Panentheism: Is the World in God? | Episode 1211 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- The search for God leads to strange ideas. Panentheism claims that the world is in God but God is more than the world. Can this new kind of God make sense? Featuring interviews with Philip Clayton, Marcel Sarot, Michael Levine, Yujin Nagasawa, Sarah Coakley, and Alister McGrath.
Season 12, Episode 11 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Panentheism #God
Panentheism is explained in the Bhagavid-gita, verse: 9:4 when Krishna says " By me, in my unmanifested form, ( brahmajyoti, his personal effulgence ) this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in me. Behold my mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for my self is the very source of creation."
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
@@lilyjr.1384 coming from the book written by himans
@@lilyjr.1384 are you sure Christ is right?
@@lilyjr.1384 spare no thought for the morrow.
Abandon your lives and follow me.
If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.
Do not assume i came to bring peace, but a sword
I cant find the bit where it says shield paedophiles from the law but im sure jesus said it or christians wouldn't keep doing it, surely?
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas Your eye doesn't cause you to sin, lust causes you to sin. Even a blind man who could see before he mutilated his eyes out could become tempted by sex if a women were to massage his genitals.
This show deserves awards.
@Sand Stone watch more episodes.
@SAMURAI 武士 he also had great interviews with top physicists and atheists. Just because your butthurt, doesent mean there is something wrong with it.
Definitely!
At first viewing, this show appears “great”;....
....After a second viewing, you realize this show says “Nothing New”..... that hasn’t been repeated many times, by many people, throughout history!....
....Not saying this isn’t “eye/ear candy”.... but it is still just better organized, “Hot Air”!!
...So what if Panentheism is true......is everyone going to buy homes for the homeless on Skid-row/etc????.......
@SAMURAI 武士 Robert does
Panentheism is as close to correct as you can get. God is consciousness, and consciousness can create universes and take perspectives in them. It is 'fractal' in nature. The stuff we perceive as the physical universe is the contents of 'the dream' of God consciousness.
Dreams are the best analogy to describe the relationship between 'transcendent' and 'immanence'. When you sleep at night, your sleeping consciousness is 'transcendent' to the universe it creates. That is you as transcendent god, creator of the dream world. You are also immanent - you as transcendent god also takes up every perspective in it including the one you identify with in the dream. If you can lucid dream, then you are ontologically 'God incarnate' in your dream. You can even control the dream and do miracles, since the entire dream and all perspectives in it are exactly the same nondual thing - your sleeping consciousness.
This universe that was created in your dream is 'a part of you'. After all, there is no other source for it - purely a construct of your sleeping consciousness. You don't become larger, more perfect, or change in any way by dreaming this universe - you aren't extended in any direction. The creation of this universe follows EXACTLY the same process as you do when you dream at night. God, being infinite, sustains this dream over a millennia. You, being finite fractal and 'less than' God sustain a dream over a single night.
This link to consciousness is also the divine spark in you. What you perceive as a being a separate self from everything else is an illusion - part of the fractal nature of consciousness.
The 'scientific worldview' is also easy to explain in panentheism - it is the study of the contents of 'the dream'. This is not in anyway contradictory with studying 'the dreamer' - which one undertakes by attempting to awaken from the dream via a mystical experience. The scientist tries to understand the contents, the mystic tries to become a lucid dreamer. Religion caries the stories of the methods one might take to become a lucid dreamer.
The classical Christian God is a panetheistic God - the error Christians make is the belief that Jesus Christ is the ONLY form God takes in this creation. Rather, God takes ALL the forms - you, me, every creature and insect. All forms are a part of 'the dream'. Christ is a lucid dreamer who recognizes himself as God incarnate. Normal Christians believe that about Jesus, but do not recognize it in themselves. They view incarnation as a one time event, instead of the very process God uses to take every possible form. Even as they incarnate themselves into their dreams at night, they have no idea about the theological implications.
There is a 'difference' between you lying there sleeping and your dream - in exactly the same way as there is a difference between God's Consciousness and 'the universe'. Your dream is a product of your consciousness, not the same thing as your consciousness. The dream is what your consciousness DOES, not what it IS. Likewise, God's Consciousness dreams universes and all perspectives - that is what it DOES, not what God IS.
If you really want to understand the relationship of God to this universe, understand the relationship of your consciousness to your dreams. It is the same thing on a micro level. It is how "God knows you better than you know yourself". It is the logical solution to the problems of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. The Lucid Dreaming concept explains historical figures like the Buddha, Christ, and even the prophets. It explains the capabilities of consciousness and the unique experiences brought on by psychedelics. Read the document below if you want to see all this in its entirety.
docs.google.com/document/d/1V73IO7Hbj6KHEhZGgJsp3QSz5X8tcV1-TIc8tvz49Kg/edit?usp=sharing
You've articulated to an almost frightening degree my own thoughts about ultimate reality. God is to us as we are to the contents of our dreams. What's your thinking on how God creates His dreams in the first place? If He's not lucid at the outset, is there a complex subconscious process within Him that initiates the dreams? Also, is it "turtles all the way down" -- Is God the dream of another dreamer, ad infinitum?
