Mary-Jane Rubenstein | Multiverses, Pantheism and Ecology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- From the physics and religion of the multiverse, to the problem with monotheism and the concept of God, we talked to Professor of Religion and author of Pantheologies: Gods, Worlds, Monsters, Mary Jane Rubenstein on the potential of pantheism and what this means for our ideas of Spinoza, conciousness and ecology.
#god #pantheism #gender #ecology #iaitv #panpsychism #multiverse #spinoza
** Subscribe to the Institute of Art and Ideas / iaitv
** Listen to our weekly podcast: / instituteofart. .
** Donate to the Institute of Art and Ideas: iai.tv/support...
Mary-Jane Rubenstein is Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University; core faculty in the in the Science and Society Program; and affiliated faculty in the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program. She holds a B.A. in Religion and English from Williams College, an M.Phil. in Philosophical Theology from Cambridge University, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from Columbia University. Her areas of research include continental philosophy, gender and sexuality studies, science and religion, and the history and philosophy of physics, ecology, and cosmology. She is the author of Strange Wonder: The Closure of Metaphysics and the Opening of Awe (2009) Worlds without End: The Many Lives of the Multiverse (2014), and Pantheologies: Gods, Worlds, Monsters (2018). She is also co-editor with Catherine Keller of Entangled Worlds: Religion, Science, and New Materialisms (2017).
For more from Mary Jane Rubenstein watch:
Does the Multiverse Exist? | Full Debate | Cumrun Vafa, Mary Jane Rubenstein, John Ellis
• Does the Multiverse Ex...
DELVE DEEPER
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-aca...
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
As of 1/3/2021, you are the most interesting being I have ever listened to. I have a Master's degree in Religion, but I cannot and have not ever been able to cross over the line to see what you call 'the Dude in the Sky'. At 75, I have no real place where I fit in, so to speak, with my own personal philosophy of life. Having started a new phase in my life as a single woman, I kept feeling I needed a fellowship of some kind,; then the idea of 'fellow' hit me beside the head. I don't need a 'fellow' ship, I need a BEING BOAT. I need a boatload of people to ride with for the rest of my life; people who will help me throw out all the detritus that has encumbered my maturity as a being in and of itself. Thank you for uploading this interview, my eyes are opened, there is hope for the universe, and I will step forward to recognize that there are others out there that are emerging in a world that needs a kick in the rear end. As for the bacteria, I think we need to consider the Theology of Virus at this moment.
I think I may be pantheist. Loosely. I think I'll find more videos and articles of Ms. Rubenstein. She is fascinating and attractive.
Hey ☺️
It’s great to see a wonderful woman being able to share her intelligence and insight with the world.
This is the way I view the world too
I’m happy you’re able to express it
What a brilliant lady!
she is, but she's got some "facts" squiffy: 4:29 er, scientists don't believe another universe is on the other side of a singularity in a black hole, i think even hawking gave up on the singularity thing, i'm sure this is just out of date, i've seen other prgrams MJR has been in and she seems on the ball usually, but singularities aren't "a thing" anymore. and (i believe) the multiverse is a working theory, it is derived from the maths rather than being added in to explain a phenomena, it's all related to quantum physics and branching and stuff i can't be arsed to type.
I wrote an MA thesis forty years ago following the line of the deconstructive thinkers or post-death of god thinkers. I find myself engaging with her thought. As a zen bacterial guy her thoughts resonate,
This was such an inspiring interview. Damn am I glad I clicked on that thumbnail
Great talk. The Measurement problem (problem of how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs) has alot to do with the resurgence of the multiverse concept : "The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse.This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe." wiki many worlds interpretation
Wonderful ... one word I'd expected to hear in this conversation is "experience." I love the openness of total egalitarianism for all that has agency and how it bends my intuitions. But my concern is confusion of priority when circumstance seems to yield a zero-sum option. Nature is fairly described by many as an arms race.
This is refreshing. Looking forward to hearing more of her ideas.
May I offer my conclusion from your presentation:
Maybe we should, therefore, simply choose the best model of "reality" and simple ACT as if its true. Call it an experiment that can be fine tuned through future generations...
Choose a model that is good for the environment, social well-being, etc and then try it out: behave as if its true.
Science is not going to give us an answer to divinity.
Many of us chose the 'Dude in the sky' model to believe in and it is doing more harm than good.
The spiritual essence of humanity has been long exploited or ridiculed in the name of religion or economic progress.
If we start paying attention to (and giving value to) our sense of wonder and connection with our selves as part of nature and sharing our experiences and expectations, maybe we can devise a model and live our lives "as if it were true'. Even if its not true; if we live better lives, surely that's enough?
That's literally what science is...choosing the best model of "reality" and simple acting as if its true, until a better one comes along or it is shown to be false. I think the materialist view is the best model we have now and has been for the last 150 years. That doesn't disprove "God", just the old prevailing idealism. Did you even watch the video? pretty sure she points all this out. I recommend some Bertrand Russell, Hegel, Marx, Darwin etc they will shake the idealism out of you!
It’s not doing more harm than good. That is just what someone/the media is telling you. I’m a pantheist, and it’s actually suspect to start degrading other religions. That’s exactly the thing they’re being accused of. And yet, you are doing the same. Think for yourself.
@@M_K171 your pissing in the wind.
Thanks Professor Rubenstein, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this intriguing subject. I feel that the exploration of the ideas is more important than trying to achieve a static result. If the universe or multiverse is comprised of energy and movement (and our language of nouns and verbs seems to reflect this) then perhaps we can see humanity as either wanting to conserve energy or embracing movement. I'm the latter. It's okay to be an agent of entropy since the time scale means...no fear.
Project 🎉 I'm only 4 years late to the video 😁 28/11/23
I love her SO MUCH!!!
Well this pretty well blew my mind. Plus, I'd not known that about Wiliam James, author of "Varieties of Religious Experience." Something here also helps me understand better Jacobi's warning to his friend Fichte...Thinking like this is worth more than a thousand Davos experiences.
Imagine if "god" was a placeholder in our mind for all the ideas which help us evolve to a higher level of mental functioning. So we might consider god to be scientific knowledge or creative cosmology. What would be better? Can we have a concept of god as an evolutionary process? God evolves. That fits my experience. My god concept when I was 5 was very different from my current concept. How about yours? Then one can ask the question "What is the destiny of god?" Where is the concept taking us? That's useful to ponder every once and a while.
nope. try to grow up.
@@HarryNicNicholas
We'll grow up, Nic. Eventually. In an effort to make our elders happy.
I am a single mum in canada who identifies as a pantheist. I believe divine embues all, every thing is connected and nature is the "god" we should look at as to how to behave
Very interesting - and animated ! Thanks.
If divinity were an unknown unprovable... wouldn't it be the prerequisite for doing science? Some people say its an exercise of remembering forward rather than thinking backward. Men are dominant in the things that need to be made gentle, controlled, transmuted, and channeled in one compact container of direction and application. Women are dominant in the things that need to be made still in chaos, selective in dynamic situations, instinctive across multiple transferrable container levels. Female and male codings are optimised depending on the 4 dimensional space it is working within. This was so cool. It almost made it onto my top 10 things I wished I knew 6 years ago. (28/11/23)
I agree with Professor Rubenstein but I would argue that rather than the "dude in the sky" the dominant contemporary religion is the "invisible hand" of neoliberal capitalism. This "religion" is far more troubling because it is fully naturalized in modern society--but is not acknowledged as the dominant belief system. And sure, the "dude in the sky" lends a helping hand but is far less powerful these days. Interestingly, reductive materialism intermeshes perfectly with the religion of capitalist economics. Apparently nothing has value until it has been capitalized and the results are less than auspicious for the natural world, including humanity.
I'm a spiritual atheist. Science is the art of the intellect. Art is the science of the soul. Like space and time, science tells art how to move, and art tells science how to bend.
