Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Natural Panentheism?


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

Ok Josh...

 

Yes.  It's the loaded language and the emotional baggage of the WPM that doesn't sit right with me.

 

Now of course I understand and empathize with those who cannot transition from a personal God to an impersonal Universe in one jump.  I'm probably atypical in this respect.  My moniker says it all.  Born-Again Atheist.  I was an Atheist.  I was a Born-Again Christian.  Now I'm an Atheist again.  Each of these transitions was abrupt and violent.  But as we can see in the Testimony, Rants, Ex-Christian Life and Ex-Christian Spirituality sections, most people take a much longer and incremental journey.  So I can appreciate that they can't just ditch their emotional investment in a God and all of the emotive-language that goes with that.  As you say, it's ok to go along with the reverence of others, even if we don't feel the need to indulge in it ourselves.  It'd be far too easy and far too destructive to cut them down at every opportunity and chide them for their overly-emotional attachment to the cosmos.  Irreligious and semi-religious naturalists shouldn't go to war over words, right?

.

.

.

Therefore, what works for you and what works for me can be different, but so long as we respect each other's differences, that's ok too. We seem to agree on most fronts.  Broadly-speaking, that which you've described as working for you - works for me also.  The only bones of contention seem to be the way we interpret and use certain words.  I'll briefly describe three examples.  Not to cause contention of course, but to simply to illustrate that we are different. 

 

1.

I call myself BornAgainAthiest, not BornAgainAtheist.  I deliberately misspell the last word to ensure that there's... nothing ...God-related in my handle.  So it's no surprise then I just can't equate the cosmos with God.  That three-letter word is far too personal for me to try and equate it with something that (as best as I can see) has no personality at all.

 

2.

"Human beings are a way that the universe becomes aware of itself."  Sorry Josh.  sad.png , but... Yes and No.  The universe has no 'self'.  It is not self-aware, nor is it becoming so, except on a local, personal scale.  Being eternal, there are no universe-wide changes happening to it.  It's not moving from a state of un-awareness to greater awareness.  Anything and everything that can have happened has already happened, is happening and will happen again.  Not just once, but an infinite number of times. That's simply the final outcome of the math. Perversely enough, scripture is right about this. There is nothing new under the sun. 

 

3.

Mystery.  I see this as a purely local phenomenon.

Local to us personally, as individuals.  Local to the human race.  Local to the observable universe.  As defined in # 2, there are no mysteries on the broad scale of the entire cosmos, the panoramic view of the multiverse.  Reality is blindly and purposelessly iterating itself over and over again.  Cosmologists understand that ours is a fractal reality.  If you look at these two Wiki pages, they tell the same story.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation_theory

"All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

All four of Max Tegmark's hierarchy of Multiverses produce fractal realities.  It doesn't matter which one is correct or which one we belong to -  the net effect is exactly the same.

 

But don't get me wrong, Josh!

Mystery is good.  Mystery is good for me and you and everyone else on Earth.  Let's examine, let's test, let's investigate and let's discover.  Let's understand and comprehend.  Since our lives are brief and our existence tied to this locality, what does it matter if the universe is unaware and indifferent?  If we can't change anything on a universal scale, instead let's raise our own awareness and that of our neighbors.   There's quite a lot in the WPM manifesto that covers this.

.

.

.

Your thoughts?

 

Respectfully,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
  • Moderator

You know I never noticed that you misspelled atheist until just now. Clever indeed. 

 

I find it hard to imagine you as a Christian. Even harder to imagine what it would be like to have been atheist and then convert to Christianity. The only logical conclusion would be to deconvert and resume atheism which you obviously came back to.

 

To #1 I understand those who don't have a problem using the term God freely as they like, and I understand those who don't care to use it all. You know what I mean. Einstein's God, Spinoza's God, etc. These are pantheist usages of the term. They're obviously not addressed to a deity. But hey, it does cause confusion because of course Christians try to claim Einstein simply because he used the word God here and there even though they have to take him completely out of context to do so. This is the line between Scientific Pantheists and the Dualists and Panentheists. The former don't use the word God to refer to the universe and the latter do. I can take it or leave it myself. I like to remain fluid enough to bounce between both worlds as situations call for it. 

 

To #2 I know what you mean but at the same time the WPM creed is not suggesting that the universe is becoming aware on broad scale as a universal being in the way you have responded to my comment. I was just saying that in a broad sense we are the properties of the universe and we are aware and perceiving. The properties of the universe become aware of their own existence through the medium of living creatures that experience all levels of awareness from simple to advanced. And with everything playing out all over the place and throughout eternity over and over again, awareness would be taking place all the time in various locations. All of these local scales combined would be equal centers of awareness wouldn't they? Even to the extent of inflationary cosmology. I just don't see the error in the WPM creed usage. 

 

To #3 I think we both understand mystery in a naturalist sense. I have been raising awareness here to naturalist spirituality options. To those who have deconverted and still struggle with the issue of supernaturalism, some may not understand that there are naturalist options like the Pan beliefs and Spiritual Atheist avenues. However if any one like that were to click on the spirituality section here they couldn't miss it - the options of naturalist spirituality. They shouldn't be subject to only deconverted supernaturalists who still fansy supernatural realms and beings representing deconverted spirituality should they?

 

I suppose that a few people struggling with certain emotional baggage may browse through here and other threads where these things are being discussed. And they may feel the need to revere something or feel a sense of belonging to a larger reality. The Pan beliefs fulfill that need in a pretty harmless way. They are labeled as spiritual and so have the right to stand along side of other spiritual avenues. Trying to argue that they are not in fact spiritual would then work towards excluding them from the list of spiritual options, taking them away from people exploring spiritual options, and essentially leaving a void for naturalism where supernaturalism is the only  option presented for those with a spiritual or emotional bent that needs fulfilling. I'm thinking that natural spirituality ought to have a say in the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I never noticed that you misspelled atheist until just now. Clever indeed. 

 

It's also a passive snare for any nit-picking Christians I might run into.    wink.png

 

I find it hard to imagine you as a Christian.

 

Just be glad you never met me!  I'd hate to go back in time and meet me.  sad.png

 

Even harder to imagine what it would be like to have been atheist and then convert to Christianity. The only logical conclusion would be to deconvert and resume atheism which you obviously came back to.

 

Just so.

 

To #1 I understand those who don't have a problem using the term God freely as they like, and I understand those who don't care to use it all. You know what I mean. Einstein's God, Spinoza's God, etc. These are pantheist usages of the term. They're obviously not addressed to a deity. But hey, it does cause confusion because of course Christians try to claim Einstein simply because he used the word God here and there even though they have to take him completely out of context to do so. This is the line between Scientific Pantheists and the Dualists and Panentheists. The former don't use the word God to refer to the universe and the latter do. I can take it or leave it myself. I like to remain fluid enough to bounce between both worlds as situations call for it. 

