Welcome!

Classical Pantheism is a way of thinking, philosophy, view of the world and/or a realization that could fill-in the gap between scientific fact and the mysterious, it offers a different point-view that's other than atheism or theism, religious or skeptic, one that doesn't entail having to believe in a god or not believing in one. Classical Pantheism is broadly and loosely defined, thus is simple and all-inclusive leaving the details up to you.

Find a more precise definition of Classical Pantheism and what the omniverse using the tabs above.

Please note: The majority of the articles were migrated here from my other website which I shut down.
Below, find the most recent articles. Use the navigation options above and in the right-hand side bar to browse articles and information.
Showing posts with label Pantheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pantheism. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Who Coined the Term Pantheist?


The term “pantheist” was used first by an Irish writer named John Toland in 1705. He defined a pantheist as one who beleives:
in no other eternal being but the universe
This is a simple definition that describes both scientific pantheism and classical/mystical pantheism.

Is Pantheism the Same as Panentheism?


No. A lot of confusion exists between pantheism and panentheism. Here’s a clarification:
Pantheism:  “God is the whole”. God is synonymous with the Omniverse. The Omniverse is practically the whole itself, the one itself. If you have to use the word god in Pantheism then the omniverse and god are coextensive.
Panentheism: “The whole is in God”. The universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. God is not necessarily the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, some versions positing the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the universe/cosmos exists within God, who in turn “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. God is greater than the universe and some forms hold that the universe is contained within God.
Pantheists do not worry about god watching them, judging them, who god is, god is not  a person to them. They view the Omniverse as a whole oneness as ALL THERE IS. The one infinite eternal Omniverse always was and always will be what is.
You will find pantheists or pantheistic ideas within these religions: Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Neopaganism,  Theosophy, Gaia theory, Unitarian Universalists, Sufism, traditional and folk religions including African traditional religions and Native American religions.
On the other hand, Panenthesits do refer to God often and view this god in a fashion more similar to the Abrahamic religions, as an encompassing force or a creator, one that transcends the creation (but is not it). You will see panentheists within these religions: Christianity, Islam (Ismaili doctrine, Sufism [universal sufism] and Shi’ism), Judaism, Hinduism, Bahá’í Faith, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and Kabbalism
Updated Dec 19, 2010

Is Pantheism Nondualistic?


Generally yes, by examining the excerpt from wikipedia below discussing non-dualism and monism you’ll find that pantheism (which is monotheistic) is non-dualism.
The philosophical concept of monismis similar to nondualism. Some forms of monism hold that all phenomena are actually of the same substance. Other forms of monism including attributive monism and idealism are similar concepts to nondualism. Nondualism proper holds that different phenomena are inseparable or that there is no hard line between them, but not that they are the same. The distinction between these two types of views is considered critical in Zen, Madhyamika, and Dzogchen, all of which are nondualisms proper. Some later philosophical approaches also attempt to undermine traditional dichotomies, with the view they are fundamentally invalid or inaccurate. For example, one typical form ofdeconstruction is the critique of binary oppositions within a text whileproblematizationquestions the context or situation in which concepts such as dualisms occur. **
Borrowing from the lexicon, you can find the definition of Dualism and nondualism below.
Dualism: The doctrine that reality consists of two basic opposing elements, often taken to be mind and matter (or mind and body), or good and evil. Dualism denotes a state of two parts. The word’s origin is the Latin duo, “two” . The term ‘dualism’ was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in general usage.
Nondualism: Is the implication that things appear distinct while not being separate. The belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena; that things such as mind and body may remain distinct while not actually being separate.
It may be debated that Scientific Pantheists are Materialistic Nondualists (the physical Universe is one and all). I believe that Classical Pantheists are Spiritual Nondualists(the spirit/the substance/the force/the conscious Universe is all and one) and Classical Pantheists can be thought of as Spiritual Monotheists as well. The definition of Universe is what varies between them.
It is my personal opinion that Universe, itself is consciousness, or conscious spirit. So am I, so are you, thus all is connected (not separate, ONE), yet distinct. This distinction may be a necessary ilusion for the Universe/god to experience its existence, or perhaps this distinction is solely a product of the ego.  Thinking, words, ideas (such as this article) are also used and created by the ego.  Many people identify as the ego (identify themselves as their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, emotions).   This is my personal opinion as of 2/28/2010. Any addendums will be posted as comments below.
Find up to date definitions of these and other terms in the lexicon
You may find this article interesting Is Pantheism Monotheistic?

