I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[bilby]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

Actually "inventing" another category" is not pointless. It may be pointless to you, but some have connections to the life around them that you may not have. Like Dogs. I have no idea why people treat them like they are anything more than an animal. I understand its me and not them tho. They love dogs, that's cool with me.

I like to see what claims match what we see around us the best. Do they offer an explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions.

If a new set of traits for god match them, so be it. Its not going to be a deity. But its not going to be "nothing more" either. The belief in something more just matches what we experience better than nothing more.

Dogs are much better people than most humans. But they’re not another category, humans, like dogs, are animals.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

Actually "inventing" another category" is not pointless. It may be pointless to you, but some have connections to the life around them that you may not have. Like Dogs. I have no idea why people treat them like they are anything more than an animal. I understand its me and not them tho. They love dogs, that's cool with me.

I like to see what claims match what we see around us the best. Do they offer an explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions.

If a new set of traits for god match them, so be it. Its not going to be a deity. But its not going to be "nothing more" either. The belief in something more just matches what we experience better than nothing more.

Dogs are much better people than most humans. But they’re not another category, humans, like dogs, are animals.

You are not wrong in your reply, but neither is SIB wrong in the utility of pointing out the category of simulation creators.

The point I make with this category is that ALL gods from ALL theologies in fact fall into this bucket of "things which produce a mathematically structure causal system of an arrangement of whatever stuff they happen to be made of.

This incorporates "gods which imagine the world in their own head" as much as "assholish apes with Turing machines".

Religious people don't like it, but that's rather the point isn't it?

They want to argue the universe is created, that's FINE. I can make some observations about what is and is not necessarily true of such things, and what can very observably be true of such things.

 

[SIB]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

Actually "inventing" another category" is not pointless. It may be pointless to you, but some have connections to the life around them that you may not have. Like Dogs. I have no idea why people treat them like they are anything more than an animal. I understand its me and not them tho. They love dogs, that's cool with me.

I like to see what claims match what we see around us the best. Do they offer an explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions.

If a new set of traits for god match them, so be it. Its not going to be a deity. But its not going to be "nothing more" either. The belief in something more just matches what we experience better than nothing more.

Dogs are much better people than most humans. But they’re not another category, humans, like dogs, are animals.

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshipped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

Actually "inventing" another category" is not pointless. It may be pointless to you, but some have connections to the life around them that you may not have. Like Dogs. I have no idea why people treat them like they are anything more than an animal. I understand its me and not them tho. They love dogs, that's cool with me.

I like to see what claims match what we see around us the best. Do they offer an explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions.

If a new set of traits for god match them, so be it. Its not going to be a deity. But its not going to be "nothing more" either. The belief in something more just matches what we experience better than nothing more.

Dogs are much better people than most humans. But they’re not another category, humans, like dogs, are animals.

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshipped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Packs of dogs lack language to effect a continuous wave of educational cycling.

The thing(s) that for humans allows the whole cycle to feed back at a positive rate, thus that technology builds up, is missing from canines naturally: they cannot tell oral histories. Instead their communications are stories of smells that they expose each other to and remember.

Instead of looking at a pack of dogs, maybe think about @whataboutbunny on TikTok and ask yourself whether SHE is a person or close to it.

Wild humans have some pretty egregious behaviors too, when lacking laws and behavioral structures otherwise developed over many thousands of years.

Even humans brought up in tribal structures can, if deprived from the necessities of re-attaining that particular tribal structure in an environment, descend to much worse behavior than a pack of wild dogs in said environment.

 

[AdamWho]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

 

[Politesse]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

So you don't understand pantheism, is what you're trying to say?

 

[atrib]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

So you don't understand pantheism, is what you're trying to say?

Does anybody?

 

[bilby]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

So you don't understand pantheism, is what you're trying to say?

Does anybody?

Well according to my understanding of pantheism, everybody does, because they are all God.

 

[AdamWho]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

So you don't understand pantheism, is what you're trying to say?

Can you give me a coherent definition of pantheism that isn't just a relabeling of something else?

 

[SIB]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

Actually "inventing" another category" is not pointless. It may be pointless to you, but some have connections to the life around them that you may not have. Like Dogs. I have no idea why people treat them like they are anything more than an animal. I understand its me and not them tho. They love dogs, that's cool with me.

I like to see what claims match what we see around us the best. Do they offer an explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions.

If a new set of traits for god match them, so be it. Its not going to be a deity. But its not going to be "nothing more" either. The belief in something more just matches what we experience better than nothing more.

Dogs are much better people than most humans. But they’re not another category, humans, like dogs, are animals.

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshipped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Packs of dogs lack language to effect a continuous wave of educational cycling.

The thing(a) that for humans allows the whole cycle to feed back at a positive rate, thus that technology builds up, is missing from canines naturally: they cannot tell oral histories. Instead their communications are stories of smells that they expose each other to and remember.

Instead of looking at a pack of dogs, maybe think about @whataboutbunny on TikTok and ask yourself whether SHE is a person or close to it.

Wild humans have some pretty egregious behaviors too, when lacking laws and behavioral structures otherwise developed over many thousands of years.

Even humans brought up in tribal structures can, if deprived from the necessities of re-attaining that particular tribal structure in an environment, descend to much worse behavior than a pack of wild dogs in said environment.

Yup, both species had to time evolve their societies to where we see them today. For me, when I watch a pack of dogs, I see a pack of dogs lacks more than just langue. That "lack of complexity" is expressed in all the things they do. including brutalizing each other. We are just way "better" at it.

I hold humans to the standards I hold dogs to. That being, treat humans as just a great ape doing what great apes do. The next humanoid will be saying "home sapiens" are better than "most of us".

The key words are "better than most humans". For me, that just does not match observation.