 

Ok, now that you elaborate Josh I can see it.  

Each to their own... provided that during discourse, each clarifies their usage of language.  Otherwise, with the same word being used in different ways, confusion could increase.  (Dayum!  A looong time ago the Antlerman and I covered similar ground.  The same word being taken different to mean different things by different groups.  I recall using the example of 'Football'.  This word means different things to an American, an Englishman, an Irishman and an Australian.  So clarification is king!)

 

To #2 I know what you mean but at the same time the WPM creed is not suggesting that the universe is becoming aware on broad scale as a universal being in the way you have responded to my comment. I was just saying that in a broad sense we are the properties of the universe and we are aware and perceiving. The properties of the universe become aware of their own existence through the medium of living creatures that experience all levels of awareness from simple to advanced. And with everything playing out all over the place and throughout eternity over and over again, awareness would be taking place all the time in various locations. All of these local scales combined would be equal centers of awareness wouldn't they? Even to the extent of inflationary cosmology. I just don't see the error in the WPM creed usage. 

 

Once again... ok.  Your clarification squares things up nicely.

Oddly enough, I can think of two fictional examples from the same genre that help illustrate the way I reconcile these two (apparently) opposed ideas.  Which ideas?  The fatalistic (nothing new under the sun) and the exploratory (let's discover and investigate).  The first example comes from the original Star Trek.  It's the Vulcan concept of idic. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/IDIC   The second is this... http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Quinn

Do you recall this one?  The key point I'm addressing here is summed up here.

Quinn attempted to prove his life was pointless and caused him unendurable boredom. He did this by taking Janeway to the Q Continuum, which was presented in the Human-comprehensible form of a house in the middle of a desert with a road running by it. The road, he told her, represented the universe's edge and there was nothing left for him to explore. None of the Q in the Continuum spoke anymore, because all things had been discussed and all things were known. Quinn told Janeway that his life's work was complete and that he had done everything there was possible to do, yet was forced by his people to continue to live.

  

Compare and contrast the Vulcans and the Q, Josh.

The first is a fallible and mortal, humanoid race, just beginning their evolutionary journey of life and discovery in the universe.  Almost everything there is to know and to see and to understand lies before them.  Their philosophy of idic offers them a rich future of cooperation, growth and the exchange of knowledge with other races.  They have everything to look forward to and every thing to live for.  The second is an immortal race of unimaginably-ancient superbeings who have completed their journey and have nothing left to do with their unending lives.  The Q have done and said and thought it all.  They have nothing to look forward to.  Except, for the options of everlasting boredom or self-annihilation. 

 

The fatalism of the Q represents the wide-scale view of a multiverse where nothing is new and nothing can be new.

The unrealized potential of idic represents the local-scale view of our lives, here on Earth.  I reconcile these two viewpoints by seeing them as the starting and ending points of a journey.  We are not the Q.  Like the Vulcans, we have everything to live for and everything to do.  Our journey has barely begun.  We've only just taken our first steps on the road of awareness.  More about this below.

 

To #3 I think we both understand mystery in a naturalist sense.

 

Yes.  Agree.  Not a divine mystery, nor in any sense a supernatural one.

More of a path or a journey from ignorance and misunderstanding to knowledge, realization and comprehension.  Isaac Newton's ocean being applicable, perhaps?

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” 

 

I have been raising awareness here to naturalist spirituality options. To those who have deconverted and still struggle with the issue of supernaturalism, some may not understand that there are naturalist options like the Pan beliefs and Spiritual Atheist avenues. However if any one like that were to click on the spirituality section here they couldn't miss it - the options of naturalist spirituality. They shouldn't be subject to only deconverted supernaturalists who still fansy supernatural realms and beings. I suppose that a few people struggling with emotional baggage may browse through here and other threads where these things are discussed. They may feel the need to revere something or feel a sense of belonging to a larger reality. The Pan beliefs fulfill that need in a pretty harmless way. They are labeled as spiritual and so have the right to stand along side of other spiritual avenues. Trying to argue that they are not in fact spiritual would then work towards excluding them from the list of spiritual options, taking them away from people exploring spiritual options, and essentially leaving a void for naturalism where supernaturalism is the option presented for those with a spiritual or emotional bent that needs fulfilling. Naturalist representation needs to exist in view...

 

Ri-i-i-i-ght, now I think I see the thrust of your argument properly, Josh.

 

We (not just you and I, but many members) are a long way down the road from our first, tentative steps away from Christianity and we are mentally and emotionally strong enough to help those who are making their first steps.  (That is the main purpose of this whole site, after all!  To encourage those leaving or thinking about leaving Christianity, right.?)

 

But you've seen an opportunity and a way to do that... one that resonates with your personal philosophy.  

This way is easy, kind and gentle on those who'd like to leave themselves the option of a spiritual dimension to their beliefs.  This is why you see Natural Panentheism as a helpful and useful option that should be offered to those who might be unaware of it.

 

How am I doing?  

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Excellent BA. 

 

While I'm at it I'll post something interesting:

 

Are pantheism and atheism compatible? 

If we are speaking of naturalistic pantheism, oddly enough, the answer seems to be 'yes.' Furthermore, most forms of pantheism are compatible with agnosticism, and in fact, the three are often 'mixed and matched' in the worldviews of people who have studied these matters for some time. 

Despite the apparent conflict in the terminology, naturalistic pantheism and atheism actually turn out to be natural mates, with agnosticism an easily added component as well. Although the synthesis involves a semantic complexity difficult enough to prevent easy comprehension for many (it took me over a year to come to terms with these ideas), this is the way I usually attempt to explain the concepts involved. To get a handle on this, it is best to discard any preconcieved notions associated with the terminolgy we are using. The plain truth of the matter is that as in the case of the ancient Chinese concept of Tao, the English language is not particularly well-suited to expressing these ideas. 

The first step lies in the idea that none other than the Universe itself is the Creator which takes form as Nature through the process of self-organization, which is a consequence of the physical laws which define existence. Is a natural Creator inherently less worthy than a supernatural one? Is man's story of a 6-day creation somehow more impressive than Nature's story of evolution over billions of years? The kicker comes when one realizes that anything 'God' can do, Nature can do better. 

Although this may seem somewhat trite, it is worthy of consideration. From this point of insight forward, there is no further need for supernatural deities or the pitfalls of irrational faith which are required for belief in them. Reality is sufficient unto itself. Yin and yang are reconciled - atheism is lack of belief in God and pantheism is the position which Nature assumes by default when belief in God is absent.