If God could be spread out uniformly across time and space and beyond, like some kind of intergalactic peanut butter, what you end up with is "spiritual atheism". God is distributed so flatly that God is no longer acknowledged as being God. This is to say that there is no way to embrace spirituality without embracing God. I'm going to guess that I am not the first person you are hearing this feedback that "spiritual atheism" is an oxymoron.
That is a sharper word than I am intending to convey. 'Oxymoron' carries this connotation that to believe in this requires stupidity. (The -moron part.) I don't see any lack of intelligence coming hand in hand with this SA concept. I see it to have been born out from those who desire to straddle the fence between science and religion.
Fence straddling is not necessary, as contrary to popular belief, science does not necessarily exclude religion. And religion does not inherently exclude science.
Regarding the existence/non-existence of God, I like Mary-Jane Rubenstein's conclusion. It is not useful to debate this issue. I see her position to be perfectly in line with Siddhartha Gautama's on this. Along the lines of... 'I don't plan on using much of my energy trying to convince you one way or the other.'
But I find the reasoning she gives as lacking. Just because many very wise people have attempted to find proof does not mean that proof can never be possible. And far more importantly, there can be evidence that falls short of proof that when taken on the whole can be compelling.
This is akin to how in science, there are theories that are accepted as fact even though the evidence does not reach the level of proof. "Gravity" is one example. I have a visceral experience of gravity, and I have a theoretical understanding of its existence. But it is not something I can prove. And with the deeper that people have attempted to gain a proof of gravity, we've found that gravity might actually just be a fiction. Something that we experience as a force when it is actually a geometrical feature.
The analogy between gravity and God here is that those who have gained a resolute belief in God, based in large part to their personal experience of God, may have bought into a fiction. That things which take on this appearance of having happened by the hand of a deity are actually a feature extending from purely scientific events. And that such events have been misinterpreted as having been caused by God.
It is quite possible that Atheism and Spirituality are two sides of the same coin. MJR here has talked about this theory where universes collide like the crash of two cymbals. Well the existence/non-existence of God could paradoxically exist simultaneously. That the primordial acoustic metric in the formation of the universe(s) is God and NotGod coexisting. That there is this primal GoNG which drives everything.
I had started out here by speaking against a contradiction in terms, and then presented this other way of understanding this foundational contradiction as the basis of reality. So my comment in whole can be seen to be oxymoronic. But just because something defies logic does not necessarily mean that discarding it is the proper response. It may serve better to embrace it and examine it and sit with it to see if it happens to be a key which leads toward deeper understanding. One of the most simple contradictions is:
This statement is false.
Those words form a logical infinite loop of self-negation. And it could very well be that this type of paradox is what forms the foundation of all existence. The turtles all the way down theory, with alternating black turtle and white turtle forming an endless binary string. God / Not God.
Or in line with terminology you use... Spiritual / Atheist.
@@dahawk8574 Holy Shit. If you think I bothered to read even half, you are not as smart as you tell yourself and any within range, I'm sure.
@@dahawk8574 that's YOUR theory, i wish people would keep their DUMB THEORIES to themselves, that's how we got into this "my god is going to kill more people than your god" mess.
@@dahawk8574
16:16
i ii) If God is infinite, spreading him like peanut butter won't make him any less present. I'm going to assume your God is in reference to a religion and not simply deist, which is probably what the guy above means when he says he's "spiritual". So then it would seem as though he is a pantheist.
vi) science is a process, there's no fact in science that doesn't have quality proof; theories are designed to predict reality and are always replaced with better ones: gravity may not be a force but it exists as an observable phenomenon; the existence of gravity as it's formally defined is a fact. Much like the current unexplained dark matter that also exists as an observable phenomenon and as it's defined.
viii) what's the difference between 'God existing', and 'God existing and NotGod existing'? if the universe isn't god, would it also be that God and NotGod exists simultaneously? The way it's framed seems as if NotGod is also a person.
Reminds me of a syllogism:
no cat has 2 tails.
Every cat has one more tail than No Cat.
Therefore, every cat has 3 tails.
ix x xi xii) without regard to his actual beliefs, the non belief of the existence of a god isn't necessarily the denial of spirituality, as it may not involve a god. Rejection of all supernatural would imply other philosophies entirely such as empiricism and materialism.
