Leo what do you gravitate towards more?

[Atb210201]

Pantheism or Panentheism?

Edited Wednesday at 03:46 PM by Atb210201

[Leo Gura]

It's a meaningless distinction.

[r0ckyreed]

Pantheism.
 

Panentheism implies that God is outside of the Universe.

[Inception]

Interesting distinction. I know you're not asking me, but I’d say that it depends on what one means by the “universe”.

If you define the universe as the physical material universe then panentheism got the upperhand. Here’s why: The physical universe is an illusion. Under this definition pantheism would seem to suggest that Ultimate Reality is equal to the physical universe, which obviously isn’t the case. Panentheism however seems to recognize that while Ultimate Reality facilitates the illusion of the physical universe it’s greater than it.

If you define the universe as Ultimate Reality itself then they would by definition be identical, and so pantheism would be sufficient.

[Atb210201]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a meaningless distinction.

So you would say they're the same?

But there are some nuances in their meanings.

Pantheism says creation equals God and God is identical with creation and everything is God but Panentheism says God is in everything and everything is from God but God is above creation and is not identical to it and all of creation's limitations and ugliness are below the real true nature of God which is limitless, infinite and beautiful.

Basically Panentheism rejects God is everything because it sees ugliness in the world and doesn't want to associate any ugliness to God who is supposed to be beautiful and divine so it rejects the idea that God is everything but puts God on higher ground in a transcendental state from the world.

Edited Wednesday at 06:42 PM by Atb210201

[Atb210201]

56 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Pantheism.
 

Panentheism implies that God is outside of the Universe.

Not so much so.

Panentheism doesn't imply God is outside of the universe; it implies more that God transcends the world and its limitations.

[Atb210201]

44 minutes ago, Inception said:

Interesting distinction. I know you're not asking me, but I’d say that it depends on what one means by the “universe”.

If you define the universe as the physical material universe then panentheism got the upperhand. Here’s why: The physical universe is an illusion. Under this definition pantheism would seem to suggest that Ultimate Reality is equal to the physical universe, which obviously isn’t the case. Panentheism however seems to recognize that while Ultimate Reality facilitates the illusion of the physical universe it’s greater than it.

If you define the universe as Ultimate Reality itself then they would by definition be identical, and so pantheism would be sufficient.

Interesting take on it.

This is a great answer thank you.

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Atb210201 said:

Basically Panentheism rejects God is everything because it sees ugliness in the world and doesn't want to associate any ugliness to God

That view is definitely stupid.

[Atb210201]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That view is definitely stupid.

So you do gravitate towards pantheism more don't you?

Ugliness is also from God huh?

Or is there no such thing as ugliness and we just don't see the beauty that we think something is ugly?

I myself think the last one is more close to the truth.

Edited Wednesday at 07:05 PM by Atb210201

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Atb210201 said:

Not so much so.

Panentheism doesn't imply God is outside of the universe; it implies more that God transcends the world and its limitations.

Thats identical to what I said. If it is beyond the world, it is outside the world.

[Atb210201]

1 minute ago, r0ckyreed said:

Thats identical to what I said. If it is beyond the world, it is outside the world.

Well yes you could also say that.

[Hojo]

@r0ckyreed God is outside the universe. Outside the universe there is nothing. Thats where God resides and that is where heaven is. And that is where you are located right now looking into the universe, God is right behind you watching over your metaphysical 'shoulder'.

Edited Thursday at 01:49 AM by Hojo

[Xonas Pitfall]

14 hours ago, Atb210201 said:

Or is there no such thing as ugliness and we just don't see the beauty that we think something is ugly?

This. 

There is no such thing as ugliness; we simply don’t see the beauty in what we think is ugly.

From an absolute perspective, it’s correct.