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

So you don't understand pantheism, is what you're trying to say?

Can you give me a coherent definition of pantheism that isn't just a relabeling of something else?

No, that's what it seems to me it does too. But that doesn't matter to me. All I am interested in is if the belief matches what we see. That is it. If their belief in their god is what I call the universe them so be it. At least it matches. Then people can do with it what they want. Like pets. If they treat it like a person, I may think its a tad silly, but ok, whatever. Its a animal.

But again, I am no expert in pantheism. From what I read its little pieces of the universe interacting with each other to form a whole. That is exactly what is going on. Objectively speaking that is.

 

[Politesse]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

So you don't understand pantheism, is what you're trying to say?

Can you give me a coherent definition of pantheism that isn't just a relabeling of something else?

Pantheism refers to any system of belief that God is constituted in the universe in some manner; there are quite a few strains of thought under the pantheist umbrella, but all can and should be understood as different conceptions of universality, not just different labeling thereof. When a pantheist says "the universe" they mean "god", and vice versa. By when you say "the universe", you do not mean the same thing that they do, or you would not think to call either a "label", let alone arbitrar. Pantheism is a worldview, not a taxonomy.

 

[SIB]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

yes, just like many other things. But, what they are calling god does exist. That is what is most important. We can walk out side and point to it, discuss its properties, and how we interact with it. Talking about semantics isn't really my thing. They call it this, those guys call it that. I am only interested if what people are saying lines up with what we are experiencing.

 

[bilby]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

yes, just like many other things. But, what they are calling god does exist. That is what is most important. We can walk out side and point to it, discuss its properties, and how we interact with it. Talking about semantics isn't really my thing. They call it this, those guys call it that. I am only interested if what people are saying lines up with what we are experiencing.

Why did you need to walk outside?

I can see bits of the universe from right here in my house. I can’t see a significant fraction of it from anywhere, so why bother going outside?

 

[Jarhyn]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

yes, just like many other things. But, what they are calling god does exist. That is what is most important. We can walk out side and point to it, discuss its properties, and how we interact with it. Talking about semantics isn't really my thing. They call it this, those guys call it that. I am only interested if what people are saying lines up with what we are experiencing.

Why did you need to walk outside?

I can see bits of the universe from right here in my house. I can’t see a significant fraction of it from anywhere, so why bother going outside?

So, I can't tell if you're serious here.

Why bother going outside?

... So do you really think this needs an answer?

 

[bilby]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

yes, just like many other things. But, what they are calling god does exist. That is what is most important. We can walk out side and point to it, discuss its properties, and how we interact with it. Talking about semantics isn't really my thing. They call it this, those guys call it that. I am only interested if what people are saying lines up with what we are experiencing.

Why did you need to walk outside?

I can see bits of the universe from right here in my house. I can’t see a significant fraction of it from anywhere, so why bother going outside?

So, I can't tell if you're serious here.

Why bother going outside?

... So do you really think this needs an answer?

Well, yes, it does.

The universe is visible from inside. It’s everything, so anything you see is part of it.

And going outside doesn’t let you see any more than a tiny fraction of the universe, even under ideal conditions.

Yet SIB felt the need to suggest going outside in order to see it.

Why?

I suspect that the answer says something very important about how humans think about the universe, and how irrational we are about our perspective.

A similar question is, ‘Why do people go to churches, if their god is supposed to be omnipresent?’.

 

[Jarhyn]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

yes, just like many other things. But, what they are calling god does exist. That is what is most important. We can walk out side and point to it, discuss its properties, and how we interact with it. Talking about semantics isn't really my thing. They call it this, those guys call it that. I am only interested if what people are saying lines up with what we are experiencing.

Why did you need to walk outside?

I can see bits of the universe from right here in my house. I can’t see a significant fraction of it from anywhere, so why bother going outside?

So, I can't tell if you're serious here.

Why bother going outside?

... So do you really think this needs an answer?

Well, yes, it does.

The universe is visible from inside. It’s everything, so anything you see is part of it.

And going outside doesn’t let you see any more than a tiny fraction of the universe, even under ideal conditions.

Yet SIB felt the need to suggest going outside in order to see it.

Why?

I suspect that the answer says something very important about how humans think about the universe, and how irrational we are about our perspective.

A similar question is, ‘Why do people go to churches, if their god is supposed to be omnipresent?’.

I am just... Absolutely bewildered by the lack of curiosity this stance seems to engender.

Like, it seems obvious to me why someone would want to accomplish an access violation.

 

[SIB]

I get you and it does seem that way sometimes. To me, dogs are not "better people" than most people. I watch how a pack of dogs treat each other and ask myself would I want humans to use those laws.

I guess the key wording about your statement about god is "... has been worshiped ..." If we change that to "god category" is like the category "animal"? We just have to see what one(s) match the system we see and experience.

A pantheist type looks like its just describing the universe as "alive" and that matches what we see and experience to a degree. Pantheist also looks like it matches atheism to me also. But I don't know much about it to tell ya truth. It certainty matches better than an overseer deity type to me. And claiming that there is nothing more or "no god or gods of any type" also doesn't match as well.

Pantheist gods tend to be the re-naming of things like "the universe" as god. This is a category of gods that don't actually exist outside the the arbitrary relabeling of some existing thing/concept.

yes, just like many other things. But, what they are calling god does exist. That is what is most important. We can walk out side and point to it, discuss its properties, and how we interact with it. Talking about semantics isn't really my thing. They call it this, those guys call it that. I am only interested if what people are saying lines up with what we are experiencing.

Why did you need to walk outside?

I can see bits of the universe from right here in my house. I can’t see a significant fraction of it from anywhere, so why bother going outside?

It was nice out ...

 

[AdamWho]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

 

[SIB]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

 

[AdamWho]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist