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.
He's doing some serious mental gymnastics and going on about how everyone's interpretation is different, blahblahblah. But I'm like, there's a reason why we define things. There's a reason why the definition of "god" is not "a wooden writing utensil". There's actual meaning behind the word and he's trying to equate it with something else and pass it off as being proof. I just don't understand some people.
he playing games with fallacies.... I would just ask him questions until he cant answer them at a certn point he wont wont have any responses you just need to ask the right questions
"Proof is there or not depending on criterias. If the criteria is that nature is the definition that is to be supported and all you need is tangible evidence that you do see something in there, it exists, but if the criteria is something that requires a much more agreed consensus and involves more stuff, then it does not. You know one could use your logics to sexuality and emotions, you know why right? If not, I'll clarify on all of the semantics issues and all of the wide possible interpretations."
ask this questions ask him... to define God...no matter what he responds with .. say how do you know...... no matter what ....lol trust me
he is dumb ....its not about prefrence like sexuality ,like;;; you like guys and i like girls.. and we are both right .. no proof needed...to find out the truth... . the question of wether god exsist or not has a right answer in principle... either he does or dosnt.. dosnt matter about emotions of prefrences.... and if he is saying that there is a god.. which he.. is.. tell him there needs to be a way to reach this conclusion together.. andnd his prefrence is not proof.. to you ..
sayin that god in nature... is .... claimin that he have knowledge of god.. how did he get this knowldge... and if he is saying that its not tangible or unfalsifibale .. again he is also sayin that he has knowledge of god... again .. ask hwo does he know.. where did he get this knowledge...
Saying god exists as nature is no different from saying god exists as a pencil. Giving god a materialistic characteristic doesn't make it anymore real.
He tries to justify it by saying that "nature" is all that is - which is an extension of what people might consider a god to be. But nature existed independently from what humans would attribute to be gods, whether they're anthropomorphic or not. Just because some people might consider nature to be their god, doesn't mean that's proof of their claim.
No, but it's certainly proof that they're delusional.
What is Nature? Everything. "Pan" means "all". I don't think it does any good to call everything God. We do have better words for it. Words like "everything" and "all".
It sort of reminds me of one of the Gods in the Discworld Novels (Terry Pratchett) the "God of Evolution".
"Although no-one believes in the God of Evolution, he survives thanks to his own strong belief. He does not believe in himself, because he is an atheist, but he believes in what he does."
Nature is all that is not artifice. If there is a God, then Nature (capital letter intended) doesn't exist, for all is artifice.
I have to look up stuff sometimes. Artifice is something I had to look up. By the definition I got I'm still not clear on what you are saying. I can kind of draw a conclusion or I could ask you to replace the word or define what you said in example form. Help me out here.