@@durosempre4470 "What's your thinking on how God creates His dreams in the first place?" I don't know the mechanism, or even if God knows the mechanism. It has something to do with a void and a principle acting upon it, but the void and the principle are the same thing (nondual). "Let there be light" and all that. Sacred Geometry has something to do with the patterns at play.
"Also, is it "turtles all the way down" -- Is God the dream of another dreamer, ad infinitum?" No. "You" (and I say you tongue in cheek) can have the experience of the void. At that point there are a few things you know about yourself. 1. you are the only thing that exists. 2. It is bliss. 3. There is a 'nothingness' to existing. 4. You are lonely. 5. You are love itself. The dream then manifests around you and you experience life as we know it. What we experience as 'time' is just the 'eternal now' of eternity. That's why space does what it does respective to time distortion - everything has to continually reorient around the 'eternal now' of being. It is God's story to himself that creates 'history'.
Think of it like God puts a "glove" on his hand - but that glove is 'the universe'. It is his hand moving every part all the time, God's mind telling the story, and God's eyes seeing it played out in real time through all of our eyes (and every other possible perspective). Some of these perspectives are more aware of what they are and the chain of being than others. Human's (for the most part) have no idea what they are - but God enjoys the 'wow' factor when someone wakes up again. It is a rediscovery that you are divine and connected to all things, so re-orient yourself to the rest of creation with this knowledge. And enjoy!
For what it is worth, this perspective ALSO solves the whole 'problem of evil' issue. Since all of us are a part of God - which is eternal - it doesn't matter what happens in 'the dream'. All of it is illusion - and it is God casting the illusion on God. Even the concept of 'sin' stops making sense - how can being itself sin against itself - regardless of what it decides to dream. Does the TV sin when a horror movie is played on it? Whatever God is, it contains both the cosmic horror and the sinless heavenly being archetypes - and God loves both equally. All suffering and torment is redeemed.
Can we experience something that happened to us a long time ago and it was very beautiful, than we forgot about it and now we want to lucid dream until that reality come back, because that idea drive us and we can't live without it? Should be possible, since it was real once, therefore it can exist in our lucid universe and never ever go away again after we find it.
@@xspotbox4400 Yes, that can happen - but it is actually a trap. Since all that exists is consciousness, anything less than that (a beautiful experience) is just an idol. People spend so much time chasing idols, when you have what you need the whole time... your very being is God in you. Even the most beautiful thing, whatever your hearts desire - an eternity in a sunset or an orgy or whatever your pinnacle desire is now - you would get tired of it and begin the process of 'waking up' to your true nature. This longing to know what you are is so strong it even affects atheists - throwing the concept of God in their face over and over. It must always win because this is God (dreamer form) calling God (creature form) back to himself. That is why the question cannot die. It is possible to live and move and act in the world from this place of being - knowing yourself to be God in a world full of it, but the vast minority choose to live like devils. You can live life for yourself, or you can live it for others. That beautiful thing you can't let go of - that's a distraction.
@@brentonbrenton9964 You make a lot of good points. But I don't think the problem of evil can be so easily written off.
Even if we are characters in a cosmic dream, we're sentient creatures who experience suffering. If God is a lucid dreamer, then He must be aware of this and has the power to end suffering in His dream. I think another possibility is we're an early "draft", maybe a beta version of the ultimate dream. And God will continue to tweak it as it unfolds. I'm aware that conflict is the essence of drama (and thus of any truly epic dream). This might be a partial explanation for evil's presence in the world. But I don't think it's sufficient.
"All suffering and torment is redeemed." Can you elaborate on that a bit?
God is like space which is inside of us ,out side of us,and also contains us in it.God is inside and outside of the space.
God is a spirit. You can find god within, because god is love, love is god, its all about love. Just look around how blessed we are to have this wonderful universe. If ther is love , there is life, if there is life there is GOD.
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
@@lilyjr.1384 Amen
@@lilyjr.1384reading from a book where the authors can't even agree on what books are canon isnt useful. That would be like me reading a quote from the lotus sutra or the quran to you.
Pantheism and Panentheism are often used almost interchangeably, yet they are totally different! I wish Theologians would make the distinction. The Pantheist God is finite ie. the physical universe - that can’t be right! If God is defined as omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, there can be nothing in reality that isn’t God, yet God as the Ground or Source of reality is more than the sum of all such realities. That’s Panentheism as I understand it.