To understand the preceding statement, consider the fact that there is no question as to whether or not a creator exists, the debate is over the properties of that particular entity. If it isn't supernatural (which is the default rational conclusion given the lack of compelling evidence for supernaturalism), it must indeed be natural. The definition of God to which the athiest objects is replaced by the pantheistic definition of God, its polar opposite. The case is then essentially closed and the objection resolved, because in this sense, a naturalistic pantheist is atheistic toward the god of the theist, just as an atheist is. Both are 'without theism,' despite the apperent conflict of terminology in 'pan-theism.' Pan means 'all,' and when you extend the definition of God ('theos') to include all existence, it becomes a superfluous synonym for the universe. If theism is rendered meaningless in the context of Pan, it is as absent in naturalistic pantheism as it is in atheism, and the latter worldviews are then seen as compatible. 

It is important to note here that not all pantheists will be atheists as well. Dualistic pantheism centers on the concept of divine or spiritual immanence, and is easily extended to panentheism, in which the theistic aspect is of critical importance. What's more, not even all naturalistic pantheists are atheistic - it is possible (although semantically complex and rather rare) to reconcile naturalistic pantheism with traditional theism. Pantheists don't have to be atheists, but they can be. As explained above, pantheists also don't have to be theists, because the term 'Pan' can modify the term 'theism' to the extent that it no longer represents its original concept. However, this is not a rule but rather an option. Pantheists can certainly be theists, if they so desire. 

In summary, modern pantheism is a wide spectrum. There are many 'official' varieties, and as many personal 'flavors' as there are pantheists themselves. All are united in a belief that Cosmos itself is their 'Higher Power,' but from there the details can be diverse. The key to pantheism's future lies in making that diversity a strength rather than a weakness, and the transition to mainstream acceptance and recognition will depend largely on how willing pantheists are to focus on commonality rather than division. In this, the Universal Pantheist Society has consistently led the way, encouraging Pantheist Unity, inclusiveness, and freedom from the divisive pitfalls of dogmatism since 1975.
Copyright -  James D. Quirk  12/7/2001
Universal Pantheist Society

http://www.paxdoraunlimited.com/PantheistAge.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for that link Josh. Very good explanation. It's interesting that I've come to that very same position over the years, and to see someone else express the same thoughts is cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

^ I posted the article to continue with what you started touching on earlier. It's a good point to make. 

 

I see that the only hit on google for Natural Panentheism is right here @ exC: https://www.google.com/#q=Natural+Panentheism

 

I haven't made contact with Paul Harrison or any of the Pantheist organization higher up's but I plan on trying. The need to step up to eternal inflation and the multiverse cosmology through Natural or Scientific Panentheism is there. I'm just not sure how it will be received. But regardless, I'm curious to see how the WPM will respond to something like the suggestion of Natural Panentheism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things, Josh.

 

First, I'll get back to you about the Quirk article.

 

Second, where do you plan to go from here? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I took this to the WPM and this was my first response:

 

 

 

This is risky ground because we lack evidence for this deeper reality and do not know what is in it. It could conceal a supernatural god, completely out of line with our observed reality's rules and assumption of consistency, but obeying the rules on that level. This is the perfect way for supernaturalists to extend a God of the Gaps to encompass everything.

I take "All" and "God" to mean reality and divinity, respectively, and don't see what we gain from saying that divinity is "ultimate reality" - reality is what we can agree upon as real, while the experience of divinity is necessarily subjective.

I apologize that I do not have time to fully study your arguments on the subject - can you explain what we can say about these possible but unproven realities without sounding supernaturalist?

 

Do we really lack evidence for a multiverse?

 

The math suggests what would be in a multiverse doesn't it? 

 

This is just science, and per science there's no place for a supernatural God in this multiverse scenario as I understand it. 

 

So far the objections to extending Natural Pantheism to account for a multiverse seem pretty manageable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

My response to the moderator:

 

 

 

 I don't mean God as a divinity of course, I'm using it in the sense of Natural Pantheism as opposed to dualist Pantheism. Ultimate reality per science has been the universe itself. There's no divinity aside from it.

But things are changing now and ultimate reality looks to be a multiverse, that is, a natural realm containing numerous universes like our own. Ultimate as in ultimate above and beyond our run of the mill universe. It seems that just as our galaxy is a run of the mill galaxy among many others, and clusters of clusters, so too would our entire universe be run of the mill when compared to an eternal multiverse containing so many other universes. 

 

So to explain this naturally, a divinity, as in a God-like being, is not ultimate reality according to what I'm getting at, ultimate reality is something that only an entire realm of existence itself can attain in my view.

Let's just suppose that some God like "being" were found floating around out side the universe in the multiverse region between universes.  This being would be something existing within and contained within the larger scheme of the realm itself. It would be necessarily lesser than the realm. Between the two the realm itself would be ultimate, omnipresent, the creator of all, etc. 

 

The reason this can be termed Natural Panentheism is simply because it's a naturalists cosmological view and ultimate reality is not the universe but the natural realm surrounding it. This is taking the point that Panentheists have tried to make about there being more than just the universe, and agreeing to that, but then using valid science to show that what is expected beyond the universe is simply an extension of the cosmos going on and on. All is 'within' this eternal natural cosmos, including our finite natural universe. 

 

I expected that this would be a radical proposal to raise. But all in all I also expect that many other Natural Pantheists will get where I'm going with all of this, given enough explanation. And in the long run if this turns out to be something valid enough to become an authorized Pan belief, then I think that would be pretty cool.

It's some what of a theoretical science based position as you pointed out, but I do think that this multiverse scenario will become much more firm in the years to come and I'm trying to pioneer a way for Natural Pantheism to adapt to the changing cosmological conditions....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

duplicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took this to the WPM and this was my first response:

 

 

 

This is risky ground because we lack evidence for this deeper reality and do not know what is in it. It could conceal a supernatural god, completely out of line with our observed reality's rules and assumption of consistency, but obeying the rules on that level. This is the perfect way for supernaturalists to extend a God of the Gaps to encompass everything.

I take "All" and "God" to mean reality and divinity, respectively, and don't see what we gain from saying that divinity is "ultimate reality" - reality is what we can agree upon as real, while the experience of divinity is necessarily subjective.

I apologize that I do not have time to fully study your arguments on the subject - can you explain what we can say about these possible but unproven realities without sounding supernaturalist?

 

Do we really lack evidence for a multiverse?

