I need some feedback on the assertion that Pantheists have proof of their god because their god is nature. This was brought up by someone on a forum after my response to a Creationist when I said that there is no proof for any gods (and alluded specifically to Abrahamic gods). The poster said that there is no proof for ANTHROPOMORPHIC gods - but then suggests that Pantheists have proof of their god because nature is god to them and nature exists.

Thoughts? Counter-arguments?

Tags: argument, evidence, existence, god, nature, pantheism, pantheists, proof

Views: 1020

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's kinda self-explanatory, Jared - "artifice," "artificial?" Bogus.

But don't expect him to always make sense.

I see. The definition I read was a bit misleading.  I sort of figured thats what it was meant. Thanks

Created, contrived, out-of-one's-head, fabricated....

Nature exists on its own. It just is. Artifice is made by someone. Just as "art" doesn't just happen; someone makes it. The terms are related. Artifice is the practice of making artficial things, man-made things as we normally think of it, though the religious person might say that God made the universe, in which case the universe is artificial in some sense of the word.

I think it comes down to:

"...but then suggests that Pantheists have proof of their god because nature is god to them and nature exists."

Sicilian lemon cheesecake is heaven to me, ergo heaven must exist.  Works for me!

Sounds delicious :)

Who of what created Nature?

Perhaps they are atheists and just don't realize it. Science studies their god, so science should be their "religion".

ok i have found the best response; 

"if we are going to say god is nature ,why dont we just use the word nature"

:

yes...I believe in nature (if we leave out the mother.)

These are the sorts of linguistic sparring matches you end up with as you keep removing any characteristics that would be unique to the word "God". In other words, God keeps getting "defined down" as science advances and the gaps he has to hide in continue to close. Vengeful, meddling OT God becomes God-man (Jesus) becomes God-by-proxy (the Pope, the Church) becomes God-in-the-Word (Bible) becomes watchmaker God becomes God-as-nature and so on down through history. Eventually he doesn't really have any discernible characteristics at all; he's just equivalent to nature or the universe or some pseudo-philosophical concept so vague as to be meaningless (like "the Ground of all Being").

At least among educated people, that is. Lucky us, millions of people continue to insist he answers prayer and works miracles and such.

It seems to me that nature as God is how most of human history has understood God. People get struck by lightning or wiped out by storms or destroyed by earthquakes or starved by famines; that was all God's doing. It's only in more recent times that we've figured out the mysteries behind those natural events, and understood that trying to anthropomorphizing such events made no sense.

RSS

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service