Is Pantheism Monotheistic?


Yes but not exactly:
1- If you examine the definition of Monism, below, you’ll find that Pantheism is monotheistic.
Monism: Any philosophical system asserting the essential unity of things, i.e., that all things belong to one category – material (materialism), mental (idealism), spiritual (pantheism), or some other essence. Monism is contrasted with the various kinds of dualism. The doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element.  Is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions.
2- However, Pantheism is not “theistic”. It is META-theism, META meaning: beyond, outside and above ordinary theism.
A Pantheist views the Omniverse as a spiritual unity, which could be equated to the idea of the one theistic god but is better understood beyond and above the ordinary accepted understanding of theism.
Find more definitions in the lexicon
Updated: Dec 19, 2010

The Scientific Pantheist Universe vs. Classical Pantheist Universe


Scientific Pantheists say:
The universe exists for itself, without cause or purpose. Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause. Nothing exists outside it that could be the source of its purpose *1
In my opinion, the statement above can be rewritten as follows to suite a Classical Pantheist:
The Omniverse exists for itself. Nothing exists outside of it that could be the source of it. The Omniverse is eternal**.
** eternal means: Without beginning or end of existence; always existing, everlasting.
This statement is my personal view of what the Classical Pantheist view of the Omniverse (i.e. the Pantheist equivalent of the god) is.
In my statement I purposefully avoided discussing the “Universe’s purpose”. I think it is speculative to assume that the Universe has no purpose or that we can comprehend what its purpose is, or is not, if one(s) existed. Since I do not have sufficient knowledge, I am comfortable leaving speculation (regarding purpose) out of this statement. Further I use the word Omniverse, not Universe as the Omniverse is a better word to describe all of existence and everything that ever did or will exist, including multiple universes.
Humans have a need and strong urge to know the origin of things, the purpose behind things existing and what caused  these things to exist (the cause of things). Thus, understandably, we are uncomfortable with concepts such as eternity, infinity and simply not knowing.  This driving need inside of us to know, to understand “cause” and “purpose” is a hallmark of what makes us human. We can all identify with this desire to know.
When primitive people saw a comet (eclipses, shooting stars, lightning or felt the destruction of earthquakes or volcanoes etc..) they assumed that some god(s) was behind such event(s) and that this god must have had a message or a cause that prompted her/him to take such action. Their gods were anthropomorphic (with human-like characteristics). Their need to know the cause and purpose of things coupled with their lack of information prompted them to seek supernatural gods as the cause. These pre-scientific humans made up (and found) their cause and purpose.
Today, our quest goes on. Scientists are more driven than ever to study the origins of life, the beginnings of our universe, as well as the future of the universe and life. In doing so, we continue to seek the (and assume that there is a) purpose and a cause for everything, including the Universe and life.  The Omniverse is eternal, ever lasting, infinite. The definition above does not claim to know its purpose or even if one exist.
Nowadays, many (similarly to pre-scientific humans) assume God is eternal, has a purpose and is the cause for (is the creator of) the universe and life, based on their limited definition of universe and life. However, as I have shown under the label of “Classical Pantheism” a creator God is not needed once one defines the Omniverse.
Pantheists do not assume the existence (nor do they need to) of the Abrahamic God. Once one accepts the notion that there is something that exists that is eternal and infinite (i.e. as people that believe in an Abrahamic God do), it becomes imminently clear how this eternal and infinite thing is the Omniverse itself.  The Omniverse does not need a creator because it is eternal, and is infinite as well. Both Classical and Scientific Pantheists agree that a man-made anthropomorphic creator or Abrahamic God is not needed to explain the Omniverse or universe.
Let’s celebrate our commonalities, not differences of opinion.
Read more about the Pantheist God, here and the Pantheist Universe, here.
* 1 – from http://www.pantheism.net/paul/cause.htm retrieved 02/17/2010
Updated: Dec 19, 2010

What is the Definition of Deism?