I like Yujin Nagasawa’s Modal Panentheism except that in limiting God to all possible realities it is more like Modal Pantheism. Strangely, I agree with Sarah Coakley and Alistair McGraths insistence that Panentheism is not new - that it’s classical Theism reinvented. Yes... that’s not an argument AGAINST Panentheism, but an admission that Panentheism follows logically from the very definition of God! I agree with Marcel Sarot, that Imminent and Transcendent are two sides of the same coin, in the synthesis that is Panentheism.
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
No pantheistic "God" is infinite only our finite understanding limits it.
@@invisiblechurch9621 Jesus is the true and living God. Demonic concepts, such as the creation being a god rather than the Creator is deceptive.
@@lilyjr.1384 You have been deceived. Paul say that is the end game of the narrative. “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
@@lilyjr.1384 You see it is already the case, but it isn't real unless people believe it, that is the goal of Christianity.
"My Father and I are one, but my Father is greater than I".
This.
Whenever these essentially 'Eastern' ideas like 'pantheism/panentheism' come up, always surprised that we rarely have a chat with Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and other likewise _'Eastern'_ theologians and philosophers?
Panentheism could work well with free will and consciousness. Might be a worthwhile direction to look into. The idea that consciousness is part of God and that God's freedom maintains free will in creation might be developed through panentheism
You are looking for a God that fits into your ideas, that can be deceptive?
@@invisiblechurch9621so do you
That is not Pantheism. To suggest god is something external and separate but infiltrates everything is not Pantheism. It is a subtle difference but an important one. Pantheism proposes that god IS everything, rather than god being IN everything, which is an entirely different proposition. There is no personal, separate god in Pantheism.
@@a13xdunlop it's not pantheism because it's panentheism 😭
@@ex_dimo Panentheism infers a separate god, in Pantheism both are one.
Existence! The big infinite all! All that is! Surely it is a higher being,... an omnipotent, omnipresent and even omniscient greater being. Omnipotent because it is all the power, the space, the time, the mass and the energy. Omnipresent because it spreads out and covers every part of existence. Omniscient because it is all the beings within, simultaneously, sensing everything which is being sensed, thinking every thought which is being thought, experiencing everything which is being experienced, knowing everything which is known.
*Panentheism in a nutshell:*
You know all those people that suggest that we are all just a computer simulation running somewhere on a hugely powerful supercomputer?
Well... That computer is God and the whole world is a thought experiment in his mind.
DonkeyPuncher
nooooooo
@SAMURAI 武士 There are mystics in every culture. We in the west have lost our mystical roots, which causes all kinds of interpretive problems and other issues. So God DOES talk to Hindus, Muslims, and every other religion. God is that consciousness animating every living thing, experiencing every experience.
Best comment
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
@@lilyjr.1384 Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring
All the finite All within the Infinite All is All we All are. Peace
5:02 'God's Holiness' - as I have studied ( from an Eastern view) it aligns to God's Wholeness, fullness of Being, all encompassing. This has made more sense to me as time marches on.
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
its really similar to shia muslim believes. Ali ibn Abi Talib said: God is in everything but not combined with them, he ist out of evrything but not separated with them. In some prayers God is called: Light of light, light of all lights.
I found Nagasawa's interpretation particularly interesting!
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
He is saying things I have been thinking a long time and never heard anyone say
Panentheism is a better fit for a universe that contains more than just Earth and is not necessarily centered on just the Earth, and a reality that may actually be made up of infinite universes. I use the term, "trans-universal God." I wonder if a religious/spiritual path/system/approach needs to be "the truth," or merely beneficial to the life and well-being of the individual, community, and greater society of all of mankind (the glue). Religion can at best reflect the greater reality in metaphor, yet metaphor has value. I've tried so many paths, finding value in almost every one, yet ultimately the things that were valuable were almost universally present. Though traveling far and wide, experiential encounters with the Divine, as with Charismatic, Gnostic, Paranormal, and Mystic approaches to One/Most High/Supreme Spirit/Deity, has yielded so much more richness and wonder.
I don't get what is alternative about this view.. it seems pretty traditional theology to me, namingly, that God is what sustains the world in its existence, containing all that exists within itself. I don't get the novelty here. Does someone else sees it this way too?
I agree with you :-)
A bit late, but yeah. For me panentheism is theism but actually thought out… All the seemingly contradictory things about panentheism aren’t actual contradictory. You just have to have a little imagination…
Very interesting. However, when we attempt to describe God or define His power and magnitude, we rely on and confine God to the limits of our imaginations, where we diminish God to less than that which we are trying to describe.
God is ineffable thus beyond imagination.
We're all God's imaginary friends.
😄👍
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
but that 'we' are illusions, we are him!
