples where it can be found that I base my whole theology on the idea that all consciousness is GOD-consciousness. It is obvious that my arguments with DI in this thread are consistent with that idea.

Indeed, the very first link in the list of links I gave in my last post in this thread is headed:

What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

And the first line of that thread starts of with the words;

• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one.

Contrary to DI's unsupported accusation that I "contradict my own position continually," the evidence clearly shows this is actually not the case. I have never veered away from that central focus, since I first posted it over a year ago on this board...Thu Feb 23, 2017 @ 3:55 pm to be exact.

That's MY POSITION when it comes to pantheism.

Which is the same as saying "when I decide to wear that hat, that is what I argue for as a position."

But it isn't your position as a constant now is it DI. You allow yourself the luxury of being able to shift your position to suit your argument. Thus, it is plainly YOU who deserves that accusation that you attempted to put onto me.
You contradict your own position continually, because you assume contradictory positions as a matter of method, depending on which 'devil' you wish to advocate.

The only position you seem consistent with is that of secular materialist, because - as you have argued, that is the one that 'makes the most sense to you.'

You need for humans to be somehow separate conscious entities from God.

It isn't a need. It is an acknowledgement that this can be achieved. I explained it well enough in my last post, but just so's to make sure you didn't miss it the first time, here it is again;

However this is not to say that one cannot be a different person/personality.
That is the gift of such a process.
In that also, one can acknowledge the otherness in persons without having to ignore or deny the sameness in the underlying consciousness which allows for that to even be able to take place.

That is essentially what the word 'Namatse' acknowledges.

This is essentially the underlying foundation of my argument.

And;

Form allowed for GOD to divest Itself into the experience of said form and the consequence of that created individualized personality. Personality in relation to the human experience develops from this state, and since it is specific to the experience of beginnings, each of us are ignorant of the knowledge to begin with, and many of us proceed through the whole experience either remaining ignorant - still developing personality but ignorant that we are aspects of GOD consciousness, or we are taught ideas as to 'what is GOD' which are incorrect but we accept that from other personalities anyway, believing it is correct.

Personality is not who we are quintessentially. God Consciousness is who we are quintessentially. Personality, however, is not something which need be frowned upon or derided or belittled etc. Personality is acceptable but simply has to align with the quintessential of GOD-consciousness.

When it does this, personality will not commit to actions which are unaligned with the knowledge - enlightenment - of God-Consciousness. This is essentially the understanding of true morality. Personality will not use form to harm others purposefully.

Now on the off-chance you don't understand what is being conveyed here, please do ask. I am more than happy to answer your questions DI.
Indeed, it would make a nice change from having to correct your silly attempts at attempting to misrepresent me.

Yes, you can think of yourself and everyone else as 'basically apes' but we are so much more than the costumes we wear.

It's not a matter of what I might think. Science has shown that we are a member of the Great Ape family of primates.

In saying that, you are showing that you replace the 'hat' of Pantheism for that of your more favored one - Secular Atheist Materialist.

If you find that offensive that's your problem, not mine.

Why would I find that offensive? It does not contradict my understanding of Pantheism OR Panetheism, and as such, I do not have to 'change hats' in order to accept the science of it. I don't have to support Secular Atheist Materialism in order to accept that or 'not be offended' by that.

My expression "Yes, you can think of yourself and everyone else as 'basically apes' but we are so much more than the costumes we wear." was aimed specifically at the man in the Secular Atheist Materialist hat, not the man in the Pantheist hat.

Even if a God exists, we are still Apes. That fact is never going to change.

Obviously you are wearing your Secular Atheist Materialist hat in expressing such, as a Pantheist wouldn't make such a statement.

No - A Pantheist would not even say 'if GOD exists' let alone claim 'we are the form we occupy.'

Even in that, your Secular Atheist Materialist expression isn't strictly science. Rather it is a somewhat distorted interpretation of science. I know of no scientists who rationally claim that we are 'Apes'. They do say we are 'humans' which have DNA which matches certain other DNA of non- human mammals up to 98% (if memory serves me well). Obviously that seemingly tiny difference is still immense! I think of it along the lines of surveying. One might be out 2° which may seem insignificant at the relative point of measurement but can be extremely different at a distance from that relative point and give an extremely inaccurate useless surveying measurement.



Granted, scientists do have this habit of separating things into familiar components but isn't that simply for convenience?
Afterall, when we are informed our bodies are the stuff of stardust, are we thus safe to assume that this is indeed the case for all biological bodies rather than being specific to just human forms, or just the Ape 'family'? Of course not!
In the case of stardust, everything biological is related.


Like I asked in an earlier post. Show me one of these close relative apes which is 'basically human'. One only need to examine the evidence related to the immense differences in what humans can achieve to what these close relatives can achieve to understand that 2% difference in DNA is a tremendous difference.

In relation to Pantheism and Panentheism, that tremendous difference is one of FORM. It is still acknowledged (as I have consistently been saying) that the consciousness within the form is exactly the same, no matter what the form is. The form acts to limit the consciousness in the way that it can express itself through the form.

