God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

I like your invoking of panentheism because it is immanent in the universe but also leaves room for a first cause that transcends matter, time, and energy, while pantheism strictly speaking does not.

That's a pretty religious view from an agnostic.

Why don't you call yourself a "Seeker"? That really seems more on-point. It doesn't give you a chance to look hyper-intellectual but it seems to comport more with your actual expressed philosophy.
 
Last edited:
I understand why people of a certain nature might be uncomfortable with labels.
Well, I don't really, but I do understand that everybody isn't going to be like I am.

For some reason, I've always embraced them [labels], however.

My feeling is that if we can't tightly define something with a descriptive label ,
we haven't a clue what it is yet.
 
I understand why people of a certain nature might be uncomfortable with labels.
Well, I don't really, but I do understand that everybody isn't going to be like I am.

Most times when people spurn "labels" it's because they are scared of committing to a specific identity. It's also a means of avoiding any real discussion of one's position if one's position is unclear or mysterious or will never be known.

My feeling is that if we can't tightly define something with a descriptive label ,
we haven't a clue what it is yet.

Thankfully in matters of religion you can be anything you want. An "Agnostic Seeker", a deeply religious agnostic, an anti-atheist, even a Christian who loves guns more than human lives.

Religion is a great topic because it allows people with ZERO ability to think deeply on a concept to pose as if they are deeeeeep.
 
NEW WORD FOR JPP: (note spelling)

Seaker: A devout believer (eg Christian) who realized that they can't justify using the term "agnostic" to hide their religious convictions but still wants to sound like they are a deep thinker unaligned with mere mortal designations.

But watch out: some seakers will get EXTREMELY angry if you point out theological inconsistencies with a specific god. That is how you know which god they ACTUALLY believe in but don't want anyone to think them "less than" for being religious about.

Can you find the Seakers on JPP?
 
I understand why people of a certain nature might be uncomfortable with labels.
Well, I don't really, but I do understand that everybody isn't going to be like I am.

For some reason, I've always embraced them [labels], however.

My feeling is that if we can't tightly define something with a descriptive label ,
we haven't a clue what it is yet.
When I am getting to know people, making new friends, or when I went on dates I typically told people what I thought, believed, and was interested in rather than describing myself through generic labels.
 
In order to have self-determination and free will, one cannot know the nature of God for certain.

If you did know the nature of God for certain then there'd be no way for you to make decisions that go against God's will without enduring whatever punishment came with that.

Intelligence does not factor into that other than in the sense that an intelligent person knowing who and what God is, would not rationally do something that goes against God's will /edicts without expectation of retribution.

I do think reincarnation is a possibility and that you get your next go around based, in part, on your last. That aside, knowing who and what God is for certain removes free will and that causes stagnation and the eventual demise of humanity.
sounds like made up bullsit.

one could know the nature of God and still choose to do the opposite.

it happens all the time.

free will and knowledge of god can coexist and they do.

people often choose evil and they ARE to blame .

that;s the fact you're trying to escape.

Masonic fascists always to remove free will to remove accountability.
 
When I am getting to know people, making new friends, or when I went on dates I typically told people what I thought, believed, and was interested in rather than describing myself through generic labels.

Well now you have a new word! "Seaker". You're welcome!
 
Well now you have a new word! "Seaker". You're welcome!
That's not the way conversation happens in the real world, though you seem either mentally ill or socially inept so you wouldn't know.

This is not the way conversation happens in the real world between acquaintances, friends, or dates:

Cypress: "I'm a seeker!"


This is the way conversation actually does happen in the real world:

It's always been difficult to imagine how a lawfully ordered and rationally intelligible universe could have just randomly popped into existence out of nothing. Even Hawking's conjecture about quantum fluctuation does not actually explain how or where the quantum laws of Heisenberg uncertainty came from.

I like your invoking of panentheism because it is immanent in the universe but also leaves room for a first cause that transcends matter, time, and energy, while pantheism strictly speaking does not.

Even atheists can't explain what the generic label atheism means to them, without some verbal gymnastics.
Some atheists are just former Christians who are basically just mad at Christianity.
Some atheists are actually agnostics and just confused about the terminology.
Some atheists are strict physical materialists and nihilists who don't see that there is any ultimate meaning or purpose in anything.
 