Many confuse Theism/Atheism/Pantheism and Deism. I’ve even seen deists contradict their own definition of God’s intervention in their world (i.e. miracles & personal relationship with God) . This article will define Deism to clarify how it differs from Theism and other “ism’s”:
Let’s start with these definitions:
  • deist – a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it *1
  • deist – of or relating to deism *1
  • deism – the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation *2
  • Concept of God during the scientific revolution; the role of divinity was limited to setting natural laws in motion. *3
  • Deism is a category of belief in god (Spirit, Deity, ground of being, Dao, etc…) based on reason, experience, and the observation of nature. *4
  • A movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe *5
In the simplest terms, Deism is the belief in a God that created the universe and thenabandoned it. Deists understand God through: one’s own reasoning, logic, the study of nature and one’s accumulated experiences. Deism does not accept that any holy book or scriptures is the word of God. Deists do not accept revelation or miracles. Deists do not believe that God intervenes or interferes with anything in the Universe.
The analogy often used to explain Deism is that of a clock maker (god) who constructs a [perfect?] watch (world/universe) and then leaves it, allowing it to operate on its own.
Deism was popular during the Enlightenment period.
FAQ: Compare Deism with Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism & Pantheism:
  • Deism: is a Rational based category of belief in god (that created the universe and then abandoned it). Deists come to their conclusions using their own reasoning, thus their conclusions are different.
  • Strong Atheism: is a Rational based category of belief that asserts that God (or any supreme being) does nott exist.
  • Agnosticism: is a Rational based category of belief that asserts a lack of knowledge about god thus Agnostics are not sure.
  • Pantheism: is a Rational based category of belief in god (where God and the Universe are identical). This website (Pantheism Today) has many articles on Pantheism that will give you a better understanding of what Pantheism exactly is .
  • Theism: In a specific sense is a Traditional and scriptural based category of belief in God, (read more on Theism here)
FAQ: Is Deism a religion or a philosophy?
Some Deists believe that it is a religion, and some say it is just a philosophy. It is up to individual Deists to decide whether it is a religion or philosophy *6
Sources:
  1. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  2. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  3. https://nisd.schoolnet.com/Outreach/Content/ServeAttachment.aspx
  4. http://panendeism.org
  5. home.att.net/~tangents/data/rlgdef.htm
  6. http://deist.info/deism-frequently-asked-questions.html





Comments copied from the old website:

  1. 1
    K. Mapson Says:
    And what about pandeism? It actually seems weird to me that a website on pantheism would even mention deism without expanding on pandeism.
  2. 2
    Ethan Z. Says:
    @ K. Mapson, it’s great to read your comment. Thanks for letting me hear from you. This article was published just a few hours before you found it and left this comment.
    I am in the process of writing about PanDiesm, PanenDeism, and many more “isms”. I am writing as fast as I can considering the holiday season :)
    Once the definition is published in an article it will also be listed in the Lexiconhttp://www.pantheismtoday.com/lexicon
    Thanks again
  3. 3
    K. Mapson Says:
    Thanks, it is great to be heard — I’ll look forward to reading the whole of the thing when you’re done!!
  4. 4
    Ethan Z. Says:
    @ K. Mapson
    You are very welcome.
    I added the definition of panDeism and panenDeism to the Lexiconhttp://www.pantheismtoday.com/lexicon
    Here’s what the lexicon has, as of now:
    PanDeism: Pandeism is a kind of Pantheism which incorporates a form of Deism, holding that the Universe is identical to God, but also that God was previously a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the Universe. God only became an unconscious and nonsentient God by becoming the Universe. Other than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one day return to the state of being God), Pandeist philosophy is identical to Pantheism.
    (derived from Greek ‘pan’ = ‘all’ and Latin deus = God, in the sense of deism), is a term describing religious beliefs coherently incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that God is identical to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the Universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly “the belief that God precedes the Universe and is the Universe’s creator, [and] that the Universe is currently the entirety of God”, with some adding the contention that “the Universe will one day coalesce back into a single being, God”. It is through this incorporation pandeism claims to answer primary objections to deism (why would God create and then abandon the Universe?) and to pantheism (how did the Universe originate and what is its purpose?).
    PanenDeism: combines deism with panentheism, the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God. A central component of Panendeism is “Experiential Metaphysics” – the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of Panendeism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion. This is a major departure from Classical Deism. Belief in a God who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a God who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, but also who does not actively intervene in the universe and can only be determined from reason.
    FYI. A lot of this info is from wikipedia.
    I have tens of articles that will be coming down the pike, I intend to discuss pandiesm and panendeism in more detail and compare them to pantheism and panentheism.
    Thanks!
  5. 5
    Bill Baker Says:
    Deism does’nt require ‘creation” per-se{it can involve emanationism, or simply that there is an intelligence of sorts, a calculating creative force inherent within the natural universe- but an impersonal one}. A type of deism called ‘PanDeism” or “PanenDeism”.
    Look these philosophies up.
    It’s a view I also hold{as an anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist who tends towatds PanDeism/PanenDeism}. It’s what a growing segment of deists are starting to adopt, and it the view{whether knowingly or unintentionally} many physicists and cosmologists believe in{from Einstein, to Davies, Hawking, and others.} It is often pre-fixed by a degree of Agnoticism as well, and perhaps an anti-theistic view about theism and revealed religions.
    Deism has evolved since the 18th century, It has many strains of thought and a few sub-cateogories in todays new deistic movement.
    Scientific pantheism by the way is an oxymoron. theism by defnition as distinct from deism, requires a belief in a ‘personal” and interventional{often, though not always ‘revealed”} god or gods. Pantheism therefore must include more spiritualist ideas of the universe as god but also personal and parent like{like those types who spew the ‘god is love” baloney}. Deisms god is a non-personal one.
    Einstein, for example, denied there could be a personal god, but he denied atheismk and theism as well. he did once call hiself agnostuc{and atheist in the eyes of a jesuit priest; but then deists and buddhists and muslims and anyone is an atheist in the eyes of a priest}.
    Scientific Pantheism is just superflous silliness, “sexed up atheism’ is just atheism, they should just simply say they are atheists therefore. For that reason AND because they are taking the word away from actual real Pantheists and giving the publci a false impression of what Pantheism actually is.
    In Reason:
    Bill Baker
  6. 6
    Ethan Z Says:
    @ Bill Baker,
    Thank you for your comment.
    Would you agree that PanenDeism combines both Pantheism and Deism (that it is almost the same as pantheism)?
    Can you say with eternal & infinite certainty that the Universe (Omniverse/Divine) does not have [or literally is] consciousness, or that it does not give humans pure joy or love when they feel a connection to this Universe?
  7. 7
    K. Mapson Says:
    Ugh, filthy spammer…. someone delete this crap post above.
    To Ethan, as to your last set of questions: Pandeism and Panendeism (or PanDeism and PanenDeism, if you prefer) both combine aspects of Pantheism and Deism. Panendeism is less purely pantheistic as it involves some part of “God” existing separate from and independent from our Universe. Pandeism has all of God, instead of part of God, becoming our Universe. Could the Universe have consciousness? I recall Carl Sagan having intoned that we are a way for the Universe to know itself…. and as to love and joy, do we need our Universe to “give” us these? Might we not just “take” those from it?
  8. 8
    Ethan Z Says:
    @ K. Mapson
    Thank you.
    I deleted that spam, once in a while a few get through my spam blocking efforts :)
    I agree with your definition.. to your question, that is a very good question. I wonder if love and joy are purely human or if they are “universal” shared amongst animals, plants, planets, bacteria, “aliens”, etc??
  9. 9
    Rhenqui Says:
    Wow, very interesting coversation here. Very good point on Carl Sagan, a perpetual favorite!
  10. 10
    Rhenqui Says:
    I observe many animals to show what is unmistakably love and joy, among dogs especially.
  11. 11
    Rhenqui Says:
    And dolphins!
  12. 12
    WisdomeisMine Says:
    Great post, this is the quality I like to see.This is something I’ll be submitting to Reddit. thanks for sharing this.
  13. 13
    Ethan Z Says:
    @Rhenqui – I agree. Also cats, I know for a fact. When observing cats and dogs it seems a lot of their decisions are emotion-based. I am very careful to not project my human beliefs, bias, emotions while observing the animals but can’t help but see emotions in them especially fear and longing. In cats and dogs, that is.