Pretty good. Sounds a lot like Nondualism. All is one, and One is all. Still waiting for Rupert Spira at Oxford.😊🙏🏽
Rupert and his teacher ( Francis Lucille ); the clearest to me as of late has been Nisragadatta maharaja. Not for everyone yet the clearest as he speaks from That level of truth. Francis' teacher was Jean Klein and he too speaks simply and clearly on this matter. So, it gets down to who resonates with the listener.
I think it is a dualism within a nondualism.
It doesnt sount like nondualism which is monism.Pantheism is monism (nondualism) while panentheism is dualism.
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
There is the transcendent component.
min 19:40 ( god knows us more entimetly than we even know ourselves)
That reminds of some verse in quran which says ( for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein )
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS! THANK YOU SO MUCH! 🙏💘
REALIZE THE KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN
This is all just interesting academia and intellectualism but at the end of the day I don't think anyone has ever satisfactorily defined the infinite and I doubt anyone ever will.
"the infinite" is beginningless and endingless, ie, always was and always will be.
True
It is a little deeper than, We are god, everything is consciousness, We are the observer. What people call god is pure consciousness not a deity. it does not need to be worshiped because we are in it. We are all creators in an infinite line of creators all driven by primordial force called consciousness
Human struggle to find meaning where is no meaning is in fact the point of it all! For we do not the meaning that is already there - we the meaning from the truth we experience.
God is not a being
is BEING itself
Richard Rohr
This is a huge mystery that takes time to integrate.
His guest, David Bentley Hart makes a cogernt ontological argument. Simplicity and necessity.
I for one do share some of the philosophy behind the concept of panentheism... Everything exists through God and IT (I don't belive that it is appropriate to assign a gender to God) exists out of and on a much grander scale...And I don't believe that it goes against any monotheistic religions as well
Christ was likely a semi-modal panentheistic philosopher. Reread the scriptures and pay close attention to the teachings of Jesus. Step away from the modern interpretation of theism and look at it from the perspectives outlined in the video. You will see that panentheism aligns uncomfortably well.
The problem is giving a name to this. If we call it God, there is a religious connotation, even if one is not meant.
I call it Me. All is Me, everything which Is. There is only Me.
Everyone and Everything is Me. Each of us is Me. Me is all our mes.
The person is Me, so is the tree, the stars and the empty vastness of space.
And all this can disappear this instant, and there is still only Me, undiminished, still only Me.
Very well said my friend ❤
@@InnerLuminosity Thank you my friend.
@Barthelemy God is everything, but still the least religious one in the world.
I think the way you approach these concepts is the correct way to do it
Happy Fathers Day to you all.
Honestly I wish it had been one of the other few hundred million of my father's sperm cells that had gone on to fertilize my mother's egg. It certainly would have let me off of the extremely painful existential hook that I find myself on right now. Oh well, there's no use crying over spilled sperm.
Thank you!
I bought my father supper! lol
I had my day on mother's day :p
So happy father's day to all the dad's!! ♡♡
BEST job I ever had was being Allen's dad!
@@somethingyousaid5059 i feel the same as you do. yeah too much pain can cause one to not only regret but also resent one's birth in this world. has nothing to do with a choice. it's circumstantial. one comes by feeling that way honestly. such extreme bitterness it's unbelievable
Some of the greatest minds in history have been identified as pantheist. To me, it's the only thing that is remotely reasonably plausible as to the nature of existence.
I prefer the definition that god is the totality of everything for three reasons.
1. Even when the classical theistic god exists he would just be a part of the totality of everything which is larger then him.
2. I know that the totality of everything exists whit the same certainty that I know that something exists.
3. there are similarities to an organism.
Earth = Electron
Sun = atomic nucleus
Sun system = atom
Galaxy = molecule
Universe = cell
God = organism
Why can't god be both panentheism and pantheism? Because if god is everything in the physical world, plus more than we could fathom (ie: everything else that might exist that we don't know of), then if god made this reality, he essentially must have made it within himself. So everything is god, and god made life within himself. Because if all of that is true, then numbers and amounts are just made up physics that God came up with. These beliefs are essentially saying that God is the only thing, therefore we'd be living in god, and God themselves, would be living in God as well. It could actually become an infinite loop. Very similar to simulation theory if you think about it. Especially if god "simulated" or "created" a reality. You might be God. I'm pretty sure I'm not though. I'm more like an NPC.
ummmm.....Panentheism is already the combination of both theism, and pantheism.
God is the idealised human conception.
We express God in our perceptions to give existence beauty.
Different people find beauty in different places, so it's impossible to define where God might be and interpret it fully for another.
