Tuesday, February 18, 2014


The strongest argument for the existence of God?

Aside from the music of Bach we have this: 

Quantum Entanglement (and) the idea of a Singularity. Taken together these two ideas lead to the conclusion of Pantheism. There is no hope for monotheism. So let us suppose that Nature is evidence for the existence of God; let us suppose that Quantum Physics necessitates some concept of deity, but the question we must ask is what kind of deity? 

It would seem all things are connected given the nature of Quantum Entanglement-- and the possible reason for this is a Singularity [by which we mean a point when all things were one]... hence, Pantheism is true. God is everything and everything is God. For how can we disassociate God from the universe when we have no expreience of disassociation? All things are connected! (At least it would seem this is where the evidence leads).

We might call our position Strategic Pantheism, and the reason for this is that the theist adopts a position of strategic theism (which is vague theism)... (and yet he is not a vague theist!), why then do we need to be Pantheists in order to adopt a position of Strategic Pantheism? If the monotheist (who utilizes the strategy of vague theism) denies us this right, then how can he legitimately utilize himself without becoming the most egregious hypocrite? This smacks of special pleading!  

If the evidence, does at all, point to theism it points to Pantheism (which has a very small distinction from that of Naturalism). What's the difference between saying, Nature is all there is, or saying, God is Nature?

Essentially a Pantheist, and a Naturalist, resolve issues the same way: not on the basis of transcendence (a God outside of Nature), but on the basis of Nature itself (even as Pantheism equates God with Nature and Nature with God).

Strategic Pantheism allows us to dispose of Natural theology, which forces the monotheist to find a new line of reason in order to justify his theism. We can see that his argument was always based on the assertions of a religious text, which is a kind of authoritarianism (though he tried to make it appear that his qualified-monotheism* was actually based on reason). [This is commonly known as the fallacy of non-sequitur.] The reason monotheism must always be based on a religious text is because it's the only place the monotheist can deduce his particular theism. He cannot deduce his idea of God from Nature.

It is important to note that the Naturalist is not confined to Strategic Pantheism, but can also utilize forms of Strategic Deism and Strategic Polytheism. One simply cannot deduce a qualified-monotheism from the basis of Natural theology. Perhaps this statement is false, but where is the qualified-monotheist who is able to prove that his idea of God, can in fact, be proven from Nature? 

And perhaps what is most telling: all annoying forms of theism, destructive forms of theism, are in fact forms of particular theism----- there is no such thing as vague theism! This means the qualified-monotheist (unless he finds an argument from Nature) will always be refuted by the maneuver of Strategic Theism.  

Even in the most extreme case, where one is actually committed to a form of natural theism, there is simply no threat. A consistent natural theist (which is to say a Deist, Pantheist or Polytheist) would gladly join us in the refutation of qualified-monotheism. What does a Deist know about the will of God? What does a Pantheist deduce from transcendence? How can one be a moral fascist under the guise of Polytheism? These forms of theism (which are the conclusion of Natural Theology) simply represent no threat! 

For how did it come to be that Strategic Theism is perhaps the most powerful technique one can utilize in the service of Naturalism! By the maneuver of Strategic Theism the particular monotheist is actually forced to confront the dialectic of his own theism, only this time, the dialectic works as a refutation against his particularism! But this is not a paradox; the reason this occurs is because the particular theist is not honest in the formation of his theism. When he attempts to utilize the arguments of natural theology in the service of his monotheism he is not allowing the arguments to speak for themselves. If this was the case he would end at Deism, Pantheism or Polytheism {or in the most intelligent case} Naturalism.

All believers believe in a very specific notion of God. It is simply dishonest to argue for a vague creator on the basis of Natural Theology, when one believes in a very specific idea God. The theist hardly realizes that he is fallaciously connecting the dots. Where is the theist who can deduce his specific notion of God (which is to say, the God he believes in and worships) from the existence of Nature?          
*[An example of qualified-monotheism is the Christian Trinity.]