How to disprove Pantheism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RealisticCatholic

Guest
If I start with a conditioned, contingent reality like a dog and show that, in itself, the dog is not self-explaining, then I can ultimately end up with the need for an unconditioned, necessary reality (i.e., God).

But what if someone critiques this and says that, while the dog as a distinct reality is itself conditioned, it is really a manifestation of the one unconditioned reality?

Pantheists would say this ultimate reality is God but is manifested in all other realities, such that any distinction is an illusion or not deep enough to distinguish God from all other realities.

Alternatively, the materialist would say the same, minus the divine attribute: all realities (even things like dogs) are really just manifestations of some more fundamental physical reality.

In other words, how can we demonstrate that the unconditioned reality is altogether separate and distinct from the conditioned realities we experience? Put more bluntly, how can we demonstrate that the dog is truly distinct from God (or the unconditioned, necessary reality) — and not merely a manifestation or “unfolding” of it?
 
Last edited:
You can’t disprove pantheism. What’s worth noting however is that pantheism is just a different presentation of solipsism. If everything is God then I’m God. If I’m God then I’m everything. Everything is a part of my mind.

Usually pointing that out is enough to disuade people from pantheism.
 
You can’t disprove pantheism.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand.

There are demonstrations of God’s existence (e.g., Aquinas’ Ways) that, if true, would not lead to Pantheism.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think anyone says that Aquinas proved God’s existence. Maybe it’s just because I’m a math guy but to me proved means “absolutely true without any doubt”. I don’t think Aquinas himself would say that. He probably would’ve said “my arguements for God’s existence hold up to analysis and are stronger than the arguements against his existence”. That’s a fry cry from “proven”.

I don’t think philosophy can prove anything. We don’t have any set if agreed upon axioms.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
But what if someone critiques this and says that, while the dog as a distinct reality is itself conditioned, it is really a manifestation of the one unconditioned reality?
Click to expand...
Does this suggest that the one unconditioned reality is comprised of parts?
 
Well, I’m not sure of that.

They are metaphysical demonstrations, so if everything lines up, then they line up — to the conclusion.

That said, consider my original remark in another light. It would be like saying you can’t disprove materialism — that’s how I’m reading your first reply. Because really, materialism and pantheism are the same, at least insofar as I’m trying to determine how to identify the First Unconditioned, Necessary Cause (ie, "God’) as distinct from conditioned causes (e.g., a dog).

So technicality re: the word “prove” aside, I’m just asking for why we should regard the Unconditioned Reality as truly distinct from the rest of reality — and not merely manifested in other particular realities.

So we don’t have to tackle what constitutes proof. I’m more just looking for clarifications on the traditional arguments that lead to an Unconditioned Reality, in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I like the argument that shows what has parts must have a prior (not necessarily in time) cause. And so the First Cause/Unconditioned Reality cannot have parts.

But along the lines of the OP, what if someone critiqued by saying that all other realities with parts are just unfoldings or manifestations of the one unconditioned reality — like some kind of exotic prime matter or energy that just undergirds everything?

If you could tell me how that makes ZIP sense, then that would help me out. I may just be misunderstanding the traditional arguments.
 
Not so much. Better try again. One of the problems with your example is that very few pantheists consider the universe to be god.

The universe is the ultimate reality, it does not have the attributes of a personal god, so you can’t make apple to oranges comparisons.

Also your logic makes no sense. Your cells are each part of you, but that doesn’t equate each individual cell into being the same as you.
 
I’m a pantheist. The universe is an event not a thing made of individual parts. It’s all a continuing manifestation of itself. It doesn’t have parts, everything is constantly interacting. Nothing can be added or removed.
 
Hmm, I guess I’m getting hung up on the definition of “manifestation”. If the implication is that this god/energy is and/or is in everything, but it’s comprised of parts (given that things are coming into and going out of existence), then I’d have to assume there’s a prime mover that actualized those parts.
 
Things aren’t coming into and going out of existence. Are you familiar with the conservation of matter and energy?

Things change place and form
 
Calliope said:
very few pantheists consider the universe to be god.
Click to expand...
According to?

Not the ones I’ve talked to. I don’t see pantheism that doesn’t say everything is God as pantheism at all. Words have meaning and the word pantheism means “all god”. You don’t get to attach it to yourself and then change the definition because it’s attached to you.

Physicalism + pantheism isn’t pantheism. It’s physicalism with some poetic verbage attached to it.
 
Last edited:
If you are using the term god as a stand in for ultimate reality, ok. If you are thinking that pantheists consider the universe to have personal attributes like the Abrahamic god, it falls apart. We don’t.

The origin of the word doesn’t equate to the word having that literal translation in perpetuity.

I’m speaking as an actual practicing pantheist who’s been active in pantheist organizations and groups. But if you only care to disprove what you have decided pantheists believe, have fun with your mental exercise.
 
Last edited:
How can something both (1) not have parts and yet (2) interact?
 
The parts are not separate, like the parts of a body or the actors and scenery in a play. They are constituents of the whole. Except that you can cut off part of your body and permanently remove it.

Nothing can be removed from the universe. All the constituents are constantly interacting. They can never be separated.
 
This suggests that the system, made up of parts, is also (ontologically, if not temporally) prior to the parts. But how can that be, if the system is the collection of the parts (constituents)? In other words, if the system as a whole is the unconditioned reality — always there, necessary, eternal — then it would have to be prior to the parts that make up the system. So there seems to be a contradiction.

So could you elaborate?

Also I’d come at it from a more general angle, and suggest noting that this proposed system is just a mixed bag of potentials becoming actualized. So that the whole Universe is just a flux of change, or various constituents becoming this, then this, then that, etc. But this presumes that there is some prior reality that is itself actualized — and therefore not identifiable with the individual constituents in a state of becoming — of becoming actualized.

So at this point, maybe in fact I don’t see how there could not be an additional reality “outside of” the Universe/proposed system.
 
Last edited:
Imagine a lump of clay. It can be modeled into an endless number of forms. You can choose to understand it as a whole, or you can understand it as a collection of particles held together by various forces. Both are true.

“Parts” is a term that humans use to describe various things. It’s useful but it doesn’t take into account the ultimate reality. It’s shorthand for whatever bit of the whole we are attaching focus to.

Perhaps a useful analogy would be the holy Trinity. Does that help?

The universe is not a collection of anything, it’s everything at once.
 
Last edited:
The universe is not a proposed system, unless you are claiming to believe that you don’t think the universe exists.

I don’t understand in what way this presumes a prior state. It basically is existence, in that way perhaps something like your God.

There is no existence outside of it, because there is nothing outside of it. Existence itself needs no creator, it is creation.
 
Ask a bunch of them how they determine a false God and what the criteria are? It is more entertaing than being on the defensive… “And, still, their testimony did not agree…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top