Why is Pantheism not Theistic?


Pantheism is not theistic in today’s sense of the word, it is META-theism, META meaning: beyond, outside and above ordinary theism. A Pantheist views the Omniverse as a spiritual unity, which could be equated to the idea of the one theistic god but is better understood beyond and above the ordinary accepted understanding of theism.
When a Scientific Pantheist says “God” they are referring to the Universe and Nature only.
A Classical Pantheist would be referring to the Omniverse. The Pantheist God “is” the Omniverse itself. In fact using the word god may be confusing to some. Panthesist prefer to use words such as oneness or divinity, or omniverse rather than say God.
To those who want to know how the Pantheist God is different than a theistic God, consider these points. The divinity, oneness or Omniverse itself is not something that:
  • is supernatural -> everything in the Omniverse is natural.
  • preceded the Omniverse-> It was always there
  • exists outside the Omniverse
  • extends outside/beyond the Omniverse
  • greater than the Omniverse-> it does not transcend itself
All the above are things people think of when they think of a theistic god. Because of this some say the pantheistic god is not theistic. It has to do with how we defined the word “theistic”.
Like most theistic religions, the pantheistic philosophy allows for the so called “supernatural” events to occur. However, supernatural is just that is an oxymoron. In an Omniverse, everything is natural.. including things that people may consider supernatural such as angels, guides, spirits, life force, visions, etc.. They are not super-natural, they are a natural part of the fabric of the Omniverse only referred to as supernatural because we may not fully understand them or scientifically prove them.

But Who Created the Universe?


The Omniverse was never created. It is everything there is, infinite and eternal (as energy/matter is not created only changed) You could think of what we call “our universe” as something that was created, via a big-bang etc, our universe might/likely have had a beginning.
Most if not all theists believe in the existence of a force outside of the universe that created it. This force itself, they reason, was not created, it was always there. This force is the creator, and referred to a god.
Deists believe such force once existed but no longer does, as this force (or god) designed and created the universe and then ceased to exist. They also call this force god or divine.
Classical Pantheism equates this creating force, the thing that creates but itself was not created (i.e. god) with the Omniverse literally.  Thus, the Omniverse was never created, and is a creator.
Let’s examine this “different” concept more … an example or two:
1)
A Christian is 100% in agreement that God was never created.. that god created the universe (and life in it), in 7 days.
A Classical Pantheist is in agreement that god was never created … however, here, “god” is the “Omniverse” itself in all it’s mystery, eternity and infinity.. thus, the Omniverse is god, and the Omniverse was never created. The Omniverse is “everything that is”, “all there is”, including physical things like elements and stars and life and non physical things like time and the laws of physics, essentially “one thing”, thus has always been there, and itself constantly changes via astronomical and intergalactic events and when entire universes are created.
.
.. How does that sound so far? peaked your interest? Great!  let’s look at this from a different angle:
2)
Theists: If you are a theist, thus willing to accept the notion that “something out there exists that is eternal“,  do you see how this “eternal thing” itself could be the one thing that is the collection of everything there is, the Omniverse?  There is no need for a different eternal creator external to the “everything”. By definition of the Omniverse (eternal, infinite, all there is), you can’t have anything outside of it, thus a creator that creates the omniverse can’t exist.
The Omniverse is “everything there is”, infinite and eternal, hence, nothing (including a god) can exist outside of it, as there is no-thing such as “outside-of” the Omniverse, let’s say this again, there is no thing outside-of the Omniverse. Thus, “if” there was a god-like creator, it itself must be a part of the Omniverse, not external to it, by definition.
Scientists: The challenge most scientists, today’s Atheists and skeptics, have is to think of an eternal being, or an eternal force that created everything, an anthropomorphic thing, a god, a plan/or planner behind everything, or intelligent design. Once you say “this thing is eternal”, “something was created”,  such sentences immediately conger the response: “but it’s impossible, matter cannot be destroyed or created so it must have come from somewhere”.. or in other words, they might think “who made this eternal thing or creator?” .. These questions are very appropriate to ask, and the notion of an anthropomorphic creator that made the universe according to some design is one worthy or rejecting, as atheists do.
Scientists are very analytical and bright. If you are one I suspect that you are beginning to see the importance of definitions, and how defining the Omniverse offers an opportunity of a different perspective to many of today’s opposing arguments.
By having this omniverse, or “everything-thing” be eternal we are also agreeing that matter or energy was not created and cannot be destroyed.. in other words, matter or energy have always been there, a part of the Omniverse, was never created and is always there in some form, thus no beginning, no end to this everything i.e. eternity.
3)
Two common argument points you will hear in today’s culture are:
1- Theists tend think that a creator was needed, that everything needs a start, to be created, like a plant comes from a seed, but who created the creator, who planted the seed?
2- Atheists ask why is the creator human-like, has a personality, emotions, goals, face, beard, arms and a judge’s gavel? and if there is a creator who created it?