Even atheists can't explain what the generic label atheism means to them, without some verbal gymnastics.
Some atheists are just former Christians who are basically just mad at Christianity.
Some atheists are actually agnostics and just confused about the terminology.
Some atheists strict physical materialists and nihilists who don't see that there is any ultimate meaning or purpose.

So YOU determine who is an atheist based on your mischaracterizations and general lack of intellect. But you want people to respect YOUR position, eh?

Interesting approach there.
 
So YOU determine who is an atheist based on your mischaracterizations and general lack of intellect. But you want people to respect YOUR position, eh?

Interesting approach there.
I am mocking your claim that you can get to actually know anyone simply by blurting out generic labels.

Have you ever gone on a date or had meaningful social interactions with real people?

You don't get to really know any human if they blurt out labels like "I'm a Christian", "I'm an agnostic!", "I'm a Republican!", "I'm a businessman!".

You get to know people by elucidation, clarification, discussion and dialectic. Which is what I try to do with Niftyniblick, Dutch Uncle, Yakuda, et al.

Labels should be the last thing you use to describe yourself as a person in a truly meaningful way to a friend or interlocutor.
 
I am mocking your claim that you can get to actually know anyone simply by blurting out generic labels.

Have you ever gone on a date or had meaningful social interactions with real people?

You don't get to really know any human if they blurt out labels like "I'm a Christian", "I'm an agnostic!", "I'm a Republican!", "I'm a businessman!".

You get to know people by elucidation, clarification, discussion and dialectic. Which is what I try to do with Niftyniblick, Dutch Uncle, Yakuda, et al.

Labels should be the last thing you use to describe yourself as a person in a truly meaningful way to a friend or interlocutor.

So YOU determine who is an atheist based on your mischaracterizations and general lack of intellect. But you want people to respect YOUR position, eh?

Interesting approach there.
 
I am mocking your claim that you can get to actually know anyone simply by blurting out generic labels.

And it's even worse for you because you don't know what those labels mean most of the time. But that's understandable....you would have to actually THINK about your position first.

:)
 
When I am getting to know people, making new friends, or when I went on dates I typically told people what I thought, believed, and was interested in rather than describing myself through generic labels.
That's cool, C.
Certainly nothing wrong with that.

As for me, though,
I just say,

"Hi. I'm Nifty, and most people think I'm a prick.
I tend to agree."

They're going to figure it out on their own in a minute anyway,
right?:cool:
 
That's cool, C.
Certainly nothing wrong with that.

As for me, though,
I just say,

"Hi. I'm Nifty, and most people think I'm a prick.
I tend to agree."

They're going to figure it out on their own in a minute anyway,
right?:cool:

Labels are a great short cut to start the conversation.

I think it is almost a litmus test for how the other person is approaching the conversation. There are folks out there who play "coy" with their position. There's a poster on here who, at various times, has claimed to be "agnostic" but gets really upset when someone points out theological issues with the Bible.

Don't get me wrong: I realize people tend to have nuanced and subtle variants of all "classifications" and sometimes the standard classifications don't work.

In other cases (guess) the avoidance of a "label" is more a means of playing coy about religious beliefs. In no small way probably owing to confusion about what the labels actually mean coupled with a fear that they will appear "less intelligent" if they just come out and claim their religious beliefs openly.
 
That's cool, C.
Certainly nothing wrong with that.

As for me, though,
I just say,

"Hi. I'm Nifty, and most people think I'm a prick.
I tend to agree."

They're going to figure it out on their own in a minute anyway,
right?:cool:
Good work!
Anyone who openly and honestly say that they are a liar and a cheater, those are generic labels that give a lot of information right from the start.

There are very few things about the human personality we can actually assign a generic label to which can provide any truly meaningful information. It might even the risk of prejudicing someone's opinion of you right off the bat. A Quaker and a Pentacostal are both Christians, but they are very, very different kinds of Christians.
 
God is not intelligent.

Or rather, God is not an intelligence. The distinction is significant. God is an abstraction, and a mystery.

What I mean is that, in my brand of pantheism, there is a spiritual basis to life, that there is spirituality permeating all things and this divine source is not an intelligence. It is just source, a spiritual source sans intelligence. So, to say it is intelligent or stupid presumes intelligence, and given that it is not, these descriptors are not applicable.