Ultimately, you have two forces: one constructive or creative, and one destructive. For us humans, seeing a decaying corpse is ugly, with foul smells and gruesome features, because it represents the end of life and could be infectious or poisonous to be around. Seeing a deformed, unhealthy face is considered ugly because it represents degenerate, sick genes, which our instincts don’t want to propagate -- this is a subconscious evolutionary bias toward what is perceived as ugly or beautiful. Seeing a piece of artwork being destroyed is ugly because it’s damaging something we perceive as valuable.

However, from an absolute perspective, if you don’t care about the survival of an individual species or ego, a corpse means a human has left their ego self and passed on to other forms. It’s beautiful and freeing. It signifies that evolution is happening, and a genotype that couldn’t survive anymore is not being propagated, while something more beautiful and stronger is. A painter’s artwork getting destroyed means there is now empty white space for another beautiful mural to appear, or perhaps something else entirely.

Both creation and destruction are beautiful -- there is no such thing as ugliness. Evil is only everything that is threatening or damaging to us humans, our own ego-self, or our ideology. There are lower and higher forms of consciousness, but both need to exist, so they are equally needed and therefore equally beautiful in God’s eyes.

If you want... (!) I encourage you to possibly indulge in forms of artwork that are specifically trying to convey something ugly as beautiful. Think of how much beautiful poetry and music have been created from heartbreak or unrequited love—one of the more painful and "ugly" things someone can go through.

Edited Thursday at 09:19 AM by Xonas Pitfall

[Atb210201]

5 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

This. 

There is no such thing as ugliness; we simply don’t see the beauty in what we think is ugly.

From an absolute perspective, it’s correct.

Ultimately, you have two forces: one constructive or creative, and one destructive. For us humans, seeing a decaying corpse is ugly, with foul smells and gruesome features, because it represents the end of life and could be infectious or poisonous to be around. Seeing a deformed, unhealthy face is considered ugly because it represents degenerate, sick genes, which our instincts don’t want to propagate -- this is a subconscious evolutionary bias toward what is perceived as ugly or beautiful. Seeing a piece of artwork being destroyed is ugly because it’s damaging something we perceive as valuable.

However, from an absolute perspective, if you don’t care about the survival of an individual species or ego, a corpse means a human has left their ego self and passed on to other forms. It’s beautiful and freeing. It signifies that evolution is happening, and a genotype that couldn’t survive anymore is not being propagated, while something more beautiful and stronger is. A painter’s artwork getting destroyed means there is now empty white space for another beautiful mural to appear, or perhaps something else entirely.

Both creation and destruction are beautiful -- there is no such thing as ugliness. Evil is only everything that is threatening or damaging to us humans, our own ego-self, or our ideology. There are lower and higher forms of consciousness, but both need to exist, so they are equally needed and therefore equally beautiful in God’s eyes.

If you want... (!) I encourage you to possibly indulge in forms of artwork that are specifically trying to convey something ugly as beautiful. Think of how much beautiful poetry and music have been created from heartbreak or unrequited love—one of the more painful and "ugly" things someone can go through.

Yes. I totally agree with you.

We just can't see the full picture. God is absolute goodness and beauty and He is always doing good and beautiful things in creation but with our limited mind we think somethings aren't supposed to happen and are ugly and are not meant to be; but they are meant to be and are paving the way for more beauty and goodness to come all the time.

All is beautiful and all is good and well in God's eyes because God can't see anything outside of Himself because there is nothing outside of God and He is All Good and Beautiful and Divine so whatever He looks at is also a reflection of his nature and a reflection of how He is.

The world is a mirror to God to see His own Beauty and Goodness and Love and Divinity.

Edited Thursday at 02:33 PM by Atb210201

[Inception]

On 8.1.2025 at 7:42 PM, Atb210201 said:

Interesting take on it.

This is a great answer thank you.

Thank you very much! You're welcome 

Additionally: When people refer to the "world" or "universe" in relation to Ultimate Reality, they (as a rule of thumb) refer to the material physical universe, which is why I gravitate towards panentheism.