@@omegazero5032
I'm glad you brought up 'Dark Matter'. You say:
"It exists as an observable phenomenon and as it's defined."
But scientists have no clue what it actually is. In essence, it is defined as putting a box around the totality of that which they have no understanding of, and no explanation for.
A much more accurate term, instead of 'Dark Matter', would be Ignorance Stuff.
They do not even know if whatever it is which is causing the observed phenomenon is even stuff at all. And so they invent this separate term which they label as 'Dark Energy'.
Ignorance Stuff. And Ignorance NonStuff.
The terms they picked were designed to fool people into thinking they know what they're doing, when they don't. A much more crafty way to get your grant applications approved.
God is quite a similar phenomenon.
It can be understood as this blanket term which habitually gets thrown to cover over everything which we are completely ignorant of. 'God of the Gaps' is the common term.
'Spiritual Atheist' can be understood as merely a different label that has been sewn onto the exact same blanket.
As for the Primordial GoNG, where there is this oscillation of God existing and God not existing, the difference between that and straight atheism is that everyone is right. Both the believers and the non-believers. Call it a 3-tailed cat if you like. And that would actually be a fitting image, because the entire point of this GoNG is that it transcends logic.
Who ever decided that the ultimate answer had to be logical? A person with limited thinking. That's who.
'Spiritual Atheist' achieves the same effect. It is the Whack on the Side of the Head. It is the Zen Koan which acts as the catalyst to ignite spontaneous human combustion. Or enlightenment. Something which kicks you outside of the box of limited thinking.
Thank you for this video.
Great thought process. Keep talking. Lovely to work with your conversations.
17.00 Could your starting place (rather than a mustard seed or bacteria) be on a quantum level?
Humans tend to make a link between the BIG stuff, cosmology, and god. But, surely, it makes just as much sense to explore the story of God within the fundamental nature of 'nature'.
The multiverse could be as David Deutsch describes it in his book "The Fabric of Reality" so the multiverse is all that exists and it branches off into different futures. Quantum physics seems to suggest that life is immortal and that we live in a continuum of possible futures and pasts.
Thx. alot & well done 🙂. i appreciate Update on that ( interview took place 3 years ago !!? ) & an Essay : ".... wie waren 3 years ago & what do we have to offer Now!?( beginning of 2023 almost). SORRY , but 3 Jears is stil a long time "...being away ..." from Multiverse. Many Thanks to all of you m.j Rubenstein specially😘
If all must be, then complexity is preferred. If quantum is retrocrausal, maybe that complexity preferences is the principle. So there's your pantheistic god. Random events are promoting a complex future.
ANY CHANCE OF A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS FABULOUS INTERVIEW?
Click the three dots button under the video on the RUclips page, and choose "Open transcript" ... it is auto-generated I expect, but a good start to get you going.
try looking for the transcript button on the page.
Our stomachs are a multiverse
Oh? I tried to follow Professor Mary Jane Rubenstein's descriptions of and thoughts on atheism and atheists as well as her thoughts on pantheism. From this interview, Prof Rubenstein appears to be misrepresenting atheism. This misrepresenting may just be a definitional error or it may be intentional or something else.
As for our species adding to its body of knowledge, I do wholeheartedly respect Prof Rubenstein for touching on the enlightening work of our pioneering science researchers. As our body of knowledge increases, the claims made of a god(s)/goddess(es) playing a role in one or another aspect of the universe and/or of life are rebutted.
As Professor Mary Jane Rubenstein has stated, the tools of science do not disprove god(s)/goddess(es). The tools of science help us all to learn about how the universe works and about life, too. 🌻
atheism is ALWAYS misrepresented, so don't sweat it. even YOUR definition of atheism will be different to mine and i will be offended if you imply i follow your atheism. my atheism is MINE ALONE. no one told me to be atheist, i didn't read any books.
I think I'm in love.
