I’m afraid quantum physics disagrees with everyone (eg. “both dead and alive at the same time”, “particles go through both slits at the same time and reunite on the other side”, “observation causes alteration”). Quantum Physics, as an ontology is pure fantasy.
Einstein also disagreed with Quantum Physics as an ontology (ie: “God doesn’t play dice”, “spooky action at a distance”).
James wrote:
Present in all ways, everywhere, not so much breathing into everything but being the breath of and in everything. I used to be pantheistic.
So … it doesn’t actually mean anything to a pantheist … or everything. I guess it’s optional. I can believe that.
Pantheism is one of many theisms. So are polytheisms, demiurge type systems, and many many more takes, many of these that contradict each other. You’ve got Whitehead’s process theism, Autotheism, Deism, you’ve even got Misotheism where God is an asshole. Plural, disconnect, only immanent, personal, impersonal, coherent and non-coherent, even dead or mortal and temporal. Thus your phrase ‘God is’ only fits some theisms. What is meant by God is all over the place in the various theisms. If subset A of a definition is incoherent then the set is also incoherent.
I’ll take what was not responded to as conceded.
Sorry, I meant “monotheism” religions.
Well, let’s put it this way James - unless one’s spiritual perception and a wonderful sense of qualia means nothing to a human being - then to a pantheist it would be meaningless. I suppose that one could/would call it a subjective truth - to a pantheist.
The fact that I USED to be a pantheist and am not one now doesn’t detract from the qualia or truth which I felt at the time.
Beliefs change, subjective truths change, perceptions change, individual human experiences and senses of qualia change – we change. We’re not written in stone, James.
God, to a pantheist, might be more ALIVE and ENDURING - both figuratively and realistically speaking - than to your everyday, run-of-the- mill normal christian.
Arc summed it up pretty nicely. As a pantheist myself, I would only add that a pantheist believes the universe is not a blind lifeless system; it feels something, some subjective experience.
Wait a minute wait a minute. “It”, you said, as if all the individual subjective experiences of all the living people combine to form one, whole single experience for whatever “it” is. Like a zeitgeist that has feelings. I think this is going too far and its the kind of thing spinz warned about.
Well Zoot, I understand that pantheism isn’t the most popular views in philosophy, but it isn’t exactly as you put it.
First, I don’t believe in a “zeitgeist” in the sense of a spirit looming over us all, let alone an additional consciousness to the individual ones we all feel ourselves to be. It’s more just the belief that everything “feels”, that there is no such thing as a truly unconscious or lifeless entity in this world. That doesn’t mean everything thinks, or feels emotions, or “sees”–these are all human experiences corresponding to specific brain activity–but every physical activity comes along with a subjective experience characterized by some qualitative feel (or so I believe).
Second, the collective consciousness of the universe, if we can call it that, is more than just the sum of human consciousnesses. Even rocks feel something as far as I’m concern (I usually describe it as a “steady buzz”). The collective consciousness of the universe is the totality of all “feeling”, which includes human consciousness, but not exclusively, and it doesn’t count, like I said, as an additional consciousness with its own point of view.
gib, does someone have to be a pantheist in order to feel or sense that the universe is NOT a blind lifeless system? I don’t think so. Phiosophers and scientists would sense this - i mean, those who are not pantheists.
On the other hand, does IT really feel something - some subjective experience? We might say that it has its own peculiar kind of consciousness in a way (if we can even say that) but DOES IT, in actuality, have the consciousness as a human has or are we simply projecting our own consciousness and qualia onto IT?
I suppose though that a pantheist who believes that a god moves and lives in all things would see a living consciousness in all things.
But then, how do we know that we can even refer to god as being a living consciousness? That is us but would that be god?
Well, pantheist just means one who believes God is the universe. If these scientists and philosophers believe that God is the universe, then they would be pantheist. But you’re suggesting there’s a level down from “God” but still up from a “blind lifeless system”. Maybe panpsychism?
Well, of course I’m projecting my own consciousness onto it. 
I mean, this is just a theory, I haven’t actually “communed” with the universe to feel its experiences directly. I’m just taking my own experiences with mind and qualia and proposing that brains are not the only things to come along with this.
Does the universe have consciousness in the same way that humans do? I don’t think so. I think it experiences qualia but not our qualia.
I like to think of the range of possible qualia as limitless. The human brain only experiences a tiny sample of all the qualia possible. We may label non-human qualia as x, y, z, for example:
… x, y, z, … [… taste, color-perception, pain, thought, emotion, tickles, music, …] … a, b, c, …
^^ This represents all the qualia going on in the universe. The section in red represents those of the universe’s qualia that corresponds to human brain activity. x, y, z might correspond to the activity of a car engine. a, b, c might correspond to the inner workings of a computer circuit. As far as I’m concerned, x, y, z and a, b, c are unimaginable to us. So what consciousness is like for the universe is probably nothing like what it’s like for us, though our consciousness is part of the universe’s, so in a sense it “knows” what our consciousness is like.
I don’t know. Comes back to the “projection” thing. If you think that what’s going on “in here” is the same as what’s going on “out there”, then it feels natural to use the same vocabulary–I mean, we call the stuff in here consciousness, qualia, life, etc.–so if we project those onto the outer world, should we use the same terminology? I don’t see why not. But like I said, whatever it is God “feels” or “knows”, it’s probably incomprehensible to us and we may not even recognize it as consciousness or mind if we somehow had access to it.
Pantheism has four mainstreams:
The question whether there the universe just appeared or was made by a creator is very similar to the question whether nature is because of itself or because of god. This leads to the question whether “god” is what we call “nature” or “nature” is what we call “god”? The subject is called “pantheism” with all its various modes.
God is the Principle that causes the physical universe to be.
But is that the physical universe itself?
No.
The physical universe is not made OF principles, but DUE TO principles, One in particular.
Divine Realm → Principles
Mortal Realm → Physical Universe
God as a principle and as the one (the unmoved mover?) who caused the universe. Didn’t you say in another tread that this has also to do with the impossibility?
Yes, the ultimate unmoved mover is impossibility, aka “logical contradiction”.
What does happen only happens because nothing else was possible. Motion (the physical universe) exists because nothing can be what it is and also remain as it is (because what it is, is the “affecting”). That impossibility “causes” the entire universe to be what it is. There is absolutely no choice (the supreme, immutable power).
We already talked about this. And it can also be read in your signature: “The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives. … The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = ‘The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is’.”
You try making over 23,000 posts without repeating yourself. 
In the long run, it all boils down to:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
…or else accept … 
Is ( ) the finishing touch on absolute certainly, James?
By the way, Hi 
I think it’s trendy, much like Starbucks or pirate shirts, but as equally absurd as monotheism.
Is God the dreamer and we the dream, or is God the potter and we the clay?
Is Yoda the 8th and final avatar of Polish Freemasonry?
Shrugs