What is pantheism? According to Dictionary.com, among other things “it involves a denial of God’s personality”. Personally I have a hard time believing God doesn’t have a personality. How many times have you experienced some series of events and just said to yourself, or out loud, “Is this some kind of joke?” To me that very concept implies I believe that God has a personality. True or not is irrelevant. The belief is what matters and negates me excepting pantheism.
More interesting to me is believing in a God who is not so fragile that when his creation debates his very being, does not just smot the entire lot of us.
Please allow me the following comparisons , dogs and humans, to humans and God.
Dogs and humans both have personalitys. We both have some concept, of value, what is and isn’t acceptable. But what does a dog know about the every day dealings of a human? Some may argue, quite a bit. But no in there right mind would say a dog understands, fully, the complexities of man. So how is it that we humans try to compartmentalize, quantify, define and tell God who he is?
I completely agree with you on this, and would point out that I do say 'Pantheism, or something like it.'
understanding of God, not God Himself.In my reply to @soo.chong163's comment I state my position that it's not physics that argues against God, but the hubris of physicists. I think that's also your point, and I agree. Who are we to define God? We are merely competent to define our
I also refer to mathematics being called the language of God, and in the post I am referring to there is a lengthy interview with Leonard Susskind, who postulates the Holographic Universe and developed String Theory. I consider both of those theories examples of how mathematics is no more precise nor useful than any other language, and Susskind's maths quite mastubatory and expressions of hubris.
Just because a thing can be said, even with math, doesn't make it true. This is one of the flaws of our use of maths, and I point out the problem that it can't be used to state some things that are true, such as division by zero. I reckon the work of Susskind is a kind of corollary to that flaw, in that maths can also be used (in ways we currently accept) to say things that aren't true. String Theory can prove pretty much anything you want it to, and IMHO, a lot of that is just dividing by zero.
Thanks!
Really enjoying the conversation here. It’s interesting to read and ponder the thoughts of others about God, science and math. But in the end it helps cement my own beliefs and convictions. That’s not to say others views are wrong, just different. I wish peace to all who read.