I feel like we are in a black hole universe and black holes in our universe contain smaller universes that contain black hole universes and it goes both ways forever 😮❤
I would love to have her as a professor
How about not asking what news stories are telling us and lets find evidence for the most probable story. I dont care what theory is correct but if you stretch hard enough you can make up anything you want.
Modal panentheism is the answer
Bacterial theology, love it.
Not clear what M-J R means by Divinity.
Very clever just so stories
like religion.
If its asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence
real big brain hours
Identification, ..of the universal singularity, (not actually an exploded Big Bang), implies it's reciprocal positioning of wave-package coordination, so Multiverse is the reciprocal of Universe.., the wave-particle dualism of QM.
Likewise the Human ability to make identification relationships of raw information that "transcends", (the actual observable consequence of only being able to read the past), ..reality - to predict a possible future, can be interpreted as "godlike", (if you want to believe in a particularly biased nomenclature of cause-effect misattribution), ..which is a "wave-package" format of communication mechanism of amplitude and frequency identifying coordinated information.. nomenclature.
That's why Science is required to mathematically analyze the past to infer the most likely probabilities in potential possibilities, inescapably using Theoretical analysis. (The human factor/believability spectrum. The converse of Theoretician is Engineer, and "holding their hands" is the Physicist)
Black Holes identify images of the universal connection, Universe is a Hologram of pure relative motion interpreted as a Multiverse.
The existence of gods is a moot point, they can only be suspected of being male because it's absolutely certain that Mother's are the primary "fact of life" requirement of living existence, an inescapable conclusion/assumption, that only dubious philosophies question. (Power Politics and their social dominance institutions)
An ideally suited theory of behaviour for Theorists is an already viable application of scientific methodology, to replace theological assumptions. Procede as usual in conscious evolution of accumulated observation/knowledge.
Pan-theism is the natural trend of reverse process thinking about "here and now" theo-logical circularity, back to Animist and holistic universal connection "God". (Stop it!)
Everything is connected.., possibly/probably not in the way "educational" mythmaking has presented it. It's a matter of Principle, In-form-ation.
Courageous interview, well worth watching.
I don't know sort of torn twixt Pantheism and Panentheism.the Panentheist transcendent source,or One as Plotinus called it,is further complicated by things like branes clashing together.i feel that Pantheism and Panentheism are equally compelling.
the important part to remember is that the universe doesn't require a brain to create it.
I think the thing is, we're limited to only perceive the universe. So whether you're thinking of pantheism/panentheism from an ontological viewpoint (i.e. making some claim of a being of god rather than just viewing all things we already know of as god) or a purely interpretation-based viewpoint (ontologically the same thing as purely materialistic atheism, but calling it something different), it would look the same to us whether the universe is pantheistic or panentheistic. Personally I consider myself a pantheist rather than a panentheist because talking about what's outside the universe seems out of scope of what we can reasonably do, at least for now.
I never saw the need for the word, panentheism. Western religions have long agreed that God is omnipresent. Choosing to call God immanent but not transcendent or vice-versa goes against the very definition of omnipresence.
Love her. One of the people in life I would like to have dinner with for chatting
The Multiverse: Atheism's get-out-of jail card.
there is nothing new in the idea of multiuniverses. In so called hinduism are said, that multiuniverses comes from the body of Mahavishnu and there are millions of universes. But Mahavishnu is only one of the manifestation of Krsna which is nothing without his other part (female) Radharani. Also that our universe have many dimension.
trouble is the hindus, like all religious folk, were GUESSING. this is what we call theoretical physics now, and it's based on reality, experiment, observation - real stuff, not "i haven't a clue therefore god"
All this big thinking and discussions going on, while people in the background are just having river fun.
Does she have any mathematical training to talk about these things or she has just read some popular science books ?
People waste a lot of time and life thinking and talking about this shit. I’m one of them.
So what you are saying is that rather than a physicist saying "We don't know", they make up another story that they hope will fit the situation, no matter how silly or easily disproven that theory would be? Why don't they say the God could have caused it but we don't know any more then the theologians do.
And I was brought up believing that an education was an advantage. Doesn't seem so.