To me, that is why there is a beyondness to God for many. When words become inadequate for the task, that beyondness gets expressed. There is, for example, the boundless beauty of self-sacrifice in Christianity in which many look through that symbol into God. These acts will inevitably be diminished, should one interpret panentheism in scientific terminology. We as individual humans can only see a section of "God's beauty" and so we define him as we do. I am happy with the panentheism interpretation myself, but that beyondness the traditionalists prefer is to me to stop convincing humans trying to capture closeness to god
Why does Michael think Panentheism is not scientific or that Panentheists can't be scientific? How does God creating a universe that exists within himself and which he at all times pervades and sustains somehow automatically mean that this universe cannot function according to certain physical rules that can be observed scientifically? If God is not physical, it follows that God himself would not be observable, but the universe is... So we'd essentially end up with the universe we have, which we can study and observe but which is still mysterious and kind of confusing, as well as the idea of a God that we can somehow perceive and logically argue about and believe in but cannot really prove because we cannot observe him.
The short answer is No One Knows. Period
god can be anything and nothing, its a very fuzzy concept
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
@@lilyjr.1384 and what does Christ say?
@@DeadEndFrog John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - ♡ !
@@lilyjr.1384 But there isn't much of substance as to what god is.
@@DeadEndFrog Sure there is. God is Almighty, All powerful, All knowing, Creator!
Id like to know how science can explain love..some things science doesnt need merrit..& a true devine being gives anser & essence
In all due respect, Dr. Phillip Clayton is entirely wrong in saying that panentheism is a recent theological worldview. The Neoplatonic philosophy of Plotinus, the cosmology of Kabbalah, Sufism, Ismailism, Advaita Vedanta, Hermeticism, etc. are all panentheistic. Perhaps western philosophers have taken interest in panentheism in the past two hundred years but it is rather naive or insincere to assert that this ancient theological worldview is a product of the modern era.
Let me try to explain using basic Christian terminology: The transcendent and unknowable God, that cannot be understood through the faculty of the Mind is a "nothingness," i.e. that which cannot be conceived of as an objective thought. We will call this "God the Father." From thins, nothingness emanated the Divine Mind, traditionally called the Son, Christ, Logos, Psyche, etc. There have been many terms used to apply to this first emanation, i.e. Divine Light, that reflected out of the infinite void of Nothingness, i.e. the Father. The Divine Light of God itself emanated forth a Divine Soul or World Spirit known as the Holy Spirit, Spirit of Guidance, or Grand Architect of the Universe. It is the non-material "substance" by which the Divine Mind creates creation through its infinite and eternal imagination. The world of creation, beginning with the Subtle world or World of Energy, and concluding with the Physical World or the world of Matter; all takes place within the Mind of the One Divine Being, which is itself a "ripple" or surge of self-reflection via the process of emanation. It is through the medium of matter that the infinite and eternal comes to know itself as God. Thus, when we say that Man is created in God's image, we are not referring to the physical or carnal aspects of man's lower nature, but the faculties of Thinking, Feeling, and Doing; themselves distinctly part Man's higher self, i.e. a microcosm of the macrocosm. This is all I will say on this at this point. I am not suggesting one should agree with or adopt this view; just this view is NOT a 200-year-old perspective but was used in ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, India, Palestine, and many other parts of the world.
I hope someone found this poor explanation helpful in some way.
A clearer distinction between panentheism and theism would help. Seems like theism say God is everywhere present in the world, while panentheism say the whole world is part of God. How would the distinction between theism and panentheism be clearly stated? Does panentheism lose transcendence in some way? Does panentheism make the world and God too much alike?
There doesn’t really have to be a distinction…
But to explain it to you, a traditional (and imo uncreative) theists would say that god exists as a free, intelligent and perfect being (personal god) and then created all existence next to him.
Imagine a room and god is in the room and now creates reality next to him. That’s classical theism. The two are completely and utterly separate. You have god and he holds creation in his hands or whatever. Obviously not literally but just to explain it.
Now, panentheism would still beliefe that god is a free, intelligent and all complete being, but instead of thinking god is in a room and now creates reality NEXT to him, it says that the ROOM itself has to be god.
God and creation are obviously not the same in panentheism. They are still separate. The room isn’t the same as the things that it contains, yet the things it contains are necessarily bounded to the room for if the room doesn’t exist they can’t either.
Another analogy would be the human body. A body is made of of countless cells. Yet, a single human cell isn’t the body, is it? A part of something logically can’t be the whole thing. That’s the same with creation and god. Creation is a part of god, but the two are still separate since a part can’t equal the whole thing. God ≠ creation since then god could not be personal.
That’s why panentheism doesn’t contradict classical theism. The abrahamic religions say god and creation are separate, that they aren’t the same thing. Panentheism isn’t in conflict with this belief.
This guy is a seeker.. may God help him arrive.
Ameen.