In that one could argue for example that a dolphins form is less limiting for consciousness to express itself in some ways that a human form, but visa versa in other ways. That should be obvious to anyone.

[Imagination is perhaps the most unlimited way in which consciousness is able to express itself through the form, and without it, we might well still be dragging our tentacles through the primordial mud, so to speak.]

If you don't like being an Ape you only have your Creator God to blame for that.

That is another expression which could not be made by a Pantheist. It is often expressed by Secular Atheist Materialists - I suspect - as a means of falsely asserting we are 'Apes' to offend certain types of theists who would generally be offended by such a thing. Pantheists and Panetheists would not be offended by such expression while at the same time would acknowledge the falseness in the expression and the reason the expression was invented and what type of individual is most likely to use such expression.



I will finish my post by adding that I understand you have a strong dislike for all ideas of GOD which have that GOD in an enthroned position, claiming to be our creator, and casting judgement and cruel punishment upon us.
I also have a strong dislike for such ideas of GODs, and furthermore I do not conflate those ideas with ideas of the Pantheist and Panentheist ideas of GOD.

Obviously there is more for us to discuss in relation to the idea of the Panentheist GOD since you have now changed your argument somewhat, you appear to be still essentially declaring that the Panentheist idea of GOD is an attempt by the Abrahamic crowd to insert or otherwise superimpose their idea of GOD into/over that one.

I am interested in pursuing that argument to see if indeed you are telling the truth. If it turns out you can provide clear evidence that this is indeed the actual case, I would be most happy to change my position and no longer refer to myself as a Panentheist. As I said, I have done quick googles re that, but have found nothing so far which supports your assertions re that.

Namaste

[Divine Insight]

Hopefully then, you will show that your claim of my 'flawed reasoning' will have more to do with just the way we each define things

I'll be glad to.

Your claims contradict your own claims. That's 'flawed reasoning'.

Form allowed for GOD to divest Itself into the experience of said form and the consequence of that created individualized personality. Personality in relation to the human experience develops from this state, and since it is specific to the experience of beginnings, each of us are ignorant of the knowledge to begin with, and many of us proceed through the whole experience either remaining ignorant - still developing personality but ignorant that we are aspects of GOD consciousness, or we are taught ideas as to 'what is GOD' which are incorrect but we accept that from other personalities anyway, believing it is correct.

Personality is not who we are quintessentially. God Consciousness is who we are quintessentially. Personality, however, is not something which need be frowned upon or derided or belittled etc. Personality is acceptable but simply has to align with the quintessential of GOD-consciousness.

When it does this, personality will not commit to actions which are unaligned with the knowledge - enlightenment - of God-Consciousness. This is essentially the understanding of true morality. Personality will not use form to harm others purposefully.

Now on the off-chance you don't understand what is being conveyed here, please do ask. I am more than happy to answer your questions DI.

As far as I can see what you have just said makes absolutely no sense at all.

You have proclaimed that: "Personality is not who we are quintessentially. God Consciousness is who we are quintessentially."

I have no problem with that. In fact, I accept and embrace this as the idea of Pantheism.

Your error is in the following: "Personality is acceptable but simply has to align with the quintessential of GOD-consciousness. When it does this, personality will not commit to actions which are unaligned with the knowledge - enlightenment - of God-Consciousness. This is essentially the understanding of true morality. Personality will not use form to harm others purposefully."

The problem here is that you are speaking of 'personality' as though it is an independent consciousness in its own right. You require that 'personality' (an independent consciousness from God) must align itself with the consciousness of God in order to be considered to be 'moral'.

So your idea already requires that 'personality consciousness' is NOT the same as God Consciousness. And therein lies your misunderstanding of pantheism and Buddhism.

Keep in mind that the Buddhists have recognized that 'personality' is an 'illusion'. It's not a form of consciousness. In fact, one way to think of it is the brain thinking on its own without being guided by the 'spirit' which is human consciousness.

In other words, what you are calling a "personality" the Buddhists have already recognized as being an illusion and having no actual reality of its own.

So I hold that, not only do you not understand Buddhism, but your ideas are self-contradictory because you are viewing the personality as being consciousness itself.

That's not the Buddhist view.

In fact, that's more akin to the Christian view. The Christians believe that they are their personality. The Christians desperately want their personality to be "saved" and given eternal life in heaven.

As far as I can see, you are just trying to bring the Christian view of individual "souls" into the realm of Buddhism.

If a soul has a consciousness of its own, then it cannot be "God-Consciousness".

So, IMHO, the entire paradigm that you have attempted to build simply has no merit. At least not in the realm of pantheism. It would only have merit if you allow that the creator God creates actual individual conscious entities that are NOT the same as God consciousness.

But you want to have the cake and eat it to.

You want humans to be both and individual consciousness AND God-Consciousness simultaneously. But that's a contradictory paradigm.

But then again this would make perfect sense in Christianity because in Christianity Jesus and God are simultaneously both the same entity and NOT the same entity.

Christian theists are used to embracing totally contradictory ideas without recognizing the logical flaws that underlie them. So all I see you doing is bringing that flawed reasoning into Pantheism.