Why must the monotheist creative ground of being be characterised as a dude in the sky?
In Western Philosophy it has a 2500 year history?
Really?
Where, when and who?
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are considered the fathers of western philosophy and the greek culture at that era is considered the birth place of western culture. For reasons why, you should search the net. I only have a vague, possibly wrong idea.
@@raresmircea Spot on. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation originates from the ancient Greeks.
Science and the Scientific method (Eratosthenes), Medicine, Astronomy, Politics, Architecture, Mathematical Proofs, Literature, Philosophy, Psychology, History, Theater, Democracy, etc.
The first two laws of Science were due to Archimedes (The Law of Levers and The Law of Buoyancy. The first Mathematical Proof was due to Pythagoras - Right angle triangles and Pythagoras's theorem)
Even the first computer was invented by the ancient Greeks (The Antikythera Mechanism dates back to at least 150BC and could generate predictions astronomical events via input data.)
"If the ancient Greek civilisation was allowed to continue unabated, Humans would have landed on the Moon at least 500 years before they did in 1969"
Arthur C Clarke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
The professor is intelligent and well-read, but I think the trouble is.....its hard to buy a product from someone that doesnt believe in it. Doesnt mean she's wrong of course, and I respect the honest presentation, I just think its really hard to believe something for considerations aside from their truth. Her arguments are instrumental in nature, which is itself very Western and rationalistic. So her project, worthy though it may be, is gonna run into trouble.
"Heureux les artisans de paix, car ils seront appelés Fils de Dieu." Faire la paix et la défendre est divin. Pacifistes pan(en)théistes, unissez-vous!
Universe is information that transforms according to an algorithm. Someone designed that algorithm. Algorithms requires iterations to "evolve" in better algorithms. Science just tell us the designer is a passive observer (and makes a lot of sense, you do not intervene if you want to test an algorithm).
To have proof that exists the designer must become active.
Also the "personal" God religion tell us to believe in without any proof make no sense.
Selfishness, greed and arrogance are the problem with consciousness (due to biological evolution required to create consciousness).
I would like to believe that the designer want to intervene in this Universe to solve that problem (for example tell us to solve our differences and love each other). But that means the consciousness is important for the designer (because for example it generates new information that could be useful to improve the algorithm). But this might be just wishful thinking.
she has a bachelors in religion and a M.Phil. in Philosophical Theology and a Ph.D in Philosophy of religion and not in science.. so her views on a multiverse are from strictly a religious basis.. even though she is affiliated faculty in the science and Society program I think her views are a bit bias.. although she is a very smart person..She is not a physicist .. and not many of them even understand string theory nor even know if the multiverse idea is real.. it is just one possible answer to a myriad of questions. That is why it is called theoretical physics.. NOT that she is wrong in her assessment.. it is just that she doesn't understand the subject matter as well as those in the physics field.. so her conclusions are suspect. As you can see from this interview what I mean.. Beside true science is more of what it isn't, then a what it is .. They do not deal in absolutes...
4:29 er, scientists don't believe another universe is on the other side of a singularity in a black hole, i think even hawking gave up on the singularity thing, i'm sure this is just out of date, i've seen other prgrams MJR has been in and she seems on the ball usually, but singularities aren't "a thing" anymore. and (i believe) the multiverse is a working theory, it is derived from the maths rather than being added in to explain a phenomena, it's all related to quantum physics and branching and stuff i can't be arsed to type.
the "fine tuning" theory is not very strong
Paul
Really? Could it be that you just don’t understand it very well?
@@kjustkses Laura Mersini-Houghton claims fine tuning is massively over-hyped by many orders
Paul
Barnes and Lewis will most definitely disagree. And they actually specialize in the field.
@@kjustkses if the universe was fine tuned by god, that kinda means god came after the physics and god is bound by physics, which makes god lame.
as far as nature is concerned all the numbers in "fine tuning" are "1" nature couldn't care less how they relate to each other.
the concensus is using fine tuning to prove god is bollocks.