WE ARE GOD
I find the question a bit academic. IMO, probably the "God" that has any meaning to most human beings, is the God found in NDE's, the Light, or "God is Love". It's a "spiritual" sense of God. But it doesn't explain the universe. It doesn't explain physics. There will be large swaths of existence that remains unexplained. And trying to force some sense of "God" into this, for the sake of intellectual coherence, doesn't really satisfy. (An interesting note. Towards the end of his life, Thomas Aquinas likened his life's work to straw.)
This debate might be a part of a problem about translation of god's name from Bible, is it correct 'I am who I am', or 'I am who I am becoming'.
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
The name of God in Hebrew is means existence in past present and future
Is the World in God?
yes of course
Is God necessary? What if he is no more than a being in our imagination?
We are GOD.....😉 our little secret
@@InnerLuminosity Agreed!
If you agree that God exists in at least our imagination as a concept, then you fall prey to the Ontological argument, since if God is conceivable then He is possible, if God as a necessary being is possible and "possibly necessary" entails necessary, then a necessary being (God) exists.
God may be no more than an abstract concept. Omnipotence and omniscience are llkewise, abstract orr imagined concepts. Nor is there evidence God does exist and is both omniscient and omnnipotent! BTW, onotology is a social science ie, it is not 100% true.
@Barthelemy Our difference of view has nothing to do with pride and humility but with truths and lies.
Where you get the money to travel around the world?
Why does that bother you
He's a Neurologist of course he can afford travel
What unique ideas follow panentheism, nothing as far as I'm aware.
We are inside God we live inside a neuron in God's brain just a thought 🙏🙏peace all
Unknowable.
Best comment
And God doesn't talk, otherwise he can give us answers.
Very helpful video.
Yes the world is in God. GOD is Creation. Creations is the universe. You and the world are part of the universe, in God and of God. A part Of God. God is of the world and the world is in God. God is the universe. God is creation. God is existence. God is everything.
thus we are all specks of god
Oh my God 😱
In the modal panentheistic understanding, which aligns with the panentheistic perspective, there is compatibility with the ancestral times of the Abrahamic belief system as described in Genesis. During that period, the concept of the afterlife was associated with Sheol, which was perceived as a state of nothingness, idleness, or the grave without distinct notions of justice, good and evil, or a separation between heaven and earth. Sheol remained the predominant Israelite concept of the afterlife throughout the composition of the Hebrew Bible.
It was only during the Babylonian exile and subsequent contact with Persian and Hellenistic cultures that the Israelite Jewish conception of the afterlife underwent renovation, incorporating ideas of heaven, hell, justice, and the rise of apocalyptic modes of Judaism. In this context, the modal panentheistic worldview can be seen as highly compatible, especially in how it addresses normative questions, including the existence of evil.
Within the modal panentheistic view, the distinction between good and evil ultimately fades away or is transcended. This perspective aligns with Yujin Nagazawa's explanation, which suggests that the concept of good versus evil loses significance in the broader framework of modal panentheism.
I'm not a Christian but I know a few scriptures Joshua 1-9 should answer the question
Christian version of Panentheism: Father is the whole reality, this universe is one of its sons?
Sir want to ask a question,
Do penthesium believe in angels???
It seems to me that Panentheism is changing the definition of God to include the world, maybe we should change the definition of the world to include God, and that would be called Pantheism.
God created the universe ,God is inside the creation and outside the creation.God created the space and time ,and God is inside and outside of the space.just like the space which is inside of us and outside of us and also contains us inside it.
Bacteria and antibodies are not aware they are part of a human body. Are we just cells in a vast complex body?
The creation or all that is, is the creator, it doesn't need a god.
This was good and nice production of a quest to find out more or the truth about God nice!
this audio is 🔥
What are the differances between the Astro-scientist and the church priest? Nothing they both lie about things they don't know.
I use to love watching this on pbs
Good episode! I didn’t know what these terms were before
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
Panentheism...WOW. I love a world where we have the freedom to redefine "God" to suit our fantasies. If I had a dollar for every time that happened.
Not a shred of evidence for any of this
This was really interesting and at some times difficult to grasp.
We do not need god to explain the universe, panentheism has absolutely nothing going for it.
🤣
Once again, the Jews have already figured this out centuries ago. According to the Jewish view, "God" contracted himself to create the "vacated space" into which he put the creation. Since nothing could exist without the ground of being, this creates a paradox:
"A commonly held[10] understanding in Kabbalah is that the concept of tzimtzum contains a built-in paradox, requiring that God be simultaneously transcendent and immanent (sound familiar? It's exactly what the Dutch philosopher in the video describes).
"On the one hand, if the "Infinite" did not restrict itself, then nothing could exist-everything would be overwhelmed by God's totality. Existence thus requires God's transcendence, as above. On the other hand, God continuously maintains the existence of, and is thus not absent from, the created universe."