Pantheists agree wit Atheists: there is no transcendent creator god, anthropomorphic,  judging god, or a god that extends outside the universe, one that exists in heaven who created the physical universe(s), there is no external creator that created everything but itself was not created.
Pantheists agree with today’s Theists: there does exist an eternal force/divinity/thing/oneness/unity/everything-ness (whatever people call it), mysteries exist in the world, that our (local) universe likely had a beginning (but not from nothing),  matter is not the only thing there is and perhaps unseen forces of energy exist. Pantheists disagree with theists, the universe did not need to be created by a separate eternal god entity.
Classical Pantheism defines the “Omniverse”, thus offering a mind-set that can bridge the gap between theists and atheists.
The clue is to think “Omniverse”, not universe, not a creator. Think large, think of the one thing that is a collection of everything there is, an Omniverse that we study and observe, one that contains matter, possibly antimatter, many universes, time and space, and many unknowns.
.
.. ok, is that making more sense now?
Let’s yet again look at this from a different angle:
4)
Theists look at the universe and think there must have been a creator who preceded the universe. They are then willing to accept the idea of a creator entity that itself never was created.  All of this is not necessary if they realized that the Omniverse is eternal (i.e. not created), that the omniverse could be thought of as the creator (or container) of local universes.
This is not a large leap for a theist, they have already accepted the notion of an eternal being, the notion of “eternity” is not new to theists. Except, what they see as eternal is different than what a Classical Pantheist sees, rather than seeing the Omniverse as the eternal entity they assume (imagine) a god figure that is eternal (and external to the omniverse – an impossibility by definition) who created the universe.
This god creator is not needed, in fact it cannot exist based on our definition of the Omniverse, as the Omniverse is everything and thus nothing is external to it, and as the Omniverse was not created since it has always been there, never created and cannot be destroyed, but could change.
Just as the theist creator god was never created himself (or herself) neither was the Omniverse created herself but any other creator, it is such by the definition of the word “omniverse”.
Theists and Atheists get stuck in their arguments due to their view of what the Universe is. They accepted the mainstream definition of what the universe is. The idea of a multi-universe universe is no longer  mystery or philosophy but a scientific theory..
When one views that everything there is, is the Universe, and this Universe is purely physical, they confine themselves by their own definition, a narrow one, might I say strongly influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
Due to this definition, theists find it necessary to have a non physical transcendent god in order for this physical universe to exist and in order for spirits, life force, and the after life to exist, these things require not only a creator god but a transcendent god.
Atheist take an opposing side saying that no angels, miracles, gods, spirits, life force, spirituality, unseen forces, or even creation itself existed.  Since even the word “creation” is seen strictly from an Abrahamic perspective, another narrow definition.
Some atheists might acknowledge we do not know where matter (universal matter, dark energy, gas, the elements, hydrogen, energy..) came from, where the big bang came from, where “energy” first came from!   They further might disagree but really cannot deny the possibility of other universes or other dimensions being in existence.  They limit themselves by only accepting what mainstream acceptable scientific doctorates say exists and everything that was not “proven” scientifically really doesn’t even exist.  By doing so, they rob themselves from experiencing the mystery and beauty of life and our universe.
5)
Both Atheists and Theists are stuck in the physical Universe, Atheists are stuck in the physical universe because that is where our science is at today,  theists are stuck in the physical because that’s the story the bible tells.
They define the universe as everything there is yet somehow this “everything” must have come from a source?  this is illogical if you consider that matter cannot be created.  They define the universe as everything there is yet they struggle with the concept of infinity and eternity.. But how can something be all there is without being infinite?
Where is the truth?
The truth is always there, clear for you to see, I had a gut feeling that the universe was an omniverse, all there is, even when I was 6 years old.. I kept asking “but if this man-like-supernatural being (god) has created things, who made him?” …. We are born very open minded, very curious, skeptical, and experiential then we get sucked into the duality of defined concepts and man-made limitations.
Today, people are stuck between the two main-stream views:  The Theists see things one way, the Atheists see things totally the other way … while the true reality is in between these two opposing views, non-dualistic and unifying.
6)
In reality, by definition, the Omniverse is unlimited, too large to comprehend (theists consider god to be too large to comprehend). It includes every-possible-thing that could, has, have or will ever exist in existence itself, physical, probabilistic, thought-form, emotional, chemical, material, dimensional, the dimension of time itself, the dimension of space, matter and possible other forms of matter, energy of all kinds, quantum probabilities and astronomical machinery, and everything we know and still have not discovered, you name it…  it has it, as it is everything there is.
Can anyone disagree with this philosophy?
.
The Omniverse is the Quantum Physics theoretical Universe and it is the Classical Pantheist universe
This Classical Pantheist Omniverse dissolves the disagreement between the Atheist and the Theist
.
The Omniverse was never created.
What we consider as our universe was (likely) created (i.e had a beginning).
The Omniverse is a constant, eternal, and infinite thing
Mysteries within the Omniverse abound; everything we do not understand scientifically is a mystery.
Science cannot disprove the Omniverse’s existence, but it cannot prove its existence either
..
.
This is how the Ominiverse, itself was never created but is constantly in the process of change.
and where you and I belong and currently are
thinking, talking and
living
.
in love,
Updated: 12/18/2010 – 06/30/2011
A related article: What About Creation?