 

Yes.  There is no direct, unequivocal evidence for it.  It should exist if the theories are correct and it must be assumed to exist to satisfy the proper working rules of both quantum physics and cosmology.  But the proper application of such axioms doesn't count as hard data.  It only counts as proper working practice... and no more.

 

The math suggests what would be in a multiverse doesn't it? 

 

Again, yes.  But a mathematical suggestion cuts no ice with some folks.  Nor does unverified theory, no matter how persuasive and how great it's explanatory power.

 

This is just science, and per science there's no place for a supernatural God in this multiverse scenario as I understand it. 

 

Some people argue that if there's no evidence for something - it cannot be science.  True, but science must also make assumptions about what it cannot gather evidence for.  Take this galaxy, for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539  Cosmologists always make the working assumption that the laws of physics are the same in every part of the universe and at all times in it's history.  Therefore, since we are detecting exoplanets in our galaxy and we calculate they must be a common feature in any mature galaxy, we must also assume that there are many exoplanets in UDFy-38135539 too. 

 

It doesn't matter that we will never obtain any direct evidence for these ultra-distant exoplanets.  To perform cosmological science properly, we must assume they are there.  If we don't do that then this is tantamount to asserting that the our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a special location.  Which violates the Copernican Principle.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

So far the objections to extending Natural Pantheism to account for a multiverse seem pretty manageable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My response to the moderator:

 

 

 

 I don't mean God as a divinity of course, I'm using it in the sense of Natural Pantheism as opposed to dualist Pantheism. Ultimate reality per science has been the universe itself. There's no divinity aside from it.

But things are changing now and ultimate reality looks to be a multiverse, that is, a natural realm containing numerous universes like our own. Ultimate as in ultimate above and beyond our run of the mill universe. It seems that just as our galaxy is a run of the mill galaxy among many others, and clusters of clusters, so too would our entire universe be run of the mill when compared to an eternal multiverse containing so many other universes. 

 

So to explain this naturally, a divinity, as in a God-like being, is not ultimate reality according to what I'm getting at, ultimate reality is something that only an entire realm of existence itself can attain in my view.

Let's just suppose that some God like "being" were found floating around out side the universe in the multiverse region between universes.  This being would be something existing within and contained within the larger scheme of the realm itself. It would be necessarily lesser than the realm. Between the two the realm itself would be ultimate, omnipresent, the creator of all, etc. 

 

The reason this can be termed Natural Panentheism is simply because it's a naturalists cosmological view and ultimate reality is not the universe but the natural realm surrounding it. This is taking the point that Panentheists have tried to make about there being more than just the universe, and agreeing to that, but then using valid science to show that what is expected beyond the universe is simply an extension of the cosmos going on and on. All is 'within' this eternal natural cosmos, including our finite natural universe. 

 

I expected that this would be a radical proposal to raise. But all in all I also expect that many other Natural Pantheists will get where I'm going with all of this, given enough explanation. And in the long run if this turns out to be something valid enough to become an authorized Pan belief, then I think that would be pretty cool.

It's some what of a theoretical science based position as you pointed out, but I do think that this multiverse scenario will become much more firm in the years to come and I'm trying to pioneer a way for Natural Pantheism to adapt to the changing cosmological conditions....  

 

 

I shall be very interested in the response to this and will delay any further comments until I see it.

 

Good work btw, Josh.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Thanks BA. You see what I'm doing here. All of this interesting science that you're into is something that Natural Pantheists should also be interested in. Those who revere the universe along with those who are not that religious about existence but do stand in awe and wonder at the cosmological landscape. As you can see so far no one at the WPM seems to have any clue what I'm talking about when I say multiverse. This strikes me as odd because cosmology is basically the religion of Natural Pantheists. I don't know, maybe I'm talking to older people who haven't kept up with the times. Take the second post for an example:

 

 

 

 welcome to the PAN site. You ,like many others, bring your own take on pantheism. I would like to ask; 1. what , if any , evidence do you have to support the notion that the universe is finite??   2. how many multiverses do you envision ?? 3. do you expect they will all come to an end ??   As it has been said before ---SHOW ME THE MONEY !!!      A fellow PAN

 

So far neither the moderator nor the basic member have any idea what I'm talking about when I say Multiverse or Eternal Inflation. Here's my next response: 

 

 

 

I guess I jumped in here assuming that everyone was more or less familiar with multiverse cosmology. I probably should have first posted several lectures on the subject to provide a basis for the topic before diving in head first. If you pay attention to what Eternal Inflation is about in the video lectures below you'll see that it's just that - eternal with no end. It's not about how many multiverses, it's about how many universes and the answer is up to an infinite amout of finite universes in an Eternal Multiverse. 

 

I'll list a few key lectures below so that any one not too familiar with the cosmology I'm referring to can do a crash course and then provide their thoughts based on a familiarity with the material I'm talking about:  

*Alan Guth - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhGRV8cD_tY

*World Science Festival - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt-eGKa34M

*Multiple Universes and Cosmic Inflation - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs7sDXy5qo8

 

So based on all of the above data, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter - pun intended...

 

 

I'm still waiting for the moderator to respond to my previous post. I'm hoping that they'll watch the videos and then give a more informed type of response. Because once they get what this is all about then they have better grounds to say whether or not this is Natural Panentheism and whether or not this should qualify as a new official Pan belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh,

 

If it's any solace, here's what Alan Guth wrote in 1998.

 

The Inflationary Universe, p 251.

 

"Today, the dominant view of the origin of the universe, in both Judeo-Christian and scientific contexts, portrays it as a unique event.  In the fifth century A.D. Saint Augustine described in his Confessions how time itself began with the creation of the universe, and modern scientists frequently refer to the big bang as the beginning of time.

 

While scientists generally agree that we do not really know what came before the big bang, the tendency to think of the big bang as the origin of time is habitual.  However, if the ideas of eternal inflation are correct, then the big bang was not a singular act of creation, but was more like the biological process of cell division."

 

What you seem to be encountering is a mix of ingrained habit, ignorance and incredulity.

Ingrained habit, when it comes to thinking of just one big bang.  Ignorance of Inflationary theory, the latest data and the proper usage of axioms like the Copernican principle.  Incredulity in the face of an infinite and eternal multiverse.

 

Please hang in there!  goodjob.gif

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

The moderator came back:

 

 

 

 

"God" is the aspect that we at least acknowledge as special. With Pantheism, this aspect applies to All. In Panentheism, the specialness becomes bigger than the all - it's a convenient place to hide their God's mind and powers, where no one can test them. To me, being outside everything makes no sense.