As Rebbe Nachman of Breslov states:
"Only in the future will it be possible to understand the Tzimtzum [contraction] that brought the "Empty Space" into being, for we have to say of it two contradictory things ... [1] the Empty Space came about through the Tzimtzum, where, as it were, He 'limited' His Godliness and contracted it from there, and it is as though in that place there is no Godliness ... [2] the absolute truth is that Godliness must nevertheless be present there, for certainly nothing can exist without His giving it life."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum
These modern philosophers at best are just reinventing the wheel (and at worst getting it totally wrong), as the incredible depth and richness of the Jewish teachings already contains everything anyone needs to understand "god" intellectually. No one else even comes close, so I don't know why CTT wastes its time with these relative lightweights. You should go right to the source: the Jewish rabbis, scholars, and theological authorities.
Why are they referring to god as a if god is a male?
Yes...that is the horror of It
PAN-EN-THEISM = Πᾶν ἐν Θεῶι and Θεὸς ἐν παντί!
Can anyone identify the opening music?
All these deliberations on the god nature.
I am not jingoistic but similar deliberations were discussed in ancient scriptures of Hinduism.
The Lord God of Hinduism is Panentheistic eventhough strands of Polytheism, Monotheism, Atheism, Skepticism, Naturism, Pantheism, monism, Heinotheism are found in Hinduism. It is motley of all embracing philosophy. But chiefly I find Hindu GOD as pantheitic/panenthiestic. Examples
(I am going to quote like Christians/Muslims now).
To what is truth, wise men say by different names(Rigveda 1.164)
Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.
Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.(Rigveda 1.89)
Most Panenthiestic Verse(Rigveda 10.90.1-2.3- Celebrated Purusha Suktam)
1. A THOUSAND heads hath Puruṣa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.
On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.
2 This Puruṣa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be;
The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food.
3 So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Puruṣa.
All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven.(Rigveda 10.90)
Neti-Neti meaning no this not this. Ie:- However you describe god, it will always be like insufficient. Basically words are insufficient.(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, White Yajurveda).
Following are the Mahavakyas(Great Sayings from each of 4 Vedas. They drip with perennial philosophy of god nature).
Prajñānam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्म) - "Knowledge is Brahman," or "Brahman is Knowledge"[web 1] (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda) Prajnanam is precisely referred to as consciousness.
Ayam Ātmā Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म) - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि) - "That(Brahman/Panenthiestic God) you(Self/soul) are in essence" (tat, referring to sat, "the Existent"[3][4]) (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
Aham Brahmāsmi (अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि) - "I am Brahman" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)( this feeling comes when a soul feels to be in unity with Super soul).
If those people were honest they'd say, we haven't got clue, we're just guessing.
That's just a GIVEN. Everyone knows that no one truly knows. We're not dead yet. It's not that they're not honest. It's their individual hopes of what god is really. And personal belief.
Panentheism - very Zen.
This is just about objectivity matter, Infinity cannot be apply onto Objectivity at all.
"It's audacious." 😆
Watch Walter Veith - The Earth, in space and time, or "from Creation to Restoration"
The search for god leads to the past. A point in time where sounds became words. Who knows why?
Idoido dudu he says she showed away
CGJ
Is the world in God is found in Paul's Letter to Colossians. 1:15-19. " For in him, all fullness was pleased to dwell." I am not sure if,"is God in creation," makes better attempt to describe the idea( not coextensive with the world as is the common definition often put forth in pantheism) but I do know from Paul's Letter that the writer clearly seeks to address this issue of transcendence and imminence through a trinitarian God. The son creates our ability to know and touch, and relate to the ineffable simple God of philosophy that sustains being. What Colossians at 1:15 calls the invisible God.
What makes the notion of duelism "off track" is it's use in a reality of a Trinitarian God. Trinitarian implores us to view panentheism in a contemplative sense rather than a duelistic sense where the exercize invariably seeks to identify and catalog in two baskets. Trinitarian pretty much assures much thought on the subject but invariably no complete and final answer. A deeper understanding is always worthwhile.
i disagree with how these people are defining pantheism vs panentheism. spinoza, probably the most famous pantheist said that nature/the universe is God. but human beings can only see, sense, comprehend two aspects of God - thought and extension. But God possibly/probably has infinite aspects which we have no knowledge of. In this way pantheism and panentheism are the same, by at least Spinoza's definition. God is the Universe/Multiverse but there is way more to the universe than we can possibly see and understand.
There is a significant distinction, namely the idea of 'substance'. For Spinoza there is only a single substance which is God and all creation is only different modes of this substance. It does not pervade and interpenetrate anything, it is everything. Panentheism is typical of a Process view, where the fundamental 'stuff' of creation is not at all substance, but the relations of organisms in process, movement, and change.