A Conversation with a Believer


Believer: How come no one created the universe?
Me: I didn’t say it wasn’t created, what we know as the universe was created but it wasnt by what you think of as god.
Believer: Are you saying God didn’t create the universe and give you life?
Me: Not God as you define it.
Believer: Is there another God that you believe in?
Me: I guess so. I don’t believe in the Abrahamic God.
Believer: If I was you I’d be careful with what I say, don’t blaspheme about God, he could hurt you, you’ll go to hell.
Me: Well, my god is not a “he”, and hell doesn’t exist.
Believer: Oh God!
Me: Yes?
Believer: So, who created the Universe?
Me: It created itself, I call it Omniverse.
Believer: How can something create itself?
Me: I see the universe to be God, and God was never created.
Believer: If the universe exists, it must have been created, and the only one who can create it is God.
Me: True, but what is God?
Believer: Are you an Atheist?
Me: No, but try to define God please.
Believer: The God the bible talks about.
Me: Eternal, Infinite, Transcendent, Holy, Divine, Omni present, all powerful God?  (note to self: sounds like my god!)
Believer: Exactly.
Me: So, God was always there, and he created everything?
Believer: Exactly!!
Me: Sounds like my god, except mine is not sitting on a throne judging people
Believer: silence.
Me: Who created God?
Believer: He is God, he doesn’t need to be created!
Me: I thought for anything to exist it must have been created.
Believer: But not God, he is eternal.
Me: My god is eternal too.
Believer: So you believe in Jesus?
Me: No, what I said was my god was also eternal. He was not created.
Believer: So you are a Christian?
Me: No. I don’t believe in the god talked about in the bible. My god is the universe.
Believer: What!  My God created the universe! Why do you worship his creation but not him?
Me: My universe is god, it did not need to be created. I call it Omniverse, and our universe is one of many possible universes within this Oneness I call the Omniverse.
Believer: How could something exist without being made by God?
Me: God exists, doesn’t he? Who made Him (your God)?
Believer: God is eternal, the bible says so.
Me: Do you know what I mean by an Omniverse?
Believer: I don’t care.
.. end of conversation ..
One conclusion you may reach from the above discussion: Things get lost in translation, thanks to one’s perceptions (mostly subconscious) and fears. People will see, when they are ready to. Planting a seed of wisdom or vision is sometimes all you should do. Once the person is ready to see, explore, get out of their shell, they will but only then.