"The reason this can be termed Natural Panentheism is simply because it's a naturalists cosmological view and ultimate reality is not the universe but the natural realm surrounding it. This is taking the point that Panentheists have tried to make about there being more than just the universe, and agreeing to that, but then using valid science to show that what is expected beyond the universe is simply an extension of the cosmos going on and on. All is 'within' this eternal natural cosmos, including our finite natural universe."

 

"Ultimate reality is not the universe but the natural realm surrounding it" does not require panentheism. I know that we use "Universe" a lot, but only because it is the proven extent of "All". If the scientific consensus shifts (and I mean along the lines of a change to the Standard Model), our rules say we must adapt. I would personally go through everything and replace "universe" with the accepted term that encompasses everything.

 

In the meantime, much as we love the idea of an infinite and/or eternal sea of existences (cyclical models are especially popular), nothing is getting formally endorsed until there is a decision by an international physics body, or at least a Nobel for the right research, though you have to be really careful with those. There might be a new Einstein along the way, definitely a world-famous experiment... anyway, we will all hear when it happens.

 

My response: 

 

 

 

 That's pretty much the thrust of it Martin. It depends on whether Natural Pantheism can adapt to a multiverse with a few changes in terminology or whether it would then become Natural Panentheism. I think that I found people going with Panentheistic Naturalist because when reading on Natural Pantheism it sounds married to the universe as all there is and in that way comes across short sided against today's cosmological view. 

 

Now did you take a look at any of the lectures I posted? 

 

Eternal Inflation and multiverse cosmology is huge. Have you read or heard Alan Guth on the matter? All of the evidence has been lining up to this conclusion.

 

The Inflationary Universe, p 251.

 

"Today, the dominant view of the origin of the universe, in both Judeo-Christian and scientific contexts, portrays it as a unique event.  In the fifth century A.D. Saint Augustine described in his Confessions how time itself began with the creation of the universe, and modern scientists frequently refer to the big bang as the beginning of time.

 

While scientists generally agree that we do not really know what came before the big bang, the tendency to think of the big bang as the origin of time is habitual.  However, if the ideas of eternal inflation are correct, then the big bang was not a singular act of creation, but was more like the biological process of cell division."

 

This is big enough already now to where the WPM ought to have something prepared for it. That can come as a disclaimer about the universe being all that exists or coining Natural Panentheism to account for it, but either way this is looming on the

horizon. 

 

Now I'm serious about people gravitating towards the term Panentheism over Pantheism because it suggests that there's more than just the universe. The WPM will probably change universe to multiverse rather than use the term Panentheism in any context other than a supernatural one. It's so ingrained by now with such a line drawn in the sand between Pantheists and Panentheist's that judging by his comments the WPM would never embrace a term like Natural Panentheism. 

 

But I thought I'd give it a shot just in case any one there could think outside of the box enough to get where I'm going with the term.

 

So far everyone's been thinking well inside the box (universe)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Another gem:

 

 

 

 Well i'll be jiggered if this "discussion isn't beginning to border on  a highly speculative form of mysticism ?? Why look at what we can't know yet ? Are you all trying to "make" the next PERFECT MISTAKE ??  Methinks there is a bit of mental masturbation going on with this extreme form of guess work . 

And the response, again: 

 

 

 

 Materialistic mysticism perhaps... 

What makes you think that we can't know if there are parallel universes yet, Roger? 

That's exactly what scientists have been conceiving of ways to do. They are looking for ways to detect the gravitation effects of a parallel universe and the discussion about the LISA satellite (which hasn't gone up yet) is another way of doing it. It's not as if there's no possible way of knowing if there are parallel universes or if our's is the only one in existence. Just as they figured out to find exo planets they're right on top of trying to figure out how to detect parallel universes. 

I understand being skeptical of supernatural claims of transcending the universe and fairy tale type nonsense, but why exactly would any one be too skeptical of something as obvious as no end to the natural cosmos?

What other option is there?

That absolutely nothing exists beyond our range of perception? That the universe has been expanding out into absolutely nothing for the last several billion years? 

At some point we'd have to face the ridiculousness of trying to propose an alternative to the natural cosmos as necessarily infinite and eternal wouldn't we?

That's why all of the modern theories have gone the direction of infinite space. The alternative is just plain foolish, as foolish as thinking that there's nothing beyond the next hill, or that the world ends at the horizon, or that the milky way is the only galaxy in existence. This is really just a common sense issue which cosmology has been gravitating towards for quite a while now.

I don't think that this guess work is all that extreme and I wonder why you would suggest that it is?

Or accuse myself and others of mental masturbation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh,

 

I have something in mind, a little test you might like to set for the good-but-blinkered people, over at WPM.  The Martins and the Rogers.

 

If they don't accept and buy into this, then you might as well give up.

Just as the Christian apologists who come here cannot be forced to do the science properly, so neither can the Pantheists.  They've got to decide for themselves and do it themselves.  Nobody can force their hand or make their minds up for them.  Conversely, if they do accept my test and buy into it, you can then spring the trap and ask them the question I'll write lower down.

 

Here's what I have in mind, Josh.

 

Copy the last two paragraphs of what I've written in post # 36, from two days ago.

The stuff about the galaxy UDFy-38135539, how we'll never know for sure if it has exoplanets and also how the Copernican Principle should be applied to it.  Now, add the following.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We aren't seeing that galaxy as it is now, but as it was, 13.7 billion years ago. 

We're seeing it in a very early phase of it's evolution, not as it is now.  So, it might well be as mature as our galaxy, the Milky Way, but to find that out, we'd have to wait another 13.7 billion years for today's light emitted from it's stars to travel that huge distance and reach our telescopes.  Or rather, the telescopes we'd have to build on the mountains of another Earth-like planet, in another solar system.  (Assuming humans still exist!)  Our Sun will have destroyed the Earth, long before today's light can reach us from the stars in UDFy-38135539.

 

Also, given that the expansion of the universe is being accelerated by dark energy, it's possible that today's light from that galaxy will take much, much longer than 13.7 billion years to reach us.  Possibly hundreds or thousands of billions of years.  Or, if the expansion continues to accelerate, that light may never reach us at all.  Therefore, we either have to wait a very, very long time to find out for sure or admit that we'll simply never know.

.

.

.

Now, if we accept that we'll never know if UDFy-38135539 has exoplanets, are you willing to assume that it has?

.

.

.

By rights, if you accept the governing axioms of cosmology and astronomy, you should make that assumption.

The Copernican Principle is a scientific working assumption that should be applied, across-the-board and without bias or prejudice.  It quite properly applies, not just to places and events we can see and detect and visit, but also to places and events we can never see or detect or visit. 

 

Science can quite properly make logical inferences.