The simplest definition of Pantheism is that it is the belief that God is not a separate, personal being, but rather that God and the universe are the same. In this view, everything in the natural world is a part of God, and God is present in all things. I have taken this idea and put my own stamp on it, and for lack of a better term, pantheism is much closer to how I see the world, on a spiritual plane, than anything else. Always remember, to a pantheist, his 'God' is not a personal God, or a God in any sense of it's traditional and historical definition, mono or poly. It is more of a non falsifiable force that permeates all things, more or less.

Now, I cannot be so arrogant to presume these things as fact, so preface all that I write on the subject with 'in my opinion...it is my belief that.....'., noting that to assert this preface on everything I express about it would be cumbersome, so just assume it henceforth.

My God is not theistic nor deistic, it is more on the Einsteinian pantheistic model. It does not intervene or answer prayers, and without undermining prayer, because, in my view, true prayer is meditation and meditation is the fastest path to God. This God is our native state, it is our destiny, our natural heritage and all souls, like bubbles in in the ocean, are bubbling upward and will eventually reach the sky, it is inevitable. The only 'hell' is the misery we create for ourselves but it is not permanent. Through this 'hell' we are forged like one forges steel through a furnace. Trouble, difficulty, pain and misery and the like, are the means by which we grow. There are higher states where misery fades and earth's density hasn't reached it, though it has on other planets. Each of us will eventually evolve to higher densities and reincarnate on planets where there are highers densities, (no Martha, Humans are not the brightest bulb on the food chain) where life exists without pain and misery and each of us has this to look forward to. That is the extent of my 'faith'.

This divine source is welling up everywhere. For me, this is the only thing that makes sense and the nice thing about it it does not conflict with science and where it does agree with religion insofar as that it is taken on faith as it is not falsifiable.

This divine source is not a personal god, and there is no such thing as a personal god. This divine source permeates all things, is the source of all things, and resides at the center of the human soul, whereupon all living things are but tentacles on the octopus of god. But, where that metaphor breaks down is that an octopus is has intelligence, and God does not, as God is beyond intelligence and incomprehensible. This divine source does not exist in time and space, it is behind it, the source of it, beyond it, but reachable, nevertheless. Once achieved, once one returns to native state, life, as you have known it, becomes a moot point -- life becomes moot.

The only way to find God is to find oneself. It has been said, 'Know thyself, and the truth shall set you free'. Now, that quote can be attributed to someone or some thing, but I believe it is older than our planet and has been around for billions of years. No, it's just a hunch, sure, I could be wrong, probably am wrong.

Much of my philosophy is borrowed from ancient eastern philosophy and a few modern mystics, sages.

All of them teach reincarnation, and I take reincarnation on faith, as well, not to mention there is some evidence for it. It is also logical to me.

When we die, our essential selves, our souls, noting that "I' and the 'soul' are the same thing, we do not perish. Death is an illusion and we are eternal.

The basic premise of eastern philosophy is that you keep coming back, you grow spiritually a little bit with each life, and this continues for however long it takes for the individual, the soul, to reach the Godhead, AKA 'self-realization', 'samadhi', 'nirvana' or 'heaven' or whatever term endears one the most. It has been said by most of these mystics that one can accelerate the process via meditation, or the modern term now is 'mindfulness' techniques. I also believe that during the first century or first few centuries when Christianity was coagulating and forming into various factions and struggling to achieve something, the Gnostic Christians believed that Christ had a secret, esoteric teaching and that teaching was more in tune with eastern philosophical concepts, accepted reincarnation, and it was Orthodoxy which deviated from Christ, whereupon they cherry picked his teachings to conform to that which would empower the political power of the church.

This is my faith, this is what I believe. I just thought I would share these ideas with anyone who cares to read them, and/or dispute or be amused by them.

As a side, but related, note; In in the context of non-zero probability, assuming infinity, abstract or real, all that is possible, is inevitable. (See if you can falsify that one). Life is possible, this much we know, and infinity, in terms of non-zero probability, if it is possible, it will occur, eventually, though not assured at any point. Thus we have life. So, in a sense, it is infinity that is the mother of all that is possible. Now, some things are impossible. Anyway, compared to infinity, all that is finite is infinitesimal. That is why all arguments that go 'there are too many gazillions of factors to be aligned in space for anything to happen by chance (the argument for 'intelligent design'), are specious logic'.

Thanks for reading.
I agree with this theory of existence but lose you only in the last paragraph. I believe there is an inate intelligence in the Universe that most call God. The many creations in this Universe emanate both through randomness and jointly through the drive of this inate intelligence many call God.
 
Back
Top