💞♾💞
Professor Rubinstein ought to learn quantum mechanics and develop societal mechanics to prove the multiverses of perception first. By doing so, we might be able to learn lot more than what humanities has been able to do with logic, reasoning, arguments and specialization by fields of studies including, physics , theology and philosophy.
gee mr murgatroyd.
careless speaker - saying science doesn't disprove god - leaves the interpretation that god exists - she might have done better by saying science doesn't reveal a god - god or the theist need to prove his existence themselves before they can claim the areas that science doesn't yet know
well sonny the problem whether you like it or not is that it is impossible to prove either way if there is a god or not. if she points that out, tough luck, it doesn't matter how upset you get.
@@HarryNicNicholas - actually - the default position is that there is no god - the burden of proof is on the theists to prove that god exists - so - i'll just sit back and wait - and wait - and...
do you need her to write a bible??
@@MibuTempest - she needs more clarity of thought - more clarity of expression - to tell theists that neither science nor logic is on their side
@@johneyon5257 i understand that. overall, i think if people dont see how that is the situation.. they can just live mindlessly. there is an aspect to telling theists that their worldview does not work in a harmonious society.. nonetheless i understand what you ask for. god dogmas wont last long in my estimation. but.. yeah direct expression of that in spaces/expressions like this video would be good.
She has just memorized all of the different theories related to the multiverse.
How did you operationally measure for that? I'm asking since you're not a liar.
As Richard Dawkins said Pantheism is just sexed up athiesm. What you are saying is true but why call it God? There are these forces, there is a sense of rebirth, and oneness, but its just the universe. It's incredible and amazing, but not divine. I think divinity is often a source of moral authority, morality is the concern of perceiving subjects; you'd have to take another nominal step and label our consciences as divine or something. However poetic, these are unnecessary steps.
*As Richard Dawkins said Pantheism is just sexed up athiesm.*
Nope. Not really, because pantheism does acknowledge for a fact that there is a god. But rather that god is identical with the universe. So, therefore, pantheism is a subset of theism.
@@americanliberal09 There is no *fact* of God. Just a universe which we can observe. Pantheism takes an unwarranted step past atheism by looking at the universe, and instead of saying its the universe, saying its God.
@@jhunt5578 Dude. I personally think that you're misunderstanding what i'm trying to say here.
I was just saying that pantheism is a subset of theism that does confirm that there is a god. But rather it's god being identical to the universe.
So in other words. Pantheism is not really a water-down version of atheism that richard dawkins wanna believe.
If everything is god, then really nothing is. Whatever is just is, and calling it cosmos or god or piffle on the arse end of a multidimensional mite means nothing, changes nothing, and goes nowhere. Otherwise, what must we then do? start worshipping in all directions, as some pantheists have tried, until we collapse exhausted? Better to eat, drink, be merry, and cause minimal harm, because tomorrows come when we individually and It All die.
a dead tree nailed into the living desert in lost vagrants will travel
the traversable 24000 lyre belt of orion magchinations at a sound of
31.14159 mach dreams one measured muse meitier defined by
the circus and the diaball point of points di scribe as a D shape
and by the aromatic art of arith matic one de duces the ace up
the slove of the slave where 24000 miles traversed in 24 hours
by the count of half is the de line D D aka a slice of the thin
crust mule pi pie D by the D of the (((|=|))) three is enough to
di scribe all of as many as any enteetree wants to soc it up
or tee it down in or out of the set of sets defined by
{{{((([[[314159).ετψ)]}]}]} τηε perfectly random
perfectly consistent set describing the uni
where que is the line lined up to be
scribed along the arc of reality
and so the con zept of
this common zept of
the circus sliced in
two the circeye
is old hat on
a new cat
and cold
dope
for
a
junkie juicing on the truce
where junk wuch as whunk
were wastrel wonk and
wonder meant meant me
when the audience tee hee
you people are making a log of money in a database that
will as data bases base themselves return to the steady
state soon and when that happens the reset button can
naught be unpressed so get the goodies while the gettin
place is still open the game is gumming to a halo holy
batmang gas ter than a random bag of salt water called an eye
can rip the bits off this ninny ex tant pogue