@@SinWolf substance is a word which describes the incomprehensible infinite. Two aspects or modes of which, the only two of an infinite number of which that we can partially experience and understand are thought and extension. This is panentheism. Our universe, what we experience and think, are only two modes of an infinite number. Ie god is more than what we see, think, and experience, more than the universe. You are describing a certain type of panentheism which resembles Taoism, but isn’t a comprehensive definition of all forms of panentheism.
@@asielnorton345 I don't see how Spinoza's substance also being thought and extension equates to panentheism, it is still a singular smooth substance. I don't think it is possible to spin Spinoza's substance as panentheism without betraying the core ideas.
@@SinWolf bc thought and extension are only two aspect of infinite. Ie substance/god/nature is infinite. Ie beyond our universe and the laws and material which we are and see and comprehend. Pantheism as defined by every philosophy course and philosophical book ever written is the idea that god and the universe are one. Spinoza says substance is infinite, ie more than the observable universe. Ie panentheism.
@@asielnorton345 You know, I can totally accept that. Spinoza's God-world relation is in a manner panentheistic. _However,_ it is functionally the archetypal ideal of classical pantheism - as in, it describes exactly the kind of determinism which 'pantheism' entailed in ancient Greece and Rome.
Charles Hartshorne, who referred to Spina's substance as 'classical pantheism', is kind of a founder of my religion, and I'm inclined to his reason. But you make a fine technical point, and it shouldn't be neglected; thank you.
the archangels are also considered as gods in Panentheism .
Didn't hear Spinoza's name once. Boo!
Spinoza wasnt panentheist but pantheist.
@@John-bf7ny Depends who you talk to.
"...as to the view of certain people that the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the identification of God with Nature (by the latter of which they understand a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken." - Spinoza, 1675
@@throwabrick He is talking about the essence of the material world not matter itself. He believes God has infinite attributes that we cannot comprehended but they are still just extensions of the nature so he is still more of a pantheist.
@@invisiblechurch9621 By "Nature" I take it he means physical reality, not the divine source from which that physical reality extends. Nature is only what is accessible to us as physical beings, it does not cross over into the imaginary or the spiritual, which both themselves are part of the Essential Being (or "substance" as Spinoza says).
Pantheism is God = Nature
Panentheism is Nature emerges from God.
I take Spinoza as saying that the source of all being is greater than the Nature in which we operate.
@@throwabrick To Spinoza ultimate reality is the infinite substance called God or Nature we only can perceive two attributes of substance thought and extension (mental and physical worlds) Everything else is still a part of god or nature and follows logically from substance being infinite. In Spinoza's view nothing is "supernatural" He believes if we discover everything about the two attributes we can perceive we will be able to learn about other attributes.
Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
God is in the Nature, everything is in the Nature.
Robert can't get it that panentheism is both immanent AND transcendant
Because it is gibberish.
Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, said in Bhagavad-gītā,
BG 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
BG 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.
BG 9.6: Understand that as the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, rests always in the sky, all created beings rest in Me.
BG 9.7: O son of Kuntī, at the end of the millennium all material manifestations enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another millennium, by My potency, I create them again.
BG 9.8: The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.
BG 9.9: O Dhanañjaya, all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral.
BG 9.10: This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.
Http://Www.vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9
Ah, it's about Veda, thought you talk about internet and Google at first.
I thought imminent meant something that is unavoidably coming.
god was discrete robot always moving with constant speed - speed of light
Why call him god? So, we can distinguish who is who and what is what.
John, Mary, ant, car, planet...etc. we describe everything as we see it and give it a name.
My beleif is, in actuality, whatever we describe and name is still god.
We can link both panteism and panentheism with all traditional and non traditional religions assertion that God or gods include all that is. Transcendent and inclusive. A being one with the world and also the world. I beleive it actually gives the answer to God that probably all religions aim to provide. And, in its entirety, connects what we know to what we dont know.
Being all inclusive gives us, without "religion" and all of their many overbearing flaws and the realization that we are one with God and one with each other.
All connected from the tiniest particle to the entirety of our universe and of course beyond.
To me it is the only beleif system that from its conceptual premise that gives peace and love in its foundation, experience and may be the most logical of all possible beleif systems know...without an actual religious system.
How would he establish more than one metaphysical possible world without special pleading? Also, pantheism doesnt say God is this universe. God is the totality of everything that is pantheism.
That is my assertion.
The Sihk religion's Ek Ong Kaur as I understand it means that the creator is the creation and there is only one. The creator cannot have a creator itself. It is the creation itself and therefor creation has no creator. It is the creator. It is our true identity. Sat Nam. There is no creator God separate from creation that created creation. It is creation. So the Gnostics said to the one that claims to be God "so you think your God?" "Your a laughing stock." There is no God.
Literally the only thing worthy of being called "God" is the totality of the entire multiverse as a whole.