Pantheism

Try to reason / justify your statement.

For me, the universe isn’t numinous, my feelings towards it fall somewhere between apathy and ambivalence.

Anomaleigh

What a pity. So what has the physical universe ever done to you to make you feel that way?

That probably means that you are far too much of a thinker to allow yourself the freedom to sense the beauty all around you. You’ve suppressed your feelings and your sensations.
Look up at the night sky at all of those stars and let yourself soar. Let it all in. The universe is so full of the luminous and the numinous.

What have you got to lose? Obviously something.

You’re right, I should let more in, take a walk in the park or something, let things be as they are.

lol It doesn’t have to be the park but one is so close to nature in the park.

Well, in your case, according to what you wrote, you might not want to let things “be as they are”. You would want to gradually change things - at least your perspective of how you view the universe ~~ there are many things out there which can speak to you where you live inside yourself.

Just stop thinking for a moment or two and allow your senses to flow unimpeded. That might be very strange territory for you but don’t worry - you won’t get lost unless you’re meant to. Just look up or look OUT.

Or you don’t have to listen to me at all just do what you want to.

Are those principles inmortal like god(s) ore even like god(s), thus: divine realm = principles?

I’m a little skeptical.

Is there really an all-encompassing ontology? No theism is absent of doubt.

I don’t think there can be any principles at root, we ascribe principles to things, but prior to those things there is something else one would imagine.

JSS,

The Divine Realm is “physical” too, just not obvious obviously. It’s way more than mere principles. You have memories of a life lived, but no emotional attachments to those memories.

? … …

According to pantheism God is in everything resp. everything is in God, because God is nature resp. nature is God, or there is no God but only nature and humans just call nature "God“ resp. there is no nature but only God (the existence of the world is repealed - so to say).

The “gods” are the principles. The “God” is the one underlying (or over-arching) Principle from which all others are formed. As Moses put it [paraphrased], “The only true God: It is what it is. Worship nothing else”.

And only false principles “die”.

You have a different definition of “physical” and “divine” than I.

So they have to “die” in the mortal realm, thus as thoughts in the brain?

They can vanish from human thought. A perfect circle doesn’t stop being a perfect circle just because none are around and no one thinks of it. Principles and forms don’t change what they are or change in any way at all, thus there is no “dying” to be had. Perfect squares, laws of motion, and such “divine” concerns never, ever change in any way at all. They are “outside of time”.

This is exactly in line with my own thinking. As I’ve defined “God” myself once before: God is a metaphorical understanding of what itself, as this very understanding, is. I have to add “metaphorical” because “understanding”, technically speaking, is an artifact of human mentality, and I think Mind writ large (note the capital M) far surpasses human mentality. But I do think the underlying principle of the universe is something like a human understanding (of a fundamental principle)–enough so that the metaphor works.

Essentially, it is an apprehension of an existence that justifies itself at face value.

This captures the gist of it. I sometimes struggle with the logic of this myself, being the subjectivist/idealist that I am. I sometimes get confused (over my own philosophy of all things ) about how an understanding of a universal principle can, at once, be permanent and ephemeral at the same time. It is ephemeral as a thought (in virtue of the way we reflect on them), but permanent as the principle the thought projects as (where “projection” has a special meaning in my subjectivist philosophy). The key is timelessness. Thoughts as such are subject to time, but principles are not. I haven’t fleshed this aspect of my philosophy out in as much detail as it needs (thus the occasional confusion) but I know that the timelessness of principles is key.

JSS,

Experiencing the difference does tend to define the Divine and physical for the experiencer.

Gibmemore,

Is there a debate about eternity going on? Course it’s timeless.

Eternity defines the boundaries between time and timelessness; it’s like asking: does time occur in time or is it timeless itself?

We use time to make eternity bite-sized.

If eternity can also be seen as time without end, how does it energize and renew itself?

What do you mean by this, Arc?