It can infer from what we do know and can test to what we do not know and cannot test.  This is quite legitimate.  This is not invalid, out of line or illogical.  It's what scientists do all the time.  Therefore, we can quite properly and legitimately extrapolate and infer the existence of parallel universes, even if we can never detect them directly.  There are strong, independent lines of evidence for their existence.  Parallel universes are the logical outcome of Inflationary Cosmological theory, String Theory and the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Physics.  None of these theories would work without them. 

.

.

.

Q.

Are you prepared to assume the real existence of parallel universes, using the same logic as the assumption of the real existence of exoplanets in a galaxy that's too distant to ever confirm these planet's existence?  Y / N ?

 

(And here's the trap!)

Q.

If you do accept the exoplanet example, but not the parallel universe example, why doesn't this bias violate the Copernican Principle?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If the Pantheists don't accept this line of argument Josh, then you simply won't get anywhere with them.

They're just as blinkered and biased as the Christians... just in different ways.

 

Good hunting!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Here's my 2 part response:

 

 

 

 Yes, this thing of Natural Panentheism would be speculative and perhaps that's one reason to keep it distinct from Natural Pantheism.

 

Panentheism is a completely speculative based world view - speculation about the supernatural.

Natural Panentheism would be speculation based about the natural to counter the speculation about the supernatural. 

Thanks for your input on the matter because now I see that multiverse cosmology being speculative at the moment does in fact call for a term like "Natural Panentheism" instead of just Natural Pantheism. If it were to become more than speculation than Natural Pantheism would adjust a few things and then consume Natural Panentheism to where it's irrelevant as a label because there's no more speculation involved in it. The Panentheism part labels it as speculative about what exists beyond the universe. 

 

To Roger, I'm not too offended at the MM thing so don't worry about it. I have not read your work either. Is there a link? 

When I say the science of the future I'm referring to an infinite space model. Which one, who knows? The Eternal Inflation model is already an out cropping of the standard model so that would be the most probable to see reach standard model status. It's not really important as to which model becomes standard as is the belief that the bottom line is that the cosmos can be nothing other than infinite and eternal because the alternative is just senseless, which is why the thrust of the newer theories is in the direction of infinite and eternal. 

 

I'd say that a Natural Panentheist is simply a Pantheist who believes that the cosmos is endless and that science will continue to prove as much with time. This is a counter to supernatural based Panentheistic speculation about the regions beyond our universe. I would also say that some could be Natural Pantheists with a Natural Panentheist leaning. Eventually, if this speculation is correct, then Natural Pantheism will have caught up to naturalist speculation and then there would be no reason for a division between Natural Pantheism (hard fact based) and Natural Panentheism (naturalist speculation based). 

 

 

 

 Here's an interesting point made by a member of ex-christian.net, an atheist who feels strongly about the probability of an eternal cosmos:

 

 

"Some people argue that if there's no evidence for something - it cannot be science.  True, but science must also make assumptions about what it cannot gather evidence for.  Take this galaxy, for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539  Cosmologists always make the working assumption that the laws of physics are the same in every part of the universe and at all times in it's history.  Therefore, since we are detecting exoplanets in our galaxy and we calculate they must be a common feature in any mature galaxy, we must also assume that there are many exoplanets in UDFy-38135539 too. 

 It doesn't matter that we will never obtain any direct evidence for these ultra-distant exoplanets.  To perform cosmological science properly, we must assume they are there.  If we don't do that then this is tantamount to asserting that the our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a special location.  Which violates the Copernican Principle.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

We aren't seeing that galaxy as it is now, but as it was, 13.7 billion years ago. 

We're seeing it in a very early phase of it's evolution, not as it is now.  So, it might well be as mature as our galaxy, the Milky Way, but to find that out, we'd have to wait another 13.7 billion years for today's light emitted from it's stars to travel that huge distance and reach our telescopes.  Or rather, the telescopes we'd have to build on the mountains of another Earth-like planet, in another solar system.  (Assuming humans still exist!)  Our Sun will have destroyed the Earth, long before today's light can reach us from the stars in UDFy-38135539.

 

Also, given that the expansion of the universe is being accelerated by dark energy, it's possible that today's light from that galaxy will take much, much longer than 13.7 billion years to reach us.  Possibly hundreds or thousands of billions of years.  Or, if the expansion continues to accelerate, that light may never reach us at all.  Therefore, we either have to wait a very, very long time to find out for sure or admit that we'll simply never know.

.

Now, if we accept that we'll never know if UDFy-38135539 has exoplanets, are you willing to assume that it has?

.

By rights, if you accept the governing axioms of cosmology and astronomy, you should make that assumption.

The Copernican Principle is a scientific working assumption that should be applied, across-the-board and without bias or prejudice.  It quite properly applies, not just to places and events we can see and detect and visit, but also to places and events we can never see or detect or visit. 

 

Science can quite properly make logical inferences.

It can infer from what we do know and can test to what we do not know and cannot test.  This is quite legitimate.  This is not invalid, out of line or illogical.  It's what scientists do all the time.  Therefore, we can quite properly and legitimately extrapolate and infer the existence of parallel universes, even if we can never detect them directly.  There are strong, independent lines of evidence for their existence.  Parallel universes are the logical outcome of Inflationary Cosmological theory, String Theory and the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Physics.  None of these theories would work without them. 

.

.

.

Q.

Are you prepared to assume the real existence of parallel universes, using the same logic as the assumption of the real existence of exoplanets in a galaxy that's too distant to ever confirm these planet's existence?  Y / N ?

 

Q.

If you do accept the exoplanet example, but not the parallel universe example, why doesn't this bias violate the Copernican Principle?"

 

Martin, this could be one example of Natural Panentheistic reasoning. Speculative reasoning based on all of the strengths of the natural sciences.

 

Now some people may not care to speculative at all, and that's fine and well, but there are those of us who do and we have a voice in the matter. I counter supernatural speculation with completely natural speculation. It's well founded speculation based on pure logic and reason in accord with the Copernican Principle as demonstrated above.

 

Should this become a new branch of Natural Pantheism willing to speculate, logically, naturally? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

 

 John Hodgson said:

"Speculations and assumptions only approach reality as a consequence of people's imagination. They may be 'real' speculations and assumptions, but have no guarantee of material existence in the 'real' world.

Now, if we accept that we'll never know if UDFy-38135539 has exoplanets, are you willing to assume that it has?

You want someone to make an assumption that something exists, even though we will NEVER know IF it exists - which requires that it will never have any measurable influence on us? What's the point? Expending brain power on something that will never have any consequence to us seems like a distraction from more fruitful occupations. On the other hand, I enjoy science fiction, so I have no objection to those who wish to indulge in their fantasies and entertain others in the process. However, science fiction authors don't generally ask their audience to BELIEVE what they are writing about - or 'assume' that it is a piece of reality."

My response:

 
 
I'm not sure what this is addressed to? 

The atheist who you've quoted is only making the logical point of the Copernican Principle. We can't see exoplanet's in that particular galaxy because of distance and the length of time to gather that info. However, because we are not unique in this galaxy we can logically assume that another galaxy the same age will have exoplanets as we do, because of the Copernican Principle. 

Those same logical deductions in science point to the necessity of parallel universes to explain the existence of our own. He was simply making a point about logical deductions. 

This is more like Red Shift to give another example. It was predicted that the universe is expanding long before it was proven. It was deduced logically. And then observation caught up to logical deduction. Would you have razzed people for suggesting that the universe is probably expanding before it was proven with observation? Would you suggest that there's no use in speculating about the reality of a logical deduction because the observation had not arrived yet? 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pursuing this, Josh.

 

You may wish to ask the good Mr.Hodgson what his position is re: forensic science, archaeology, geology and palaentology - disciplines that deal with events and places located where we can never visit them. That is... in the past.

.

.

.

You may also wish to tackle him on his point of "measureable influence".

So, if something has (or had) no measurable influence on us, then it doesn't or didn't exist? Is that what he means?

 

Which would include every type of atomic particle.

By his narrow standard, they had no measurable influence on the human race for 99.9% of it's history - because the technological means to detect and measure them have only been availible in the last 120 years or so. If he says that protons, neutrons, electrons and similar must have existed before we could detect of measure them, ask him how he knows that?

 

Or is he just making a logical inference that they MUST have existed?

Just as you are making a logical inference that the multiverse MUST exist.

 

Catch him out with his own words Josh and see how he likes it! wink.png

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

Please don't get tangled up with phrases like, "Believe in the multiverse." Belief and faith have nothing to do with it. This is about logical inference, nothing more. Reasonable assumptions based on solid evidence and logical inference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I don't know why he said Believe, because your quote was strictly about logical inference. You were clear about assuming that something exists which can not be directly observed. I guess that's why he double backed and said "assume it is a piece of reality."

 

He hasn't responded yet but if he does then I may go the direction of what you've outlined and see what he says. I already told them that this is about logical inference, which I called logical deduction. I think the problem is that they don't understand why these things have been logically inferred - that inflation, dark matter, and string theory all point to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again Josh!  smile.png

 

Have I said that I really appreciate the efforts you're making?  If not, let it be recorded that I do.  Thanks.  goodjob.gif

.

.

.

Thinking some more about the resistance you're encountering, here are some pertinent questions you might consider putting to them.

 

1.

If observation/detection by humans is their definition of something's existence, then they must agree that Galileo CAUSED the Milky Way galaxy to instantly change from an undefined river of cloudy light (which is all the human eye can make out) to the densely-packed multitude of stars he saw thru his telescope.  Modern astronomy tells us that there are about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way.  Somehow, one man putting a tube to his eye in the early 1600's caused all of these stars to instantly spring into being? 

 

2.

The Antarctic continent didn't exist before someone observed/detected it?

 

3.

The Higgs boson, didn't exist before Independence Day, 2012?

 

4.

Hodgson's position seems to be very close to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation  The key point Josh, can be found in the opening paragraph.  I'll summarize.  CI says that QM doesn't give a true description of reality.  It only assigns probabilities to events.  But the act of measurement (observation or detection by humans) instantly causes these probabilities to assume one value.  That value is taken to be a true description of reality. 

 

So, reality only becomes 'real' once people observe it.  eek.gif

 

Yes.  You read that right. 

The CI puts humans firmly in the driving seat.  Reality is a range of probabilities until someone observes it - then reality is somehow (magically?) forced to become R-E-A-L because Joe the plumber has just observed/detected it.  Which explains why I wrote questions # 1 thru 3.  They expose they underlying irrationality of Hodgson's belief system. 

.

.

.

Josh, the acceptance of parallel universes is a logical necessity, not an article of personal or religious belief.

Please try explaining that.  If a solid foundation of theory and evidence demand the logical inference of parallel universes that we can never observe or detect, then they should be logically accepted on that basis and that basis alone.  No belief or religiosity required.

 

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Agreed on CI. 

 

If he ever replies I'll go that route. 

 

The moderator has taken heed to my position and is acting a little more cautious about it all now. 

 

 

 

 Panentheism by definition states that beyond the universe, and all universes, there is a God. I applaud your effort to naturalize that. The WPM does not recognize other branches - we know they are there, and I can speak candidly about them, but we have our hands full advocating our own perspective (which has no problem with any number of universes). The belief is quite prone to schisms.

 

 

See how he's decided that the WPM will have no problem with any number of universes, even though the creed states that the universe is all that exists?

 

I knew that it would probably go this way and they'd prefer to adapt to the multiverse cosmology as Natural Pantheists instead of use a term loaded with supernatural meaning like Panentheism. He's thinking that speculation about universes beyond our own is ok for Natural Pantheism now. That's where I was at before I ran into people pushing a naturalistic Panentheism here. My first instinct was that Pantheism is saying that all is God. That can mean all that exists which can be more than just the universe if existence is larger. I wouldn't be surprised if the wording changes to the universe is all that we know exists. It should have read that way from the beginning any ways. 

 

My response:

 

 

 

I'm watching the new episodes of cosmos. I wasn't surprised to see them start off with a journey to the edge of the observable universe and then without hesitation continue spanning out to multiple bubble universes saying that many scientists feel that ours is but one of many. There's no gap for a God in any of this. It comes down to an eternal cosmos. There could be no beyond all of the universes aside from space continuously fading off infinitely.

 

 

I've argued this a million times over with apologists. Instead of shying away from that which is infinite and eternal science is now embracing it and explaining how the cosmos itself can be infinite and eternal.

 

So where is the eternal uncreated God to found in an eternal space?

 

The God can't be beyond the cosmos because there would be no such thing as beyond an eternal cosmos. The cosmos completely replaces the concept of an eternal God and makes it that much more irrelevant in the new cosmology. If God is not simply the cosmos itself than there can't be one, not an eternal and infinite one in any case and then this shuts down theism as we know it.

I have backed several apologists into a corner showing them that there's no escape from a Pantheistic conclusion when facing the new cosmology. Obviously they don't like it. But they don't have a clear way out of the problem either. The whole multiverse itself would be the only God to choose from because there would be no beyond a multiverse that has no end or boundary in which to go beyond.

 

Martin, if Natural Pantheism has no problem with any given number of other universes then I guess I'll leave the idea of Natural Panentheism alone. I can stick to Natural Pantheism and point out that it covers the multiverse cosmology when coming across people who suggest that it doesn't. That's what started this whole thing and that's what I came to the Jedi Temple of Pantheism to discuss with the counsel. Seems we have a final answer. 

 

So to the point of Pantheism verses Panentheism and the topic of the thread, I'd say that from everything I've learned up to date Panentheism will become irrelevant the minute that the multiverse cosmology is proven. Pandeism too. Eternal space is not a God, it's an endless void that doesn't think or experience emotions like love and hate. 

 

No room for an infinite God existing beyond a vast natural realm that is itself infinite and eternal with no end or boundary in which to go beyond. There's no transcendent of that which has no boundary to transcend. When they say all is in God they mean the whole universe is contained within a supernatural God as if some deity is the environment surrounding the universe. Proving eternal inflation would show that the universe is contained within eternal space, completely natural all the way out to infinity....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Josh, the acceptance of parallel universes is a logical necessity, not an article of personal or religious belief.

Please try explaining that.  If a solid foundation of theory and evidence demand the logical inference of parallel universes that we can never observe or detect, then they should be logically accepted on that basis and that basis alone.  No belief or religiosity required.

 

 

You're saying that the CI interpretation necessitates the existence of multiple universes? It seems to me that it is the interpretation that allows for only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agreed on CI. 

 

If he ever replies I'll go that route. 

 

The moderator has taken heed to my position and is acting a little more cautious about it all now. 

 

 

 

 Panentheism by definition states that beyond the universe, and all universes, there is a God. I applaud your effort to naturalize that. The WPM does not recognize other branches - we know they are there, and I can speak candidly about them, but we have our hands full advocating our own perspective (which has no problem with any number of universes). The belief is quite prone to schisms.

 

 

See how he's decided that the WPM will have no problem with any number of universes, even though the creed states that the universe is all that exists?

 

Yes, that's to be expected, Josh.

Guth himself changes his usage of the word, 'universe' to mean... only our observble universe, our entire pocket universe or the entire ensemble of pocket universes.  Three different and distinct meanings - one word.  The first fits (spatially) inside the second and the second fits (spatially) inside the third.  The WPM's creed can be interpreted to mean the pluralistic third, even though they employ the very same (singular) word that's also used to describe only what we can observe.  If Guth does it, so can they... I suppose.

 

I knew that it would probably go this way and they'd prefer to adapt to the multiverse cosmology as Natural Pantheists instead of use a term loaded with supernatural meaning like Panentheism. He's thinking that speculation about universes beyond our own is ok for Natural Pantheism now. That's where I was at before I ran into people pushing a naturalistic Panentheism here. My first instinct was that Pantheism is saying that all is God. That can mean all that exists which can be more than just the universe if existence is larger. I wouldn't be surprised if the wording changes to the universe is all that we know exists. It should have read that way from the beginning any ways. 

 

My response:

 

 

 

I'm watching the new episodes of cosmos. I wasn't surprised to see them start off with a journey to the edge of the observable universe and then without hesitation continue spanning out to multiple bubble universes saying that many scientists feel that ours is but one of many. There's no gap for a God in any of this. It comes down to an eternal cosmos. There could be no beyond all of the universes aside from space continuously fading off infinitely.

 

Hmmm... depends on how far into theory and speculation DeGrasse-Tyson goes.

Re: no gap for God, please see below.

 

I've argued this a million times over with apologists. Instead of shying away from that which is infinite and eternal science is now embracing it and explaining how the cosmos itself can be infinite and eternal.

 

So where is the eternal uncreated God to found in an eternal space?

Careful, Josh!

 

Some Christians claim that God isn't temporally and spatially eternal - He's a-temporally and a-spatially eternal.  There is a difference.  They take their lead from the notion of the Uncaused Cause.  If God is this, then He's a-causal.   Being a-causal, He can't be tied to cause-and-effect (either Classical or Quantum cause-and-effect) and so doesn't depend upon nor occupy any region of space or time.

 

This makes Him a-causal, a-temporal and a-spatial.

He doesn't live in an eternal and infinite multiverse.  Nor does He require it for His existence.  By definition, the Multiverse is a physical thing.  An infinite and eternal thing, but still a physical one.  An uncaused, temporal and spatial thing, but still a physical thing.  However, by the above definition, God is not a physical thing.  Therefore He can quite happily co-exist with the Multiverse, just not on a physical level.  He transcends the physical.

 

Since such a universe has no beginning and no end, he cannot reside beyond it or before it, either.  All that can be said is that a physical, eternal and infinite multiverse requires no point of origin and no creator.  That's all.  The multiverse dethrones God as it's creator, but doesn't mean He can't exist.  As you say below, it renders him irrelevant.  The question now changes from one of God's existence to one of God's function.

 

If the eternal and infinite physical reality doesn't require God to create and sustain it, yet an a-causal, a-temporal and a-spatial God can simultaneously co-exist with, yet transcend this Multiverse... why bother invoking Him at all?

 

What's His function?

 

The God can't be beyond the cosmos because there would be no such thing as beyond an eternal cosmos. The cosmos completely replaces the concept of an eternal God and makes it that much more irrelevant in the new cosmology. If God is not simply the cosmos itself than there can't be one, not an eternal and infinite one in any case and then this shuts down theism as we know it.

I have backed several apologists into a corner showing them that there's no escape from a Pantheistic conclusion when facing the new cosmology. Obviously they don't like it. But they don't have a clear way out of the problem either. The whole multiverse itself would be the only God to choose from because there would be no beyond a multiverse that has no end or boundary in which to go beyond.

 

Martin, if Natural Pantheism has no problem with any given number of other universes then I guess I'll leave the idea of Natural Panentheism alone. I can stick to Natural Pantheism and point out that it covers the multiverse cosmology when coming across people who suggest that it doesn't. That's what started this whole thing and that's what I came to the Jedi Temple of Pantheism to discuss with the counsel. Seems we have a final answer. 

 

So to the point of Pantheism verses Panentheism and the topic of the thread, I'd say that from everything I've learned up to date Panentheism will become irrelevant the minute that the multiverse cosmology is proven. Pandeism too. Eternal space is not a God, it's an endless void that doesn't think or experience emotions like love and hate. 

 

No room for an infinite God existing beyond a vast natural realm that is itself infinite and eternal with no end or boundary in which to go beyond. There's no transcendent of that which has no boundary to transcend. When they say all is in God they mean the whole universe is contained within a supernatural God as if some deity is the environment surrounding the universe. Proving eternal inflation would show that the universe is contained within eternal space, completely natural all the way out to infinity....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.